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

 

The guys can’t help it: As over-exuberant “youths” continue to set vehicles ablaze in France, and an Australian cleric explains that unveiled women are responsible for provoking rapes, and thousands of seethers take to the streets in Pakistan, burning American flags to protest the hit by Pakistani authorities on an alleged Al Qaeda madrassa, it strikes me that there’s one common denominator here. In two words: impulse control. Or, to be more specific, the lack thereof. The youths can’t help but give in to their impulse to torch cars. Muslim men, says the Aussie cleric, can’t help but give in to their overwhelming sexual appetites. The Pakistani seethers can’t help but go bananas and rampage through the street.

Supporters of a religious political party Jamat-e-Islami during a protest in Multan against the madrassa air strike (EPA)

 

Or can they? It seems to me that it’s not so much that they can’t control their impulses as it is that they chose not to control them. Most people as they mature and begin to think rationally and comprehend the world around them have the ability to put the brakes on their impulses. That’s why, for the most part, toddlers tend to have tantrums and adults can usually control the impulse to flip out (though, of course, not all adults, and not all the time).

 

Conversely, these males with the hair-trigger tempers can usually be brought to heel by their religious leaders, which suggests that someone else is in control of these impulses, and can turn them “on” or “off” as desired.

 

For the purposes of scaring the infidel and giving him/her the sense that events are slipping out of control (those fiery lads! the Arab street!), there’s nothing more effective than a good chaotic rampage (aside from an exploding martyr, of course).

 

As for a man’s inability to curb his animalistic lust in the presence of an uncovered woman, we have laws against that sort of thing, ones which, thankfully, aren’t nearly as chauvinistic, archaic and unfair as the ones the Aussie cleric seeks to impose on the larger society.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:32 | link | comments

 

Wearing the niqab is bad for your health: So says a letter in the Globe and Mail. (Sorry, no link):

 

In the controversy over Moslem woman and the veil, no one is addressing the possible health consequences for women wearing the niqab. Perhaps they missed Grade 11 biology.

 

In Saudi Arabia and in Afghanistan, women wearing excessive covering suffer from back problems and osteoporosis, a condition characterized by bone loss with resultant weakening of the skeleton and bones that fracture easily.

 

Human beings have an inherent need for sunlight. Many chemical reactions in the human body are mediated by sunlight. Tryptophan, an amino acid, is light sensitive and in daylight converts to “feel-good chemical serotonin, lack of which can cause depression and seasonal affective disorder (SAD).

 

Ultraviolet light is also necessary for the synthesis of the D vitamins that promote the proper metabolism of calcium and phospherus, the two major constituents of bone. Lack of vitamin D3 causes the aforementioned osteoporosis.

 

The eyes, which are exposed by niqab wearers, are the very things that should be shielded from ultraviolet light, which is a factor in the formation of cataracts and in macular degeneration.

 

So, ladies, wear you niqab if you wish, but protect your health by vitamin D supplements and by consuming food high in vitamin D…Otherwise, down the road, you will be making the manufacturers of walkers and wheelchairs very happy.

C.E. REYNOLDS, Toronto

 

On the plus side, women who wear the niqab are less prone to malignant melanoma and other skin cancers. Also, women in Saudi Arabia don’t need a male chaperone to drive a wheelchair.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:59 | link | comments

 

Shedding light on an unknown (and appalling) episode: Walter Reich, former director of the Holocaust Museum, has a letter in today’s Washington Post. In it he recounts how, post-Oslo, pre-Wye, the Clinton Administration shamelessly tried to use a visit by Yasser Arafat as a photo op in an effort to bamboozle American Jews:

In his Oct. 19 letter, "Arafat and the Holocaust Museum," Afif Safieh, head of the PLO Mission to the United States, claimed that "on an official visit to Washington in 1998, the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat expressed a strong desire to visit" the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, "but his request was rejected by the museum." I was the director of the museum at the time and feel obliged to correct Mr. Safieh's misstatement of those events.

Yasser Arafat didn't request a visit to the Holocaust Museum. Before he came to the United States, he was invited by White House and State Department officials -- who were also presidentially appointed members of the museum's board of trustees -- with the agreement of the board's presidentially appointed chairman but without my knowledge.

When I learned of the invitation, I objected that the museum shouldn't be used as a prop for a photo op. The invitation was, in my judgment, aimed at convincing American Jews, who mistrusted Arafat because of his support for terrorism during the years after the Oslo accords, that he genuinely felt the pain of the Jewish people and could be trusted to keep any word he would give in his upcoming negotiations with President Bill Clinton. I said that exploiting the memory of the Holocaust victims to sway public opinion in the service of achieving diplomatic objectives was unconscionable. I pointed out that Arafat had been invited to Yad Vashem, Israel's memorial to and museum about the Holocaust, but hadn't been interested in going there -- even though he was living in nearby Gaza.

The invitation to the Holocaust Museum was withdrawn. However, following pressures from the administration, Arafat was reinvited by the chairman of the museum's board -- again without my knowledge. But the day Arafat was scheduled to come, he canceled the visit. The Washington press corps, including the photographers, had decamped to the White House to cover the breaking Monica Lewinsky scandal. There would be no photo op.

Given this history, anyone saying that the planned Arafat visit was a product of his request and his "strong desire" to see the Holocaust Museum is trying to fool either himself or everyone else.

Nice guy, that Bill.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:10 | link | comments

 

Centre points: If you place yourself at the centre of the solar system, you’re a solipsist. It you place Jews at the centre of a cosmic conspiracy, you’re a “Jewcentric.” From JWR:

 

"Jewcentricity" is a word that sounds like it was coined by an embittered anti-Semite. But it's actually the inspiration of Adam Garfinkle, a Jew, writing in The American Interest magazine to call attention to a phenomenon that has roots in anti-Semitism and runs from the silly to the sublime: " . . . the idea, or the intimation, or the subconscious presumption . . . that Jews are somehow necessarily to be found at the very center of global-historical events."

 

"Jewcentricity" is most evident in the recycling of "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion," a fictitious text commissioned by the czar's secret police for a Russian audience at the end of the 19th century, describing a fanciful cabal of Jews who plan to take over the world. Some critics of the neoconservatives, some of whom are Jewish, cite the protocols, so called, in their accusations that Jews have hijacked American foreign policy. Others, critical of Israel, hyperventilate over the power of the "Israel lobby."

 

"The Protocols" have naturally become a best seller in several Muslim countries, including Turkey and Egypt, where they were turned into a television series. ("Semitic Sex in the City," however, it was not.) "The Protocols" were featured on the Iranian stands at last year's book fair in Frankfurt "to expose the real visage of this Satanic-enemy," along with an abridged edition of Henry Ford's literary thriller, "The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem" (which never made it to the screen). "The grip of the Jewish parasitic influence," asserts the preface of the new edition, "has been growing stronger and stronger ever since [Henry Ford's time]."

 

Serious examples of "Jewcentricity" are reflected in the media obsession with Sen. George Allen's Jewish mother, who was born in Tunisia and barely escaped the Holocaust, and before that, with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's Jewish roots in Czechoslovakia. The national newspapers and television networks spent considerably more time investigating the senator's "blood" parentage and its likely effect on his re-election campaign than the blood being spilled in Darfur. "Why?" asks Adam Garfinkle. "Because . . . Jews is news and there are no Jews in Darfur." That doesn't slow down the conspiracy theorists in other countries, with or without Jews, from obsessing over the myth of sinister Jewish power.

 

Germany's Jewcentricity is of a completely different order. No negative slur against Jews goes unanswered in the law courts or in the court of public opinion. This has hardly eliminated prejudice against Jews. In an anti-Semitic prank with echoes of the Third Reich, a high-school student in eastern Germany was forced by bullies not long ago to wear a sign around his neck in the school yard: "In this town I'm the biggest swine because of the Jewish friends of mine." The teacher reported it, the chief of police was firm in his outrage, and the state minister of the interior promised an investigation. Germany does not tolerate public exhibition of Nazi symbols.

 

But the strain of anti-Semitism that many thought would vanish after the horror of the Holocaust has again risen again in the Middle East and among European fellow travelers of the Islamists, whose rhetoric targets Israel in a way that Hitler would readily recognize. Israel is the euphemism for the demonized Jew. The Jews become, as Jonathan Rosen observed in The New York Times, "interchangeable emblems of cosmic evil."…

 

It is possible to be a solipsistic Jewcentric. But I’m pretty sure they have therapy for that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:13 | link | comments

 

The Liberal record: Stephen Harper’s suggestion that most of those vying for the leadership of the Liberal party were “anti-Israel” resulted in howls of outraged from aggrieved members, including the contenders. Why, you’d have thought he’d up and called them something really awful, like “Islamophobic.” But as this piece by Calgary Sun columnist Paul Jackson recounts, Liberal animus toward Israel is deeply engrained and goes waaay back.

Jackson rightly skewers the governments of Jean Chetien and Paul Martin for their woeful track record re UN anti-Israel resolutions. The dynamic duo (who, go figure, despised each other) didn’t shoot down a single one. (The official count: 117 resolutions comprised of 78 ayes, 39 abstentions). Not until the Harper Conservatives came to power did Canada have the stones to break from the pack of international jackals and vote against some (though not all) of these suckers (the resolutions, not the jackals).

And then there’s the saintly Pierre Elliott Trudeau, still revered as the maestro of multiculturalism, the Ayatollah of human rights. According to a new biography about his formative years, Pierre wasn’t too fond of les maudit Juifs, a sentiment which followed him into public life:

…Let's look at the revered 'Great Helmsman' of the party, Pierre Trudeau.

He certainly didn't have much time for Jewish people.

In a just published book by Max and Monique Nemni, Young Trudeau: Son of Quebec, Father of Canada, 1919-1444 (McClelland and Stewart) it is revealed as a young man Trudeau was openly anti-Semitic, and admired Adolf Hitler and fascist dictator Benito Mussolini. Here we should note the Nemnis are admirers of Trudeau, not detractors.

Yet, did Trudeau change his opinions later in life?

Hardly. As prime minister, when Jewish men, women and children were fighting against discrimination in the Soviet Union, trying to practise their religion unhindered and emigrate to Israel, rather than defend them he regarded them as "hooligans." One of those supposed "hooligans" was the admired Natan Scharansky, who spent years in labour camps and is now a cabinet minister in Israel…

Our Pierre may not have thought too highly of Jewish hooligans. But he definitely had a pronounced soft spot for certain Cuban and Palestinian ones.

But perhaps it's best to keep it on the q.t. for now. Otherwise, offended party members may feel compelled to write Stephen Harper another one of those “open letters.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:32 | link | comments

 

Nobody’s gonna rain on his parade: Moo says, “Back off, infidels. I’m going nuclear no matter what.”

 

Or words to that effect.

 

From the Jerusalem Post:

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday that United Nations Security Council sanctions over Iran's nuclear program would only serve to further "motivate" the Iranian nation.

"We have been under sanctions for the last 27 years and these things will therefore have no impact, but just lead to more motivation of the Iranian youth," Ahmadinejad said in a speech in Varamin, south of Tehran.

The president was referring to scheduled UN Security Council sanctions against the Islamic state for having violated resolution 1696 calling on Tehran to suspend uranium enrichment.

Reiterating that Iran would not retreat from the country's right to pursue nuclear technology, the ultraconservative president said: "The Iranian nation will stay united against any discrimination and give a very decisive reply to any actions trying to limit its rights."

Ahmadinejad accused the United States and Britain of having opposed Iran for over 50 years and said the two states wanted to exploit the country's oil, and "they want to deprive us of our own natural resources (uranium)."

"Wherever these two countries get involved, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon or Palestine, the situation gets worse," he added...

“Ultraconservative.” I like that. Completely inaccurate and Orwellian, but quite amusing nonetheless.

 

The JPost report doesn’t mention that after uttering these words, Moo immediately burst into one of his favourite Broadway show tunes. It’s from that Babs Streisand hit, Funny Girl:

 

Don’t tell me not to nuke,

Just sit and sizzle.

Life’s useless,

Just a lot of fog and drizzle.

Gotta bring a mushroom cloud

For Mahdi’s big parade.

 

Don’t tell me not to kill.

I simply got to.

If someone summons Mahd’

It’s me and not you.

Gotta bring a great ‘shroom cloud

For Mahdi’s big parade.

 

I’ll march my gang out

With little tubes.

And they’ll all hang out

And seethe about Great Satan.

How he’s

The one that they’re most hatin.’

 

But whether I’m a loon

Or simply evil

There’s gonna be a frikkin’ big upheaval

That’s gonna usher in the final days on Earth.

I gotta  fry ‘em.

I gotta die ‘em.

Chicken potpie ‘em, right, sir?

Ooo, life is pointless.

Death will anoint us.

Eternity awaits, sir.

 

Get ready for me, death,

‘Cause I’m a “comer.”

I simply gotta nuke,

How ‘bout next summer?

Gonna bring a mushroom cloud

For Mahdi’s big parade…

 

It goes on, but I think that’s about all any infidel can bear at one sitting.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:27 | link | comments

 

Girls seldom make passes at boys in madrassas: Especially this one, which is now extinct. From NDTV:

 

In a pre-dawn strike, Pakistani troops backed by helicopter gunships bombed an Islamic school, being used as a terrorist training camp, killing about 80 people in a northwestern tribal area bordering Afghanistan.

Initial estimates, based on intelligence and local sources, indicate that the missile attack on the seminary located north of Khar, the headquarters of Bajur tribal agency, killed up to 80 persons, army spokesperson Major General Shaukat Sultan said.

"There were casualties as between 70 to 80 people were present at the madrassa when the security forces conducted the operation," he said.

"The attack was launched after confirmed information was received that the inmates were involved in terrorist training," he said adding that the seminary was being observed for the past few days.

"Gunship helicopters were used and most of the targets eliminated," he said.

It is the second major attack on Bajur in less than a year.

Banned group

According to reports, among the dead was Liaquat Hussain who ran the madrassa and is believed to have been sheltering al-Qaida militants.

Locals said the madrassa was targeted as Hussain belonged to the banned group 'Tanzeem Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi' (TSNM).

Locals protested the shelling saying that the dead were mostly students back from the Eid festivities. (PTI)

 

I’m not sure of the theology here. Do these casualties qualify for martyrdom? If so, at least they can expect lots of posthumous attention from non-corporeal babes.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:51 | link | comments

 

A taste of “Obsession”: For those who haven’t yet had a chance to see the entire documentary, here’s a 12 minute clip from “Obsession”—the movie that dares to connect the dots of the global jihad.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:43 | link | comments

 

Lord of the Flies, French-style: The French are expressing relief that the torching of a Marseilles bus with a female passenger still inside hasn’t led to an unacceptable spike in the nightly violence. As long as the tally remains more or less stable at 200 torched vehicles per diem and doesn’t climb into the quadruple digits—at it did during last year’s intifada—the French public seem prepared to live with it.

 

And authorities are working to remedy the situation, what with their renewed emphasis on education and job-creation schemes designed to give the disaffected and marginalized a shot at gainful employment. From the Toronto Star:

 

…Residents of the housing projects, most from Arab or African backgrounds, face unemployment and school dropout rates far higher than the national average. But the government has done little to change things in the past year, community leaders say.

 

"Everyone wants to work and everyone wants to integrate," said Dhaou Meskine, imam of the mosque at Clichy-sous-Bois, a Paris suburb. "But if we don't reduce the number of young people dropping out of school, nothing will get done."

 

Suburban schools filled with the most challenging students are in the hands of inexperienced teachers, while experienced ones teach affluent students in central Paris, said Samuel Thomas, vice-president of the SOS Racism group. The reverse should be the case, he said…

 

Yeah, those “experienced” teachers can make all the difference. Of course, that’s only possible if the “youths” do indeed want to gain a stake in French society instead of continuing to live free and unfettered in what amounts to sovereign no-go bits of Dar-al-Islam inside France.

 

The National Post’s Lorne Gunter throws some eau froid on French integration plans. He notes that the “youths,” who’ve been whipped into a frenzy by radical local imams, have demographics on their side, and authorities lack the will and the ability to contain the violence:

…In recent months, an average of 20 officers have been injured each day in what police themselves are calling an intifada. In early October, Michel Thoomis, the secretary general of the Action Police trade union, said police and rioters were "in a state of civil war, orchestrated by radical Islamists."

Daily, police are stoned by groups of angry, balaclava-wearing Muslim youth standing behind barricades. "You no longer see two or three youths confronting police," explained Mr. Thoomis. "You see whole tower blocks emptying into the streets to set their 'comrades' free when they are arrested."

France is Europe's canary-down-the-mine on Muslim integration. At nearly 9%, Muslims are a greater portion of the French population than they are of the population of any other European state.

If France can't manage to incorporate Muslims into its societal mainstream, there is little chance any nation can.

Funny how that Toronto Star article didn’t mention anything about the youths being “Muslim,” or their being incited by “radical Islamists.” Guess it must have been an oversight.

Welcome to your future, Europe (and, perhaps down the road, Canada). It’s looking pretty grim.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:15 | link | comments

 

Rats!: Charlie Brown has “reverted” to Islam.

 

I guess this means Snoopy is “haram.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:31 | link | comments

 

Swiss cheesiness: Just when you’re feeling a bit down in the dumps, along comes Claudia Rosett to brighten up your day:

Remember how the UN earlier this year reformed its so-called Human Rights Commission? The UN replaced it with the re-labeled Human Rights Council, the promise being to put an end to such perversions as Libya three years ago chairing the meetings. Well, in some ways, Libya never left. From a Geneva-based monitoring group, UN Watch, comes a reminder of the Libya connections of the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on the right to food — Swiss socialist, Jean Ziegler. While serving as a UN eminence on food, Ziegler has exalted terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, and urged boycotts of Israel (here is some background on his 2004 letter to Caterpillar, Inc.). But the punch-line is, Ziegler serves as vice-chairman of an outfit that hands out — get ready for this — the lucrative “Moammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize.” According to UN Watch, this prize was set up by Libya’s dictator in 1989, “with Mr. Ziegler’s help,” and winners have included Louis Farrakhan, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. …Ummm, where were we before this tale of UN human-rights endeavors defaulted to the twilight zone? Oh yes, Ziegler is in New York this week to offer the UN General Assembly his expertise on who deserves free food.  

You mean to tell me there’s actually a “Moammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize”? And that the Swiss guy involved with the UN Human Rights Council helped set it up?

That’s hysterical!

Maybe he can establish a “Kofi Annan Prize for Most Feckless UN Secretary-General.”  

First winner, no contest: Kofi Annan.

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

 

Teens with torches: I love this AP story (on the Fox News site—what’s up with that, Republican tools?) about those restive “youths” over in France. In today’s report, the “youths” have become “teens,” some of whom burnt a bus in Marseilles with a woman passenger still inside, and you have to read a full nine paragraphs to discover just who they are and what’s gotten them so worked up.

 

Wait for it:

 

1. MARSEILLE, France  —  France's interior minister sent extra riot police to patrol the southern port city of Marseille on Sunday after a group of marauding teenagers torched a bus, seriously burning a young passenger.

2. French police have braced for a surge of violence this weekend, as Friday was the first anniversary of the start of riots in poor neighborhoods where many immigrants and their French-born children live.

3. In scattered violence Saturday, 46 people were taken into custody, most of them in the suburbs around Paris, and two police officers were slightly injured. The most serious violence was the bus attack in Marseille, which shocked France with its brutality.

4. Three or four young people burst onto the bus and tossed in a bottle of flammable liquid before fleeing, police said, citing witnesses' accounts. A fire started, seriously injuring a 26-year-old woman who suffered second- and third-degree burns on her arms, legs and face.

5. The woman was breathing Sunday with help from a respirator, the Marseille hospital system said. Doctors were deeply worried about lung damage from smoke. Three other people also were treated for smoke inhalation, police said. The bus was destroyed, and bus service was suspended in Marseille.

6. President Jacques Chirac telephoned the woman's family, ensuring them that France would "do everything to find the assailants and punish them with the greatest severity," his office said.

7. Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin called a meeting for Monday on public transport safety, while Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy's office said he was sending two extra companies of riot police to Marseille.

8. Though youths have burned other buses during flare-up of violence, passengers have generally been able to escape before the vehicles went up in flames. Another bus was burned Saturday in the Paris suburb of Trappes, but its passengers fled unharmed, police said.

Bingo!

9. The three weeks of rioting last year were fueled by anger at France's failure to offer equal chances to many minorities — especially Arabs and blacks — and France's 5 million-strong Muslim population…

But have no fear. Les Gendarmes have matters well in hand:

For the anniversary, national police said about 4,000 extra police and riot officers were deployed across the country to cope with a possible resurgence of violence. Some 7,000 police are at the ready on an average night in France, and bands of youths typically set fire to 100 cars a night.

France used to be the country of haute cuisine. Today it’s the land of the Renault flambée.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:07 | link | comments

 

Scary Fox: An alarming article in the IDEAS section of the Sunday (Toronto) Star. Apparently, Fox News has the power to turn people into, quel horreur!, Republicans:

 

…This kind of opinionated exuberance surely makes for interesting television. But does it have other consequences?

 

The authors of a soon-to-be-published study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics suggest so. They claim, using empirical data, that Fox News's overt conservative-Republican bias actually influenced people to vote for the Republican Party in 2000, and to turn out in greater numbers to do so. They call it "The Fox News Effect."

 

"Fox didn't have an effect only for (electing President George W.) Bush, but in general in voting for Republicans," explains the study's co-author, Stefano DellaVigna, professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley. "So one can infer that people didn't just listen and say, `Oh, Bush sounds good from the coverage on Fox.' It seems that Fox changed their ideological beliefs."

 

The Fox effect is pervasive enough that one can't discount it as the U.S. nears the Nov. 7 mid-term elections. As well, the authors say, it has implications on both sides of the border when it comes to concentration of media ownership.

Previous studies have shown that Fox News is to the right of both most other media and of elected members of Congress.

 

A 2004 study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press also showed that, while more Democrats watched CNN, more Republicans watched Fox.

 

Fox's salty-tongued chief, Roger Ailes — a former Republican political operative — has always called CNN "boring" and scoffed at accusations of a conservative bias on his network.

 

He recently told the Associated Press that simply presenting different viewpoints made Fox stand out from all the left-leaning coverage.

 

Despite this — and despite the channel's slogan, "Fair and balanced" — viewers will often see anchors Sean Hannity or John Gibson literally screaming at guests who don't share their conservative views, or keying on stories that, unlike its other mainstream competitors, highlight the liberal-conservative and, especially, secular-religious divide.

 

It is this premise of conservative bias that the study, done for the non-profit, non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research, begins with. Because the Fox News Channel was introduced to the U.S. in 1996 and adopted by cable companies on a town-by-town basis, the researchers had a perfect opportunity to compare the effect on voting in towns with access to Fox to those without, leading up to the disputed 2000 presidential election...

 

Luckily, the trend is largely offset by those who watch CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS, read the New York Times, the Washington Post and other mainstream papers and who listen to NPR.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:48 | link | comments

 

Iowahawk on the Meatman: The always-hilarious blogger iowahawk has thoughtfully posted a piece called “ASK THE AUSSIE IMAM.” Here’s an excerpt:

Islamic Advice from Imam Yahu al-Zirius
Spiritual Leader, Fostaz al-Vegimita Mosque
Lakembabongabinga, Sydney, NSW

Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali of Mullagangabanga, NSW asks:

Some of the cobbers at my local mosque spotted some sheilas who weren't wearing their hijabs, so they naturally had a go at raping them. For some reason the coppers loaded them off to gaol! I ask you: if you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?

This is a very interesting question. With respect to cats, the Q’ran in Surah 12:45.1(c) states that, “the cat always lands on its paws.” However, Surah 3.14e-9 says that “pita bread always lands hummus-side down.”

Of course, the crafty infidel will see this as a contradiction: what if a believer were to glue a hummus-laden pita to the back of a cat, and hurl it from the local prayer tower? No matter how it hits the ground, the crafty infidel will say it invalidates Q'ranic infalibility! This is where the meat comes in. The key is to first put the uncovered meat between the cat and the pita, in a sort of cat-meat-pita sandwich. As it plummets from the tower, the cat will eat through the glue to get at the delicious uncovered meat, thereby freeing the pita to land hummus side down, and the meat-refreshed cat to land happily on its paws. In this way you may demonstrate to the crafty kuffar the eternal perfection of the sacred Word of Allah, as revealed through His Prophet (peace be unto him).  Also, if the crafty kuffar is an uncovered woman, don't forget to rape her…

I think I finally understand what the sheik was talking about.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:31 | link | comments

 

Kooks with nukes: The Sunday New York Times Magazine has a lengthy cover story about the “nuances” of Shias and Sunnis getting their hands on nuclear weapons.

 

If you don’t have the time to read the entire article—and, let’s face it, who does?—I can boil it down as follows: Islamists with nukes; bad idea.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:22 | link | comments

 

The “nuances” of the jihad: Rami Khoury, a Palestininan who edits Lebanon’s The Daily Star, occasionally offers his comments in pages of the Globe and Mail. Oddly enough, the Globe didn’t pick up this piece, in which Khoury lambastes American media for missing the “nuances” of Hamas and Hezbollah, groups which he says are about so much more than terrorism. (link via Martim Kramer):

One of the depressing aspects of reading, viewing and listening to the mass media in the United States on an extended trip, as I am doing these days, is to suffer the very superficial and often ideologically skewed coverage of important movements such as Hizbullah and Hamas. For various reasons, directly or indirectly related to American government support for Israel over Arab parties, such groups usually are referred to simply as terrorist groups.

It is possible - and desirable - that such accusations of terrorism be determined in a fair court of law one day, because any group or government that engages in terrorism needs to be held accountable for its actions. Yet such a process would only have validity and credibility if it also held accountable other groups or governments - including Israel, the United States, and some Arab regimes - for the accusations of war crimes and other atrocities that have been made against them in turn. This is unlikely to happen any time soon, because of the laws of imperial power and transnational hypocrisy that define our world, where the powerful write their own rules.

So, here in the United States one hears of Hizbullah and Hamas described in the public realm almost always only as terrorist groups. The problem with this one-dimensional focus on the anti-Israeli resistance and military aspects of these groups is that it ignores everything else they represent. The recent war between Hizbullah and Israel, in part a proxy battle between the United States and Iran, revealed that Hizbullah taps into sentiments and political forces across the Middle East that are very much wider and deeper than only its successful quest to drive Israel out of  Lebanon.

Whether one likes or dislikes Hizbullah, or admires or fears it, it seems abundantly clear now that its wide support throughout the Arab-Islamic Middle East and other parts of the world reflects its ability to tap into a very wide range of forces, sentiments and political movements. This is noteworthy for two reasons: Such forces and movements have never before come together as they did in the support that Hizbullah enjoyed in recent months, and collectively they represent a significant new posture of resistance and defiance of the United States and Israel that continues to reshape politics in the region…

I can see where Khouri is coming from. It’s so disheartening when infidels fail to see the “nuances” of  genocidal jihadist groups whose raison d’etre is the destruction of the sovereign dhimmi ape-pig state that has the temerity to exist in the heart of Dar al Islam.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:43 | link | comments

 

Where’s the Steyn?: I have a great idea for a new documentary. It’s all about someone who’s brave enough to speak up and tell the truth, even though such opinions are likely to engender howls of outrage from those who disagree and/or are in a state of permanent denial.

 

And, no, it’s not about a petite Dixie Chick with a big mouth and a belting voice. It’s about a writer who keeps sounding the alarm about the Jihadists—a sound that millions of people are still far too reluctant to hear.

 

One of these message-averse infidels is Heather Reisman, the woman who owns and rules the Canadian book chain monopoly, Chapters-Indigo. Although she and her husband, industrialist Gerald Schwartz, recently made a very public defection to Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party after years of being die-hard Liberals, Ms. Reisman, for reasons that have yet to be explained, seems to have blackballed Mark Steyn’s, new book America Alone from her bookstore shelves.

 

Maybe it’s an oversight. Or maybe she’s afraid of the “controversy.” Or maybe there isn’t room, what with all volumes of Chomsky, Franken and hundreds of other outraged leftists clogging the shelves.

 

Yeah, that must be it.

 

Here’s a post by a blogger from Western Canada detailing his correspondence with Chapters about the absence of Steyn’s book. (Steyn has a hilarious piece about the Chapters ban in the current issue of Macleans magazine, but it has yet to be posted online.)

 

I had hoped to reserve the book at my local library, but so far there’s nary a copy to be found in the entire Toronto Public Library system. (The catalogue does have a listing for America Alone, but it seems to be a book about those awful neo-cons and how they’re ruined a great nation—sort of like an anti-Steyn, without the yucks.)

 

Oh, well. Guess I’ll have to order it online.

 

Though not, of course, through Chapters-Indigo.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:10 | link | comments (1)

 

Cover up: Until now we’ve been told that the teacher in the U.K. who sued her school because she wanted to wear a niqab in the classroom out of personal choice. Turns out choice had nothing to do with it. From the Sunday Times Online:

 

THE Muslim teacher who insisted on wearing a veil in class has been following a fatwa issued personally to her by a Islamic cleric belonging to a hardline sect.

Aishah Azmi found herself in the middle of a national row about integration when she took her school to an employment tribunal after it suspended her for refusing to remove the veil in class.

Tony Blair joined the debate about the wearing of veils — opened by Jack Straw, the Commons leader — and supported the school’s actions.

Azmi, 24, has maintained that her decision to wear the veil was driven entirely by her personal beliefs, rather than the advice or instruction of a third party. But this weekend it emerged that she refused to take the veil off at school after receiving a fatwa, or religious ruling, from Mufti Yusuf Sacha, a Muslim cleric in West Yorkshire.

Her legal team revealed that the advice Sacha issued to Azmi ruled that it was obligatory for women to wear the niqab (face-veil) in the presence of men who were not their blood relatives.

Sacha is one of several hundred Islamic clerics in Britain with the status of mufti, entitling him to issue fatwas based on Islamic law. Although Muslims are expected to follow fatwas, they are not obliged to do so, particularly if they live in a non-Muslim state…

 

Ms. Azmi, who had been receiving her paycheque while on suspension, lost her case but was awarded £1,100 “on the grounds of victimization.”

 

Unfortunately, it’s the school and not the mufti that's obliged to pay up.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:48 | link | comments

 

Giddy up!: Is well known “moderate,” Mahmoud Abbas, about to stage a coup?

 

Maybe. Maybe not.

 

All we know is that, according to this AP report in the JPost, the Silver Fox is fed up with sitting on the sidelines while Hamas continues to stonewall his efforts to hash out a faux peace deal with the Jews, and there’s talk that he may be getting set to take drastic action:

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said he will dissolve the Hamas-led government within two weeks if the Islamic group does not agree to form a governing coalition with his Fatah Party, Palestinian officials said.

Abbas told the European Union's top diplomat that he would replace the Cabinet with an apolitical panel of professionals, the officials said Friday.

  Is Mahmoud Abbas planning a coup?

The moderate Palestinian president has raised the idea before but promised not to force it on a reluctant Hamas. His new stand suggested a willingness to take a stronger line against Hamas in a bid to ease crippling Western sanctions designed to force the Islamic group to moderate its militantly anti-Israel ideology.

The message was relayed to visiting EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana by the Palestinian officials, who agreed to discuss the confidential information with The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media.

Solana, in the region trying to breathe new life into peace efforts, urged Palestinian leaders to move urgently to form a so-called national unity government and to ease the deepening plight of the Palestinian people.

After meeting with Abbas on Friday, Solana told reporters that the Palestinian leader "is determined to move the process of the government to be table ... for it to be accepted by the international community."…

It’s impossible to “breathe new life into” a dead, maggoty horse, especially one that expired long ago, the victim of the global jihad. But I guess the EU’s top diplomat is averse to seeing matters in that light and, like those who share his Weltanschauung, he prefers to view the Israel-Palestine situation as a stand-alone problem.

Good luck with that horsey, Xavier.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:42 | link | comments

 

Chick shtick: Drudge is reporting that NBC is refusing to run ads for the Dixie Chick doc, Shut up and Sing, because it casts President Bush in a negative light during the run up to an election. The film’s distributor is decrying this as yet another instance of how freedom of speech is at risk in America—which, not coincidentally, happens to be the subject of the movie he’s so keen to market. But when Natalie Maines, the Chick who opened her yap at a concert in London and averred to a receptive, anti-American crowd that, as a Texan, she was embarrassed by George W. Bush, she was exercising her right to express herself freely. And when her core audience was appalled by her statement, it was exercising its right to stop buying her records.

 

Now, of course, Maines is a hero with her own full-blown documentary (count on it being honoured come Oscar time)—and has found a whole new audience for her group’s music. The only way for her to become even more popular with this crowd would be to join the ISM and allow herself to be crushed by an Israeli bulldozer.

 

A poster on the official blog for the Chick flick is mostly in synch with my views on the matter (even though I’m Canadian, and with a few exceptions, among them the Dixie Chicks, am not especially fond of Country music):

Yes, I’m  a conservative who voted for W twice.  Yes, I believe that the ‘Chicks’ comments were out of line, just a little shy of the minimum threshold of treason: “Treason is defined as a citizen’s actions that seriously injure or harm a parent nation.”

However, I was willing to forgive.  Look, to me, Barbara Streisand makes some of the most romantic music around…yet, her political views repulse me.  But I can overlook that.  Besides, I’m not a part of her core fan base.

I am part of the core fan base of Country Music…and one with a very close connection to the military and to the Vietnam experience.  (I lost my dad in that war).

‘Traveling Soldier’ touched a chord with me and I was willing to go to the mat to help bridge this chasm.  But as the drumbeat continued from Natalie et al, it became increasingly difficult.

Let’s face it, free speech is not what’s at question here…it’s capitalism that is operating  as we’d hope.  If McDonald’s began putting horse meat into its burgers — much of it’s loyal customer base would stop buying.  Of (sic) Coca-Cola started putting toilet water into its hidden secret formula — it’s loyal customer base might stop buying.

The Dixie Chicks endangered the commercial value of its product — their music — by offending their loyal fan base, country music fans who are typically loyal condervative (sic) Americans, reluctant to subscribe to anything that demeans the United States or its leaders.

So their fans stopped buying records and concert tickets.

As they say, “that’s business.”

Sorry.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:30 | link | comments (2)

 

The Archbishop’s modest proposal: Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury sees no difference between the veil and other symbols of religious identification, like sidelocks or the crucifix. He says all are valuable—of equal value—in a society that is becoming increasingly secular. From the Times Online:

…We in the UK do not have anything like this history of top-down rule by regulation [as exists in China, where religion is banned]. Yet when people talk about whether we should “become a secular society”, I wonder if they realise that they are in effect echoing the idea that the basic and natural form of political organisation is a central authority that “franchises” associations, and grants or withholds their right to exist publicly and legally within the State. Up to now, we have in practice taken for granted that the State is not the source of morality and legitimacy but a system that brokers, mediates and attempts to co-ordinate the moral resources of those specific communities, the merely local and the credal or issue-focused, which actually make up the national unit. This is a “secular” system in the sense that it does not impose legal and civil disabilities on any one religious body; but it is not secular in the sense of giving some kind of privilege to a non-religious or anti-religious set of commitments or policies. Moving towards the latter would change our political culture more radically than we imagine.

So the ideal of a society where no visible public signs of religion would be seen — no crosses around necks, no sidelocks, turbans or veils — is a politically dangerous one. It assumes that what comes first in society is the central political “licensing authority”, which has all the resource it needs to create a workable public morality…

I’m a bit confused. Is the Archbishop (who, by the way, writes the most turgid prose this side of Noam Chomsky) seeking a “live and let live” rapprochement between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain, or is he suggesting that “the state” give way to “a higher authority,” like, say, sharia law?

 

I have a sense it’s the latter, in which case he’s a big dhimmi, and shame on him.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:33 | link | comments (1)

 

Lenscrafters: And speaking of bias, here's a story from the Globe and Mail that interprets events—in this case, the resurgence of car-and-bus-b-cues among French “youths” from the ‘burbs—through the same skewed lens as the Beeb and the Ceeb. The reporter wants you to know, that a year after the first intifada, er, round of vehicle torchings, these unfortunate youths are still feeling “abandoned.”

 

Abandoned? Or empowered? La vie en rose or la vie en merde?

 

As always, it depends on which lens you’re looking through.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:02 | link | comments

 

Biased broadcasters: It should seem fairly evident to anyone with even minimal brain activity that the BBC has a pronounced left-leaning bias that colours its coverage. However, it seems to have taken an official report to wake the Brits up to the obvious.

 

From the Telegraph:

 

It's fair to say the message is finally getting through: the BBC has a problem with impartiality. The row over BBC bias has been rumbling on longer than war in Sudan and always seemed just as unresolvable. The format was always the same: take a bunch of Left-leaning, liberal-minded television executives and a bunch of Right-leaning politics wonks with obsessions about BBC reporting of the Middle East, the EU and the Tory party. Then they hit each other over the head with rolled up, heavily underlined copies of programme transcripts from Newsnight or Today.

 

And this is a battle that the BBC has become very adept at fighting. Every time the clamour of bias on some particularly hard news issue, such as Israel, Iraq, or Brussels, gets too loud, the corporation commissions some research that finds no bias, or – next best – evidence of bias on both sides.

 

But no matter how much BBC bosses swear blind there is no problem, the issue refuses to go away. Why? Because for many licence-payers, the BBC's skewed assumptions about what the world is about and how its inhabitants should think is the most annoying thing about it – more annoying than dumbing down, than the universal licence fee, than Jonathan Ross's £18 million pay packet. More annoying even than Natasha Kaplinsky. And particularly infuriating when the BBC denies it outright, as did Michael Grade, the BBC chairman, in an article published a few days before a governors' impartiality summit a month ago…

 

Similarly, the CBC’s skewed assumptions about the world are the most annoying thing about it. So when can we here in Canada expect an official report to call the Ceeb to account? (That’s rhetorical. I fully expect Hades to develop an ice cap before that happens.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:45 | link | comments

 

Never the twain shall meet: Australia’s leading cleric said he was sorry for causing offence by comparing uncovered women to slabs of meat and asserting that such women are responsible, should they happen to be raped. But even though he's been suspended from his duties, the Australian press isn’t buying the apology.

 

The Beeb has a round-up of Australian editorials on the subject. My favourite snippet is from The Daily Telegraph:

True to form, the sheikh offered some sort of half-baked apology, saying he had not meant to give offence, people should not misunderstand and his English is not so good. Pish! Here's the truth about the sheikh. He's a buffoon and he's pig-ignorant. Get that translated, sheikh. And just so you know, your apology is not accepted.

You can’t really blame the sheik. He was merely articulating Islamic law, albeit in a rather curious and somewhat cannibalistic fashion. The problem is that sharia laws about rape and a woman’s culpability are completely at odds with Western laws and ideas. The sheik actually did everyone a favour by highlighting the unbridgeable chasm between the two.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:01 | link | comments

 

Jihadists with nukes: As if the prospect of a hirsute Mahdi-summoner getting his hands on a nuke weren’t terrifying enough, here’s a FrontPage Magazine symposium about the very real possibility that the Sunni branch of the jihad may also have nuclear capability soon enough.

 

Looks like it’s going to be a race to the finish between Shias and Sunnis to see who gets to nuke the infidels first (before they aim their ammo at each other?)

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:35 | link | comments

 

Ouch!: Okay, so in Oz the leading Muslim cleric compared an unveiled woman to an unsavory cut of beef—something, literally, that the cat might drag in. Meanwhile, over in the Islamist dystopia a Grand Ayatollah is offering his educated insights into female psychology that make Petruchio in The Taming of the Shrew seem enlightened by comparison. From AKI :

 

Tehran, 26 Oct. (AKI) - Iranian Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi has issued a fatwa - a Muslim religious edict - saying it is legitimate for men to hit their disobedient wives. Shirazi, one of the leading clerics of the Shiite holy city of Qom, wrote on his website that "the Koran first of all advises a man to try and convince his wife to obey to him in a polite way and through advice, then by refusing to have sexual relations with her and, finally, if all this will have failed to make her reason, with physical punishment."

The punishment, the leading cleric said, "must be light and considered an exceptional event, like surgery in case of a serious illness."

Makarem Shirazi advised his readers against "physical punishment which leaves signs and wounds." Women, he axplained, "are masochistic and sometimes they have a crisis and need light physical punishment to get back to normal."…

Yeah, I think that’s what we married chicks like to refer to as “tough love.”

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

 

Eggs? Eyes? Eels? Egos?: What has four letters, begins with “e” and is slowly killing half of Europe?

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:31 | link | comments

 

Lonely hearts: I’ve tried to avoid the whole sordid mess re Sir Paul and the soon-to-be-former-Lady Heather Mills McCartney (or Macca and Mucca, as they are unaffectionately know in the British press). But you know me—I just can’t pass up an obvious song parody once it presents itself. So here’s my update of a Macca classic, which he wrote back in the day when he was a bright-eyed, energetic and youthful member of Sgt. Pepper’s band:

 

Now that he’s older

Losin’ his hair,

Sight and hearing, too.

Ugly, tawdry charges in the press each day.

He sincerely hopes they’ll go ‘way.

Married for love without a pre-nup.

Thought he knew the score.

He’s on the hook for oodles of cash

Now he’s sixty-four.

Getting older, too.

Not inclined to wed again.

If you were him, would you?

 

He was the “cute” one,

Yin to John’s yang.

Moptops ruled the globe.

Played the field until he found his lady fair.

Bliss with Linda, love in the air.

Thought he’d be lucky

Next time around

Kids said, “She’s a whore.

She will just bleed you

And she won’t feed you

When you’re sixty-four.”

 

Once they went to Newfoundland

And scampered on some floes of ice,

Saving baby seals.

Seemed to be so close.

Baby daughter on his knee.

Lived in misery.

Don’t send him a postcard,

Don’t drop him a line.

He’s fed up with the press

Hounding him and making him sound like a louse.

Threw fair Heather out of the house.

Stabbed and abused her,

Smoked too much weed,

And a whole lot more.

Much too much info

Celebrity sin fo’

Tabloids in the store.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:27 | link | comments

 

Where’s the beef?: According to an Australian Muslim cleric, it’s on full display every time a woman chooses not cover up in public, the only way to protect herself from the lascivious glances of lustful males.

 

The cleric, Sheik Taj Din Al Hilaly, has sparked an uproar in Oz by insisting that a un-veiled woman is like—how did the exuberant chauvinist with the cannibalistic tendencies put it?—“an uncovered piece of meat.”

 

Prime rib? Tenderloin? The sheik didn’t specify.

 

Here are some “highlights” of the cleric’s insightful remarks:

 

“Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast? Where will they end up? In hell and not part-time, for eternity. They are the worst in God’s creation.”

“When it comes to adultery, it’s 90 percent the woman’s responsibility. Why? Because a woman owns the weapon of seduction. It’s she who takes off her clothes, shortens them, flirts, puts on make-up and powder and takes to the streets, God protect us, dallying. It’s she who shortens, raises and lowers. Then, it’s a look, a smile, a conversation, a greeting, a talk, a date, a meeting, a crime, then Long Bay jail. Then you get a judge, who has no mercy, and he gives you 65 years.”

“But when it comes to this disaster, who started it? In his literature, writer al-Rafee says, if I came across a rape crime, I would discipline the man and order that the woman be jailed for life. Why would you do this, Rafee? He said because if she had not left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn’t have snatched it.”

“If you get a kilo of meat, and you don’t put it in the fridge or in the pot or in the kitchen but you leave it on a plate in the backyard, and then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats eat the meat, you’re crazy. Isn’t this true?”

“If you take uncovered meat and put it on the street, on the pavement, in a garden, in a park, or in the backyard, without a cover and the cats eat it, then whose fault will it be, the cats, or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the disaster. If the meat was covered the cats wouldn’t roam around it. If the meat is inside the fridge, they won’t get it.”

“If the woman is in her boudoir, in her house and if she’s wearing the veil and if she shows modesty, disasters don’t happen.”

“Satan sees women as half his soldiers. You’re my messenger in necessity, Satan tells women you‘re my weapon to bring down any stubborn man. There are men that I fail with. But you’re the best of my weapons.”

“…The woman was behind Satan playing a role when she disobeyed God and went out all dolled up and unveiled and made of herself palatable food that rakes and perverts would race for. She was the reason behind this sin taking place.”

Yikes. If this guy wasn’t such a holy roller, the logical conclusion would be that he’s in serious need of some heavy-duty meds—and a very cold shower.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:53 | link | comments

 

Juvies in Paris: Oh, those French “youths.” They’re so “disaffected,” “marginalized” and whatever other empty sociological label you want to affix to them that they’ve up and incinerated their third Paris bus.

 

At least they let all the people get off first.

 

The three recent torchings--two buses were destroyed last night; one last Sunday--are how the lads have chosen to commemorate a milestone in their lives, the one year anniversary of last years’ torchings.

 

Ah, yes. They remember it well.

 

According to the report on the incident I just heard on Ceeb radio, the juvies say it’s all Nikolas Sarkozy’s fault because he’s really pissing them off by, uh, sucking oxygen into his lungs. Also, probably because he's not all compassionate and empathetic like those tender-hearted multiculturalists who labour for Canada’s public broadcaster and like to attribute the problems to anything and everything save the truth: that there's an underclass of free-wheeling, uncontollable scofflaws who exist within a separate Muslim domain on the periphery of a great Western city. And who stray into the centre of the city in order to wreak havoc.

 

Time for Parisian authorities to call on the local imam to reign them in. He's the only one who seems to have any influence with the lads (even though they're all "secular").

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:28 | link | comments

 

Bibi speaks: Bill Maher’s fabulous, fabulous—did I mention it was fabulous?—interview with once and future Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

 

I’d say it almost redeems Bill for his fatuous post-9/11 statement about how it took “courage” for Mo Atta and crew to plow into the World Trade Centre. (hat tip: F.H.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:29 | link | comments

 

Blix nixes hick’s trix: Hans Blix, who had his fifteen minutes of fame (a far more generous allotment than he deserves) several years ago as the UN’s top weapons inspector, has re-emerged from well-deserved obscurity to express his displeasure with the way cowboy Bush is running the war in Iraq.

 

And the only reason I bother posting the link to Blix’s blast is because it afforded me the opportunity to use the above headline.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:39 | link | comments

 

Poetry in motion: An “enrichment cascade”—what else could sound so poetic (ahhh, a lovely cascade) and be so deadly?

 

From the Jerusalem Post:

 

…The Iranian Students News Agency quoted an anonymous official Wednesday as saying that Iran had started a second cascade of centrifuges two weeks ago and that "gas will be injected into the cascade during the current week."

 

"We will exploit the new product from the injection," ISNA quoted the official as saying, meaning that Iran would use the enriched uranium obtained by inserting gas into the centrifuges.

 

The report could not be immediately corroborated as Iranian officials were on holiday for the Islamic feast of Eid al-Fitr…

 

They’re just so devout, those genocidal Jihadists.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:29 | link | comments

 

True Brits: For those few souls out there who still think of the U.K. as a plucky, stiff upper lip Mrs. Miniver type, willing to endure any hardship in order to prevail over the fascist threat, along comes Melanie Phillips to disabuse you of this anachronistic notion. From JWR:

Everyone knows that Europe is a continent stuffed with craven, terror-appeasing fromages who loathe America. Britain, by contrast, led by the lion-hearted Tony Blair, is full of stalwarts who stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States in the defense of the West. Right?

Wrong. Fury at Prime Minister Blair for being President Bush's "poodle" has reached such a pitch that the most successful Labor prime minister in memory is being forced out of office because of his support for U.S. policy in Iraq and Israel. Labor's members of Parliament say his refusal to break with America by calling for an earlier cease-fire in Lebanon was the last straw. The disturbing fact is that Britain is consumed by a rampant anti-Americanism and an allied hostility toward Israel, which are driving public debate into irrationality, prejudice and appeasement.

BACKLASH TO THE U.S.
In a Populus poll last month in The Times of London, 62% said the government should change its policy by distancing itself from the United States, being more critical of Israel and declaring a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq. An August YouGov poll in The Spectator magazine revealed that while 53% wanted a tougher anti-terrorism policy, 45% wanted to be allied more closely with the European Union than with America. Only 14% supported closer U.S. ties.

As a result, the prospects for the alliance between Britain and the United States in the post-Blair era do not look promising. Despite being an instinctive Atlanticist, Gordon Brown, the most likely successor as Labor prime minister, is thought to be only a reluctant backer of the war in Iraq, according to a new autobiography by former Labor minister David Blunkett.

Meanwhile David Cameron, the new young leader of the opposition Conservative Party, made a speech last month distancing himself from U.S. foreign policy and blaming America for fanning the flames of anti-Americanism. The outcome might be that Britain increasingly snuggles up to the EU over foreign policy while an irritated America, bereft of its principal advocate in Europe, moves toward isolationism.

Much of Britain's anti-Americanism is driven by the usual suspects, such as far-left lawmaker George Galloway or newspapers such as the ultra-left Guardian. Galloway, for instance, said during an interview with GQ magazine earlier this year that the assassination of Blair by a suicide bomber would be "morally justified."

Left-wing discourse, now staple fare on the BBC and applauded even by conservatively minded audiences in panel discussions, proclaims that the United States is the fount of Third World oppression and the greatest threat to world peace.

But British animosity toward the U.K.'s most important and historic ally is wider and deeper. Partly it derives from simple snobbery, the long-standing British belief that Americans are vulgar upstarts who lack the gravitas that Britain has accrued from a thousand years of history.

Probe further, however, and you discover anguish at the progressive junking of that history. Schools, for example, no longer teach the history or values of the British nation on the grounds that national identity based on a majority culture is viewed as "racist." Instead, they promote multiculturalism, the doctrine that minority value must have equal status to those of the majority. Loss of confidence in Britain's role in the world has demoralized its governing class so badly that it has come to believe that the nation state is the principal source of all ills from prejudice to war, and that legitimacy resides instead in supranational institutions.

So no international action can be taken without sanctification by that holy of holies, the United Nations. As a result, the British regard Bush's "unilateral" foreign policy with undiluted horror. This is made worse by disdain for Bush himself, regarded as a tongue-tied cowboy who actually believes in G-d — to the post-religious British, the nearest thing to a certificate of lunacy...

Curious how they only get really exercised about the "lunacy" of Americans who believe in Jesus. So much for “Britains never, ever, ever shall be slaves.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:17 | link | comments

 

Whose line is it anyway?: Mark “Malarkey” MacKinnon, the Globe and Mail’s man on the scene in the Middle East, has a interview in today’s paper with Amr Moussa. Moussa’s an eminence grise of the Arab League, its “long-time” (MacKinnon’s word) secretary-general.

 

In reading the article it’s difficult to figure out exactly whose line MacKinnon is spouting—Moussa’s or his own. In fact, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the two may be virtually indistinguishable:

CAIRO — Canada's sharp pro-Israeli turn under Prime Minister Stephen Harper risks damaging the country's historic standing as a neutral arbiter in the Middle East peace process, the head of the Arab League said in an interview.

Amr Moussa, the Arab League's long-time secretary-general, said he has been disappointed with recent positions taken by Canada on various Middle East crises, including the government's decision to be the first to cut aid to the Palestinian Authority after the victory of the Islamic movement Hamas in an election earlier this year. He also criticized Mr. Harper's strong support of the Israeli decision to invade Lebanon this summer after the kidnapping of two soldiers.

The 70-year-old Mr. Moussa, who has held the top job at the Arab League since 2001, said he is planning to visit Canada next year to communicate his concerns to Mr. Harper and other top government officials. Canada is a "very important" country that could still play the role of honest broker in any effort to revive the Middle East peace process, he said during an interview in his office at the Arab League headquarters in Cairo.

"Any other role is doomed to failure, will produce absolutely nothing. I assume that the Canadian government is aware of that," he said. "If it fully supports the Israeli position, while Israel is occupying the territories and is building settlements and is defying international law, it will [be discredited].

During the war in Lebanon, he said, Canada and many other countries made "rushed" proclamations about Israel's right to defend itself after the Hezbollah militia captured two of its soldiers. He said those positions should be re-evaluated in light of the destruction wreaked during the month-long conflict.

According to the Lebanese government, 1,191 Lebanese were killed during the fighting, the large majority of them civilians. Israel was criticized by human-rights groups for targeting civilian infrastructure and for using weapons such as cluster bombs. (Hezbollah has also been accused of using the bombs, but has denied it.) Israel's government says 116 of its citizens, most of them soldiers, were killed in the war…

So if I have this straight—and I think I do—Canada should have waited until after the dust had settled, and when it had, supported the Arabs because more of them were killed—and they were mostly civilians—than Jews were killed, and the Jews who died were mostly soldiers.

Got it.

Also, Canada can and should sit out the jihad by casting Israel adrift and playing “honest broker” between Israel and the same jihadis who threaten the entire free world.

Kapiche.

It’s nice to know that, should Malarkey ever decide to cash in his chips at the Globe, he can always have a lucrative second career as a flak for the Arab League.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:34 | link | comments

 

Together again, for the very first time: Jesus and Mo and Mo.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:56 | link | comments

 

Honest terrorists: One good thing (the only good thing) about Hamasniks—they make no bones about wanting live side-by-side with the Jews in two separate states. Unlike, say, that “moderate” Abbas, who wants to drag the Jews through a whole peace rigamarole, only to arrive, somewhere farther down the road, at the same destination as Hamas.

 

Here’s an interview with the Hamas “foreign minister” in Der Spiegel. He’s a man who evinces the same charm, effervescence and joie de mort we’ve come to expect of those who favour the genocidal Jihadist agenda. (My comments, along the way, are in italics):

 

SPIEGEL: Do you really want to let the talks with President Abbas about a national unity government fail?

ZAHAR: We have accepted the paper on the establishment of a national unity government. It was Abbas' Fatah Party that first agreed to it and then changed its mind a few days later. We are ready to establish a provisional Palestinian state in the 1967 borders and to call for a ceasefire.

SPIEGEL: But you reject a two state solution?

ZAHAR: We will never recognize Israel. The Zionists have occupied our land like the Nazis did with France during the Second World War. Israel is a foreign element in the Middle East. Why don't the Jews establish their state in Europe? (We were there first, pal. Time to get over yourselves. Why don’t you go establish your state in Jordan, the Palestinian entity which was granted ¾ of “Palestine”; the Jews were allowed, grudgingly, half of the remaining quarter.

You’re right about the “foreign element” part, though. Israel is the only functioning democracy in the 'hood—very “foreign” to you sharia aficionados.  Also, having to live next door to the type of “foreigners” you dismiss as being lower down on the evolutionary ladder—I believe the pertinent phrase is “apes and pigs”—must be a bitch; having a soverign barnyard in the area  brings down the whole tone of the neighbourhood, n'est-ce pas?)

SPIEGEL: Your Deputy Prime Minister, Nasser al-Shaer, views that differently. He thinks that an indirect recognition of Israel, as the Saudi-Arabian initiative of 2002 suggests, is possible. (“Indirect recognition,” huh? How does that work exactly? And why on earth would anyone be willing to base peace negotiations on such a fatuous, fraudulent concept?)

ZAHAR: This is his personal opinion and not the position of the government.

SPIEGEL: Criticism even comes from the government spokesman. Ghazi Hamad questions the violent "resistance" against Israel. (It would be helpful if the interviewer called the violent “resistance” by its real name: the jihad.)

ZAHAR: In this point, the spokesman of the government does not represent the government.

SPIEGEL: Is there an internal struggle within Hamas?

ZAHAR: There are different opinions. But the big majority supports the resistance. The kidnapping of the Israeli soldier was the only way to release our brothers and sisters who are detained in Israel. (As Dr. Phil would say, “How’s that workin’ for ya?” So far, your brothers and sisters are still locked up safe and snug in the Jew hoosegow.)

SPIEGEL: Western mediators say Israel would have been ready for an exchange deal. But Iran is said to have paid Hamas $50 million in order to torpedo the deal.

ZAHAR: This is Zionist propaganda. Israeli Prime Minister Olmert is the one who is preventing a deal. I call on the family of the kidnapped soldier to pressure their government to do everything possible to release their son. (Translation: “Who needs Iran when we can get all the Russian arms we need smuggled in from Egypt via Sinai? On the other hand, if Moo wants to pony up some dough-re-me for our common cause—Jew-removal—who are we to spurn his generosity?”)

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

First Things first: Some food for thought from the November issue of  “First Things,” a journal devoted to religion, culture and public life:

• In Lariano, Italy, there was this meeting sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the World Council of Churches. The subject was “Conversion—Assessing the Reality.” The report from the meeting underscores a number of important truths. Particularly welcome is the ringing affirmation of the right to religious freedom: “Freedom of religion is a fundamental, inviolable and non-negotiable right of every human being in every country in the world. Freedom of religion connotes the freedom, without any obstruction, to practice one’s own faith, freedom to propagate the teachings of one’s faith to people of one’s own and other faiths, and also the freedom to embrace another faith out of one’s own free choice.” This reflects the Vatican’s increasing insistence upon “reciprocity” in relation to Islam. While mosques multiply across the landscape of Europe, Christian Bibles and crosses are confiscated at the borders of many Muslim countries where worship and witness by the “infidels” is prohibited. But then the report from the consultation starts to go wobbly:

“We affirm that while everyone has a right to invite others to an understanding of their faith, it should not be exercised by violating other’s [sic] rights and religious sensibilities. At the same time, all should heal themselves from the obsession of converting others.”

Freedom of religion enjoins upon all of us the equally non-negotiable responsibility to respect faiths other than our own, and never to denigrate, vilify or misrepresent them for the purpose of affirming superiority of our faith.

What does it mean to violate the “religious sensibilities” of others? Danish cartoons of Muhammad result in riots and the death of dozens of people because, Muslims explain, their religious sensibilities are violated. Churches are torched, the pope is burned in effigy, and Christians are attacked and killed because Regensburg offended Muslim sensibilities. Of course, we must never misrepresent the religion of others, and in proposing the truth we should accent the positive, but the statement of what is true can tend to denigrate (Webster: “to deny the validity of”) and may even vilify (“to lower in estimation or importance”) the denial of what is true. Admittedly, it’s hard to find the right words for saying that we should try to be nice to people, but the report from Lariano is particularly inept in its attempt. More substantive and more troubling, however, is the statement that “all should heal themselves from the obsession of converting others.” An earnest desire to share the truth with others is a sickness? “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!” declared St. Paul. Was he obsessed and in need of therapy? We all know the old saw about horses created by committees, but, even for a camel, the Lariano camel is embarrassingly odd.

• Born in Iran and now grateful to be an American, Cyrus Nowrasteh wrote the miniseries aired by ABC, The Road to 9/11. You will remember that prominent Democrats demanded that the program be canceled because it portrayed President Clinton and his administration in an uncomplimentary light. (It was none too kind to the Bush team either.) But here is another dimension of the brouhaha. Nowrasteh writes: “The hysteria engendered by the series found more than one target. In addition to the death threats and hate mail directed at me, and my grotesque portrayal as a maddened right-winger, there developed an impassioned search for incriminating evidence on everyone else connected to the film. And in director David Cunningham, the searchers found paydirt! His father had founded a Christian youth outreach mission. The whiff of the younger Mr. Cunningham’s possible connection to this enterprise was enough to set the hounds of suspicion baying. A religious mission! A New York Times reporter wrote, without irony or explanation, that an issue that raised questions about the director was his involvement in his father’s outreach work. In the era of McCarthyism, the merest hint of a connection to communism sufficed to inspire dark accusations, the certainty that the accused was part of a malign conspiracy. Today, apparently you can get something of that effect by charging a connection with a Christian mission.” Another sobering thought for the day.

• So what is the name of the enemy? A lot of candidates have been proposed and employed in the last five years: Islamic fundamentalism, Islamofascism, Islamic totalitarianism, Islamism, terrorism, or simply extremism. Islamism, as distinguished from Islam, is used by many scholars, but it is a subtlety that will elude most people. Fundamentalism is an American Christian phenomenon with a very specific history that has nothing to do with Islam. Terrorism is a means employed by the enemy, but it does not name the enemy. And extremism is a generalized pejorative naming nothing in particular. References to fascism and totalitarianism have a fine hawkish ring, and there are indeed some parallels between what we faced in Nazism and communism and what confronts us now, but the dissimilarities are much greater, beginning with the role of religion in the new challenge. So what is the name of the enemy? I suggest that the most accurate term is Jihadism. The definition is not difficult to understand: Jihadism is the religiously inspired ideology that it is the moral obligation of all Muslims to employ whatever means necessary in order to compel the world’s submission to Islam. Those who support that ideology are Jihadists, and that is exactly what they say they believe. They describe themselves as Jihadists, and there is no reason why we should impose upon them a name—fascist, fundamentalist, etc.—from our Western and distinctly non-Islamic history. It will be objected that in the Qur’an, jihad can also mean peaceful spiritual struggle. That is true, as it is true that those Muslims who believe jihad means peaceful spiritual struggle are not the enemy. “Jihadism.” Say it five times and it comes easily. It has the additional merit of being accurate. It is good to see that this terminology is gaining some traction in our public discussions.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:26 | link | comments

For better or worse?: These days, as the situation in Iraq grows ever more chaotic and the “told you sos” of the Bush nay-sayers and the belately wised-up pro-Bushies grows e’er louder, it’s refreshing to read this—a moment of clarity from the Times Online:

…The largest single mistake, in retrospect, rests elsewhere. The problem has not been the Bush Administration underestimating how much Iraqis might come to loathe the West for the “occupation” but a failure to grasp the extent to which, thanks to Saddam, Iraqis had come to fear and hate each other.

That inter-communal hatred is the present cause of Iraq’s troubles. American soldiers have died in tragic numbers this month not because of any so-called insurgency that wants to drive the US out of Iraq but because they have been attempting to prevent rival religious and sectarian militias from killing their enemies. The effort to hold together a central government in Baghdad (a drive, ironically, designed to reassure the defeated Sunnis) does not command sufficient consensus to sustain it.

What needs to be done now, as James Baker, a former US Secretary of State, appreciates, is to secure a decentralised settlement and convince the Shia majority to divide the oil revenues in a way that each camp will consider fair. In such a situation, as Kim Howells, the Foreign Office Minister, has outlined, US and British forces could be withdrawn steadily throughout 2007 without chaos.

I would not bet against Iraq’s future. That country retains extraordinary attributes. To declare it dead and buried a meagre three years after Saddam’s demise is, to me, premature folly.After all, would the recovery of Germany and Japan have been anticipated in 1948, three years after their surrender? Or the fate of Russia accurately assessed in 1994, during the chaos of the Yeltsin years, three years after the Soviet Union was disbanded? Or would anybody have expected that China would be where it is today in 1992, three years after the Tiananmen Square massacre?

The question that those of us in the pro-war camp have to confront is whether by, say, 2010 Iraq, the Middle East and the wider world will be demonstrably the better for Saddam’s overthrow than if he and his sadistic sons had been left in power. My answer to that question remains, unambiguously, in the affirmative...

Not that the world is so hunky-dory at present, what with Moo getting ready to blow and the Democrats about to take Congress. But I can’t help but agree that a world without Uday and Qusay (a much more gratifying proposition than, say, a world without Zionism), is a better place than a world where they were still around doing their dirty work.

And who’s to say that, had Sadaam been left in power, he wouldn’t  be embroiled in a race to acquire nuclear weapons with his foes over in Iran? Which could well have meant a pissing contest between Baghdad and Teheran, with the winner being the one who’s the first to drop a nuke on the Jews.

No one can possibly imagine that a nuclear Sadaam and a nuclear Moo would be in anyone’s interest (except, perhaps, for the occluded imam’s; he supposedly thrives on that kind of stuff.)

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

The perils of blogging: Aside from the occasional (or frequent) nasty comments, it can get you thrown out of Sudan.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:38 | link | comments

Why I despair for Israel: Why? Because its current leadership seems so adrift, clinging to the belief there’s still a road map that could possibly pave the way to peace; meanwhile, hoping the signals the U.S. and the "international community" send to North Korea will have an impact on the genocial Iranian who even now is awaiting the imminent arrival of his Messiah. From YNet News:

Defense Minister Amir Peretz warned Monday not to politicize the Iranian issue, hinting to the addition of Avigdor Lieberman to the government as a minister in charge of strategic planning.

During a conference in Tel Aviv Peretz said, "Politicizing the Iranian issue will hinder our treatment of the threat.”

 The defense minister added, “There is no intention of recapturing Gaza. I’m not going to send the IDF into an adventure just to satisfy public need. There is no intention of reentering the alleys of Gaza, or staying in them. I don’t think we should consider the possibility of a renewed occupation.”

 Peretz said, “We must make every effort to achieve peace, and I want to say to the Palestinian people: We are not at war with you; the terror groups are using you.”

 ‘Ahmadinejad not insane’

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, said during the conference that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a "time bomb.”

 "Time is working against us; the stalemate is not a political option, and so is the policy of the current government," she said. “There is the Road Map and a peace process, but the international community is coming to terms with the fact that the situation in the PA has not changed.”

 According to her, "there is a need to strengthen the moderates and strengthen (President Mahmoud) Abbas and his presidential status."

Turning his attention once again to the Iranian threat, Peretz said, “We cannot allow a situation whereby Israel is left to deal with Iran on its own. We must do everything so the international community reacts to the Iranian president’s harsh statements.”

 

“There are those who believe he (President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ) suffers from temporary insanity, but this is not the case. He is an extreme ideologist who means every word that comes out of his mouth,” he said.

 

“I hope that the international response to the North Korean threats will be a lot more substantial,” he said. “This is part of the message conveyed to Iran.”

I agree that Moo Jihad is more ideological than he is insane. However, there is nothing to be gained from purveying the fiction that Abbas is a “moderate” who represents the holy grail of peace. Nor should Israel count on the toothless “international community” to send a convincing message to North Korea or Iran.

And as far as “politicizing” the issue of Iran goes, Israelis of all stripes had better pull together, pronto, if they hope to prevail over the Shia Hitler. Because it should be clear to all that time is running out.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:33 | link | comments

 

The Beeb’s bias: The powers-that-be at the British public broadcaster have finally ‘fessed up to the obvious: the company is heavily biased in favour of the Palestinians and fraught with a flagrant political correctness (a function of the leftist lens through which events are perceived) that skews its coverage. From YNet News:

 

LONDON – The British Broadcasting Corporation has been struggling for several years against criticisms and claims of biased reporting concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and distorted coverage of the global fight against terror.

 

Following a diplomatic incident with Israel, the BBC appointed an editor known for his objective reporting, however, the true stance of the corporation’s editors remained the same.

 

An internal memo, recently discovered by the British media, revealed what the BBC has been trying to hide. Senior figures admitted in a recent 'impartiality' summit that the BBC was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.

 Most executives admitted that the corporation’s representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate, and that it leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism, anti-Americanism and discrimination against the countryside…

How long must we wait for the Beeb’s Canadian counterpart, the Ceeb, to own up to a similar one-sidedness?

Update: The irrepressible Melanie Phillips calls what the Beeb does “cultural Stalinism…paid for from the public purse.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:12 | link | comments

 

Style, not substance: Someone must have advised the charisma-challenged Michael Ignatieff to start imitating some Pierre Elliott Trudeau mannerisms—the shoulder shrug, the smirk—so as to put P.E.T-besotted Canadians in mind of their late hero (who, apparently, had oodles of charisma).

 

And the scary thing is it seems to be working. (Click on the poll.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:35 | link | comments

 

A direct line to the Divine: It’s official. Moo has Allah on speed dial.

 

From a recent metaphor-laden Moo speech, as translated by that invaluable service, MEMRI:

"On the nuclear issue, I have said to my friends on many occasions, 'Don't worry. They [i.e. the Westerners] are only making noise.' But my friends don't believe [me], and say, 'You are connected to some place!' I always say: 'Now the West is disarmed vis-à-vis Iran [on the nuclear issue], and does not know how to end this matter [with us].' But my friends say: 'You are uttering divine words! Then they will laugh at us!'

"Believe [me], legally speaking, and in the eyes of public opinion, we have absolutely succeeded. I say this out of knowledge. Someone asked me: 'So and so said that you have a connection.' I said: 'Yes, I have.' He asked me: 'Really, you have a connection? With whom?' I answered: 'I have a connection with God,' since God said that the infidels will have no way to harm the believers. Well, [but] only if we are believers, because God said: You [will be] the victors. But the same friends say that Ahmadinejad says strange things.

"If we are [really] believers, God will show us victory, and this miracle. Is it necessary today for a female camel to emerge from the heart of the mountain so that my friends will accept the miracle? [8] Wasn't the [Islamic] Revolution [enough of] a miracle? Wasn't the Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] a miracle?... "

Yes, Moo, it is necessary today for a female camel to emerge from the heart of the mountain so that your friends will accept the miracle.

 

Barring that, they’ll take a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.

 

In recognition of Moo’s close personal connection to God, I’ve revised a song from Fiddler on the Roof just for him (Moo that is, not God):

 

Wonder of wonders,

Miracle of miracles.

Moo speaks to God

And God resonds.

Tells him, “You’ll see,

There’s gonna be a victory.

Soon the Jews will all be gone.”

 

Wonder of wonders,

Miracle of miracles.

God took a lean and callow lad.

Got him to rage and take a lead

On the stage.

Evil? Yes, and barking mad.

 

When the Prophet conquered half the Earth—

That was a miracle.

When Hitler killed with wicked mirth—

That was a miracle, too (to Moo).

 

But of all God’s miracles small and big

The one that makes Moo dance a jig

Is that soon, with the help of The Guy Up There,

Islam will rule everywhere...

 

Update: Stop the presses! Moo’s also in touch with the hidden imam. (link via Jihad Watch)

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:08 | link | comments

 

The execrable Condi: Don Feder calls her the high priestess of the Palestinian state, eager and willing to sacrifice Israel’s security (and thus, its existence) in the delusion that the world will somehow benefit if there's yet another terrorist Islamist entity kicking around.

 

High priestess? More like the hand-maiden of evil.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:46 | link | comments

 

Woman problems: As the veil debate heats up in Europe (yesterday on Italian TV an imam called an Italian politician an “infidel” for criticizing the veil; she is now under police protection) officials in the U.K. think they’ve figured out a way to cool things down. They’re going to earmark a certain number of spaces in religious schools for children who belong to a different faith, or no faith at all.

 

Yeah, that’ll work. From the Times Online:

The day after Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, gave a warning that the row over Muslim women wearing the veil could provoke riots, Alan Johnson, the Education Secretary, will meet representatives from the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Association of Muslim Schools, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Network of Sikh Organisations. Mr Johnson will explain why the Government is to give local authorities the power to require new faith schools to admit up to 25 per cent of pupils from different faiths or no faith, and review progress on the agreement by faith schools to teach awareness of other faiths. He has called the meeting because he sees education as the key to preventing social division.

Mr Johnson has already suggested the exchange of teachers between different religious schools.

Mr Phillips appealed for calm over the issue of Muslim women wearing the veil. He said that he was disconcerted that debate about the issue seemed “to have turned into something really quite ugly”.

He told Sunday AM on BBC One: “I, this morning, really would not want to be a British Muslim because what should have been a proper conversation between all kinds of British people seems to have turned into a trial of one particular community, and that cannot be right.”

Mr Phillips appealed for Aishah Azmi, the teaching assistant who lost her discrimination case over her right to wear a veil in class, to drop her appeal against the decision.

He said: “I think she would be doing the nation a favour, and I think we would all feel very warm to her, if she said, ‘OK, I understand the issue here and I’m going to take a solution which doesn’t involve more working through the courts’.”

Mr Phillips also wrote in The Sunday Times that divisions risked becoming “the trigger for the grim spiral that produced riots in the North of England five years ago. Only this time the conflict could be much worse.”…

 

Memo to Mr. Phillips: There’s no way Ms. Azmi is going to drop her appeal. Why should she want to do “a favour” for the infidel nation that’s requiring her to remove her religious head gear?

 

Also in the Times, a story about a more “private” symbol of female affiliation: the one involving a woman’s private parts. According to the report, an estimated 25,000 girls in the U.K. are at risk of having their sexuality attacked in the barbaric practice known as female genital mutilation. And the most repellent aspect of this rite—apart from the obvious physical and emotional anguish it inflicts on these young African Muslim girls—is that this it is a barbarity performed on women by women.

 

But, hey, maybe one of those teacher exchanges Mr. Phillips like so much can help put an end to this atavism.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:26 | link | comments

 

Trashing Israel: Got a few spare minutes (and a strong stomach)? You’ll need both to watch this, a “debate” held last month in NYC about the power of the Israel lobby in the U.S. Participants include well-known Zionist-bashers John Meershiemer, co-author with Steven Walt of the infamous academic paper outling the lobby’s malign and secretive influence, and Tony Judt, a historian who has called for Israel to be “dismantled.”

 

I’d say “enjoy” but that’s far from being the operative word.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:29 | link | comments

 

Temple denial: It drives them bonkers that we were there first. From Palestinian Media Watch:

 

During the month of Ramadan, Palestinian Authority television programs focus on religious themes. But even within these programs, PA TV inserts political, hate and violence messages directed at Israel. PA TV is run by the office of PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

One significant message that has been strongly emphasized by repeated broadcasting of the same programs is the denial of Israel’s right to exist. One program, which recently appeared on PA TV three times in the course of a single week, features Dr. Hassan Khader, founder of the Al Quds Encyclopedia, who argues that the Jews have no ancient historical connection to the Western Wall of the Temple. He teaches:

"The first connection of the Jews to this site began in the 16th Century... The Jewish connection to this site is a recent connection, not ancient… like the roots of the Islamic connection… Who would have believed that the Israelis would arrive 1400 years [after the beginning of Islam], conquer Jerusalem and would make this wall into their special place of worship, where they worship and pray?”

The true name of the Western Wall of the Temple, according to the PA academic, is really the Al Buraq Wall – named after Muhammad’s horse which was tied to the wall – according to an Islamic tradition that attempts to honor Jerusalem.

Finally, Khader praises all the violence and death the Palestinians have initiated to prevent Jews’ access to the Western Wall and Temple Mount, from the beginning of the 20th century until now, and indicates that it will continue if Jews insist on the right to the Western Wall.

The following are excepts from his interview:

Khader: “The issue of the Al-Buraq Wall [Western Wall – renamed by Muslims "Buraq Wall" after Muhammad's horse] is one of the wonders which we don’t know why it happened in this order [of historical events]. Who would have believed, back then, when Islam began in the time of the prophet, who would have believed that the Israelis would arrive 1400 years later, conquer Jerusalem and would make this wall into their special place of worship, where they worship and pray? It’s incredible! We did not invent this place, the Al-Buraq Wall. Know that this wall is the only one of the four walls of the Al-Aqsa Mosque - the Mosque has four sides - this wall is the only one that carries an Islamic name since the beginning of Islam. Allah, praise Him, gave Al-Aqsa its name, and the Al-Buraq Wall was named by the Prophet… The Al-Buraq Wall is the station, similar to a space station, where Al-Buraq [Muhammad’s horse] landed. This is the place where Al-Buraq landed and the prophet tied Al-Buraq [to the wall]…

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:49 | link | comments

 

Sex and the single Muslim: A piece about why, in certain parts of the Muslim world, it’s so tough to be young, horny and lookin’ for love. From Der Spiegel:

Sex is a taboo in conservative Islamic countries. Young, unmarried couples are forced to seek out secret erotic oases. Books and play that are devoted to the all too human topic of sex incur the wrath of conservative religious officials and are promptly banned.

Rabat, Morocco. Every evening Amal the octopus vendor looks on as sin returns to his beach. It arrives in the form of handholding couples who hide behind the tall, castle-like quay walls in the city's harbor district to steal a few clandestine kisses. Some perform balancing acts on slippery rocks and seaweed to secure a spot close to the Atlantic Ocean and cuddle in the dim evening light. The air tastes of salt and hashish. On some mornings, when Amal finds used condoms on the beach, he wishes that these depraved, shameless sinners -- who aren't even married, he says -- would roast in hell.

Cairo, Egypt. A hidden little dead-end street in Samalik, a posh residential neighborhood, with a view of the Nile. Those who live here can stand on their balconies at night and see things that no one is meant to see. The cars begin arriving well before sunset, some evenings bringing as many as a hundred amorous couples. Almost all the girls wear headscarves, but that doesn't prevent them from wearing skin-tight, short-sleeved tops. The boys are like boys everywhere, nonchalantly placing their arms around their girlfriends' shoulders and even more nonchalantly sliding their hands into their blouses.

The locals call this place "Shari al-Hubb," or "Street of Love." The gossips say that children have been conceived here and couples have been spotted engaging in oral sex.

Beirut, Lebanon. As techno music blares from the loudspeakers in the dim light, patrons shout their drink orders across the bar. Boys in tight jeans and unbuttoned, white shirts, their hair perfectly styled, jostle their way onto the dance floor. The men shake their hips, clap their hands and embrace -- but without touching all too obviously. After all, those who go too far could end up being thrown out of "Acid," Beirut's most popular gay disco. Officially, "Acid" is nothing more than a nightclub in an out-of-the-way industrial neighborhood…

Shocking. That these young people haven’t been dealt with more harshly, I mean.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:44 | link | comments

 

Spare the rod and spoil the wife: Lessons in connubial relations—if not exactly connubial bliss—from the most authoritative source around. And no, I’m not referring to the Washington Post:

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. When dealing with a "disobedient wife," a Muslim man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of "the importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam." If that doesn't work, he can "leave the wife's bed." Finally, he may "beat" her, though it must be without "hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost."

Such appalling recommendations, drawn from the book "Woman in the Shade of Islam" by Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha, are inspired by as authoritative a source as any Muslim could hope to find: a literal reading of the 34th verse of the fourth chapter of the Koran, An-Nisa , or Women. "[A]nd (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them," reads one widely accepted translation.

The notion of using physical punishment as a "disciplinary action," as Sheha suggests, especially for "controlling or mastering women" or others who "enjoy being beaten," is common throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, I first encountered Sheha's work at my Morgantown mosque, where a Muslim student group handed it out to male worshipers after Friday prayers one day a few years ago.

Verse 4:34 retains a strong following, even among many who say that women must be treated as equals under Islam. Indeed, Muslim scholars and leaders have long been doing what I call "the 4:34 dance" -- they reject outright violence against women but accept a level of aggression that fits contemporary definitions of domestic violence.

Western leaders, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, have recently focused on Muslim women's veils as an obstacle to integration in the West. But to me, it is 4:34 that poses the much deeper challenge of integration. How the Muslim world interprets this passage will reveal whether Islam can be compatible with life in the 21st century. As Hadayai Majeed, an African American Muslim who had opened a shelter in Atlanta to serve Muslim women, put it, "If it's okay for me to be a savage in my home, it's okay for me to be a savage in the world."…

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:32 | link | comments

 

Bad crescent moon rising: Don’t look now, but the seethers may be about to take to the streets—for a change. From the Sunday Times Online:

THE head of Britain’s race relations watchdog has warned there will be “fire” on the streets unless growing racial tensions can be resolved.

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, says divisions created by the recent row about Muslim women wearing the veil risk becoming “the trigger for the grim spiral that produced riots in the north of England five years ago. Only this time the conflict could be much worse”.

In what will be seen as his swansong before he becomes head of the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights, Phillips says: “All the recent evidence shows that we are, as a society, becoming more socially polarised by race and faith . . . In many of our cities things cannot get any worse.”

His warning is made in an article in The Sunday Times today about the need for a “civilised” debate on race. He paints a picture of a society whose institutions appear to be helpless in the face of mounting racial conflict.

In a warning about what might happen in Britain if his call is ignored, Phillips refers to the writer who correctly predicted race riots in Los Angeles and other US cities: “In 1963, the great African-American writer James Baldwin quoted an old spiritual in a famous essay, correctly predicting the civil strife that was to come: God gave Noah the rainbow sign. Said no more water, but the fire next time.”

Phillips said Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, had been right to make public the fact that he had asked Muslim women to remove their veils during his constituency surgeries. He criticised Muslims who had attacked Straw: “The so-called Muslim leaders who initially attacked Straw were wrong. They were overly defensive and need to accept that in a diverse society we should be free to make polite requests of this kind.”

Phillips said the debate was becoming dangerously polarised: “On one side of the trenches we have those who want a fully fledged auto-da-fe against British Muslims, in which anything any Muslim does or says must be condemned as a signal of their wilful alienation and separation; on the other hand the defensiveness of some in the Muslim communities has hardened into a sensitivity that turns the most neutral of comments into yet another act of persecution.

“This is not what anyone intended, and it is the last thing Britain needs.”…

Since Trevor Phillips seems to think that this is a “racial” issue and not a religious one, I can see why he might want to quote James Baldwin. However, since the population on the boil is one that has already been accorded the full gamut of civil rights—and then some, because for years authorities turned a blind eye to the civic unrest being fomented in British mosques—and since this is clearly a religious/ideological issue and not a racial one, Phillips quoting Baldwin here is entirely inappropriate.

 

Update: It seems the U.K. isn’t the only place having veil problems.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:00 | link | comments

 

Meat L’Oaf: A few days ago a local radio station asked people to call in with their guilty musicial pleasures—those embarrassingly uncool songs they secretly love to belt out in the shower. Folks phoned in with some of the usual suspects. Manilow. Abba. Terry Jacks (“we had joy, we had fun, we had seasons in the sun…”), Gilbert O’Sullivan (“…alone again, naturally”).

 

Odd how so many of these execrable songs date from the 1970s.

 

Anyway, my choice also dates from that decade. It’s Meatloaf’s angsty power ballad, “Two of Out Three Ain’t Bad.”

 

And because I have far too much time on my hands (not really), I’ve put some contemporary words to it. In my version, it’s not about a guy explaining to his lover why he can’t commit (“I want you; I need you; but there ain’t no way I’m ever gonna love you…”) and why that’s not so terrible (“…‘cuz two out of three ain’t bad”). It’s about a frustrated blogger looking at a genocidal loose cannon over in Iran and observing that all anyone—like the EU, recently the object of his latest dire warning—seems willing to do is gab, gab, gab until Armageddon gets fully underway.

 

Sing along, if you like:

 

Maybe you can talk for years

But that ain’t gettin’ you nowhere.

You promised everything you possibly could.

There’s nothin’ left to offer him.

 

And maybe you don’t hear his jeers.

But that’s because you ain’t lis’ning.

He can’t be clearer ‘bout his plans for the Jews—

Do the words “Final Solution” ring bells?

 

He poured it on and he poured it out.

He’s screamed and strutted like a peacock in heat

He’s hosted conf’rences ‘bout genocide.

And he’s been hot to kill so long

That he may well combust spontaneously.

 

And all I can do is keep on tellin’ you:

He hates you.

Reviles you.

And there ain’t no way he’s gettin’ any therapy.

Go knock on wood.

‘Cuz three out of three ain’t good.

 

He’ll never make ‘lectricity from nuclear power.

His threats grow more outrageous with each passing hour.

You know you’re looking to appease him and restore some calm,

But you’ll have no peace of mind

If Moo can get his hands on a nuclear bomb.

 

He’ll tell lies.

He’ll invite you to “revert” to Islam.

Like he’s s’posed to do.

You’ll never be able

To turn him aside

As long as he awaits that imam.

 

Well, there is only one man that he really wants

And he left so many years ago.

But when the end is nigh and all the Jews are finally gone,

He’s said he’s comin’ back, ooh-ooh Moo knows.

 

Well, he remembers how he left on a stormy night

Sometime in the 9^th Century.

Now Ahmadinejad, his summoner, is doin’ his bit

To hasten the great day of retur-hurn.

And he keeps on tellin’ you

He keeps on tellin’ you

HE KEEPS ON TELLIN’ YOU:

“I hate you.

Revile you.

And there ain’t no way I’m gettin’ any therapy.

Go knock on wood.

‘Cuz three out of three ain’t good.

Go knock on wood.

‘Cuz three out of three ain’t good.”

 

Maybe you can talk for years.

But that ain’t getting you nowhere.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:32 | link | comments

 

The socially-acceptable hatred: Julia Gorin writes that political correctness extends to every religious/ethnic group—save one. From JWR:

 

…Perceived as part of the power structure, Jews are subconsciously considered by the Left, the media establishment and the other minorities as a privileged minority, and therefore not as vulnerable or in need of protected-class status. This is what makes Jews in fact the most vulnerable minority of all.

 

Perhaps this is best illustrated by a point that writer Hillel Halkin made in a 2002 Commentary article titled "The Return of Anti-Semitism"—namely that hostility toward Jews has grown in direct proportion to the number of Jews killed. In contrast, sympathy for Middle Easterners-a minority in the more traditional, visible, color-coded sense—has increased in direct proportion to the number of people they've killed. It seems, the more people that Muslims kill, the less popular Jews become. This has managed to happen because Jews are the politically incorrect minority.

 

When other minorities—rightly or wrongly—accuse someone of being a racist, the conditioned, immediate reaction is guilt-if only for a moment—before rationality takes over. But when Jews—rightly or wrongly—accuse someone of being an anti-Semite, the immediate reaction is eye-rolling. And at least once, I've gotten a "Yeah, so?"-eliciting from me a momentary inclination to answer, "Oh, sorry-never mind. Nothing wrong with being anti-Semitic; why some of my best friends are anti-Semites!"

If one thinks about it, what other ethnic group is blamed for genocidal murders against it? What other ethnic group's back do the other minorities not have? Indeed, what other minority do the rest of the minorities help bash? And what other minority's enemies do the media help in fabricating crimes by the said minority? What other minority has placards devoted to it at pro-terrorist rallies in Boston and San Francisco, reading Death to the [fill in minority]? Finally, what other nation has been exterminated not because of some ethnic rivalry with another nation or by some conquering force, but because of an entire, diverse continent pitching in? Then, after no nation offered this ethnic group a safe harbor, such that it had to shed even more of its blood to secure one, the world decided it wanted a recall of that agreed-upon harbor…

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:38 | link | comments

 

Moo’s latest production: An editorial in the Globe and Mail notes the deafening silence that has accompanied Moo Jihad’s latest threat: to punish Europe—the entire continent, no less—for having the gumption (Moo hates gumption, ‘specially the infidel variety) to acknowledge that, yea, verily, Israel doth exist. (I’ve employed the colourful but archaic language in homage to Moo, a man who waxes so poetic, even when lobbing a genocidal ultimatum):

So this leader of a large Islamic country walks onto the world stage and -- stop us if you've heard this one -- accuses Europe of sowing hatred toward Muslims, apparently because Europe continues to recognizes Israel's existence. And he threatens all of Europe, all at once. "You are the neighbours of the nations in this region," he warned on Thursday. "We inform you that the nations are like an ocean that is welling up, and if a storm begins, the dimensions will not stay limited to Palestine, and you may get hurt. It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals. . . . This is an ultimatum. Don't complain tomorrow."

And the funny thing is, this same leader so opposed to hatred—fellow named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran—denies the Holocaust happened and once invited cartoonists to vilify the Jews. And he despises his neighbour, the Jewish state of Israel. Says it should be “wiped off the map.” Excoriating Israel is an obsession with him. (There’s even a booth at the rally he’s addressing that sells DVDs promoting suicide bombers.) Oh, and here’s the really funny part: His country is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons.

If only it were just a bad joke…

When the Pope made comments about Islam and violence, there was an uproar in the Islamic world. When a Danish newspaper ran cartoons featuring depictions of the prophet Muhammed, there was wide-spread violence in response. When the president of a leading Islamic country seeks to foment division in the world, there is silence. That silence is nearly as loud and as frightening as Mr. Ahmadinejad.

Indeed. However, it’s not so much that Moo’s keen to foment division as it is that he’s itching to produce “Holocaust, the Sequel” (all the while denying that the first production ever took place—like Coppola filming the The Godfather, Part II but pretending all that stuff with the severed horse's head and the Don’s unrefusable offers never happened). That’s the only way his occluded imam can finally unocclude (which, frankly, sounds a bit painful) and return to preside over a global Islamic Theme Park (only, one with no rides, no games, and a dress code that requires all women to perambulate in a black tarpaulin).

Fun times ahead, my friends.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:14 | link | comments

 

Judging Islam: The global jihad is a go, and each day brings new adherents to the cause. This “radical fringe” of extremists is inspired by core Islamic teachings embedded in the Koran—the uncreated, revealed word of Allah, and his final perfect revelation to Mohammed, the most perfect human being who has ever lived; they also take their cues from the ahaditha, the stories about Mo’s life and teachings that carry almost as much weight as the Koran. Some of these teachings are, shall we say, problematic for non-Muslims, specifically, the ones calling upon the faithful to slice and dice the infidels should they refuse the “invitation” to “revert” to the one true faith. The idea being that Islam is the last word in religion, and has the Divine thumbs-up to conquer the globe.

 

Please bear the above in mind when reading the below. It’s from an editorial (“leader”) in today’s Times Online, imploring non-Muslims to “look past the veil” and not judge Islam based on the actions of extremists:

…The Koran certainly does not demand that women wear a full veil. The relevant verse urges women to lower their gaze and “not display their beauty except what is apparent of it”. That phrase has been open to differing interpretation. But it also forms part of the theological dispute between mainstream Islam and some of the narrower and more puritanical sects, including the Deobandis, who originated in India. Ms Azmi comes from a Tablighi Jamaat background, a sect even more puritanical. Those insisting on the veil are a small minority of British Muslims — perhaps no more than 5 per cent. But they form part of the fierce political struggle going on for ideological supremacy and leadership among Muslims from different countries, ethnic groups and religious traditions.

In some areas, such as Keighley and Dewsbury, these disputes are fuelling extremism, especially among young Muslims. The issue has been under- reported: that is no longer the case. No community should be judged by its extremists, and the vast majority of Muslims are uneasy about radicalisation from within. And the vast majority of Muslim women are rightly uncomfortable with a very male interpretation of the sacred text.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Muslims have remained disturbingly silent as the “radical fringe” conduct their all-too frequent rampages, and are disinclined to turn the radicals’ attention onto them, less they incur the same kind of wrath, or a death sentence meted out as per sharia lawto those deemed to be “apostates”

Kinda puts a crimp in one’s ability to look past the veil, don’t you think?

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:56 | link | comments

 

Liberals whinge: If you’re a supporter of Israel, it must be tough to reconcile your continuing allegiance to a political party that, well, let’s be charitable and say that it prefers to take a more even-handed approach to issues involving Israel and the genocidal Islamists who want to wipe it off the map. Thus, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper had the temerity to point out the obvious last week—that most of the Liberal leadership contenders were “anti-Israel”—he obviously touched a sore point with  these folks, because lots of them (including leadership hopeful Bob Rae, who quickly argued that he couldn’t possibly be “anti-Israel” because some of his best family members were, um, Jewish) flipped out.

 

Some of these Liberal Israel-supporters are still in high dugeon, and they have hit back with a quarter page “Open letter to Stephen Harper” in the Globe and Mail. This is what it says:

 

Your recent comments deliberately painting the Liberal Party as anti-Israel were untrue and disgraceful.

 

This is not a partisan issue. As Canada’s Prime Minister it was self-serving and offensive for you to attempt to make it one. You have failed the fundamental test of political leadership: to bridge rather than exploit divisions. This is nothing more than shameless politicking, and Canadians deserve better.

 

We the undersigned members of the Liberal Party, proudly support the State of Israel and take offence to your comments. We urge you to make a public apology.

 

Underneath are about 150 names, more than a few of them Jewish, and a disclaimer that their opinions “reflect the sentiment of many members of the Liberal Party of Canada" and that, given more time, they could have probably collected more names.

 

Well, big whoop. The truth, as they say, hurts like hell, especially when it comes from the mouth of the man the Liberals like to paint as the Canadian George Bush. And a few more names ain’t gonna make it hurt any less.

 

But let’s take a look at what these self-described Israel supporters have said, to see if their statements are valid:

 

1. Harper’s comments “were untrue and disgraceful”: False. Harper’s statement was verifiably true. The leadership candidates, to a man, were trying to straddle the fence between Israel and the Islamic Nazis, in the hopes of playing “honest broker” in any negotiations. They had thus invented a role for themselves and the country that doesn’t now and will likely never exist, and had taken a position that would have made Canada look weak and placatory in the face of the global jihad.

2. “This is not a partisan issue”: True. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue involving freedom and democracy everywhere. In that sense, this is a humanitarian issue. Were the Liberals, the NDP, and the Greens willing to take the same kind of unequivocal stand, I would applaud them just as loudly as I do the Conservatives. But I’m not going to hold my breath and wait for these parties to “get it.”

3. “As Canada’s Prime Minister, it was self-serving and offensive for you to attempt to make it one”: False. It was not “self-serving” to make this comment. In fact, it will probably cost him come election time because far more Canadians believe in the “honest-brokerage” nonsense than believe the Prime Minister should stand unequivocally for Israel. By definition it can’t be “self-serving” if it doesn’t serve one’s interests. If they can’t handle the truth—that there is a definite difference between how Conservatives and Liberals see this issue—and find it “offensive,” then maybe it’s time for them to switch parties.

4. “You have failed the fundamental test of leadership…”: False. Harper continues to exemplify what it is to be a true leader: that is, to lead and not to follow; to be willing to take a principled stance, even if it costs you at the ballot box, and even if makes a lot of people really mad. A good leader is necessarily divisive, because he (or she) has to make some hard choices—like, for example, affirming that “When it comes to dealing with a war between Israel and a terrorist organization, this country and this government cannot and will not be neutral.” A “divisive” statement if I’ve ever heard one, and all I can say is, thank God for that.

5. “Canadians deserve better”: False. Harper is as good as it gets, and is certainly a quantum leap beyond anything the Liberals have on offer.

As to whether Canadians “deserve” him—we’ll have to wait for the next election to see if that’s so (since people generally elect the leaders they deserve).

 

6.  “…make a public apology.” Sorry, kids. Ain’t gonna happen. Time to suck it up and move on.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:19 | link | comments

 

Moo’s biggest fan: In his latest Nazi-esque pronouncement, Holocaust-denier Moo Jihad—Adolf Hitler with a beard—has proclaimed yet again that Israel is a "counterfeit and illegitimate regime that cannot survive.”

 

A sentiment that will no doubt find favour with the like-minded Greg Felton, a writer on matters Mideastern who writes a twice-weekly column for the Canadian Arab News.

 

Here’s how the garrulous Greg rushed to Moo’s defence in a piece he wrote last December:

 

Over the past two months or so, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the newly elected president of Iran, has made his mark on the world stage…to overwhelmingly bad reviews.

Observations like: Israel should be wiped off the map; Israel should be moved to Europe; Europe supported the founding of Israel because of Holocaust guilt; and the Holocaust is a myth have been vehemently condemned.

Here’s Prime Minister Paul Martin’s diatribe:

“These statements are irresponsible, contrary to Canadian values…To cast doubt on the Holocaust and to suggest that Israel be ‘moved’ to Europe, the United States or Canada is completely unacceptable to the Canadian people.”

This is the same Paul Martin, by the way, who last month asserted: “Israel’s values are Canada’s values.” Good Gawd! What better proof is there that Canada’s Foreign Ministry is under Zionist occupation!

Anyway, while world leaders like Martin sputter away and pro-Israel typists like the Globe and Mail’s Mark MacKinnon do their best to stigmatize Ahmadinejad as a threat to world peace, let’s subject his “outrageous” statements to historical scrutiny:

1. “Israel should be wiped off the map.”

First of all, we should ask: “Should Israel be on the map in the first place?” Loyal readers of this space know the answer, but for the rest of you, here’s the Reader’s Digest version.

First, the Nov. 29, 1947, “Partition Plan” (UN General Assembly Resolution 181) was never ratified by the Security Council, and thus any division of Palestine into Jewish and non-Jewish areas was never legal. Moreover, a UNGA Resolution is only binding if all parties to it agree to be bound by its terms, which in this case did not happen.

Second, the General Assembly had no right under the UN Charter to take land from one people (Arabs) and give it to another people (European Jews).

Three, David ben Gurion declared Israeli statehood on May 15, 1948, even though the term of UNGA Res. 181 had not expired. Therefore, the creation of Israel was a land grab contrary to the UN and international law.

Four, Israel was admitted to the UN on May 11, 1949, only after it agreed to sign UNGA Res. 273, by which it recognized the right of all Palestinians to return to their homes and receive compensation.

Israel is a criminal entity that has never had a moral, legal or political right to exist. Score one for Ahmadinejad.

2. “Israel should be moved to Europe.”
The point is that since Europeans caused the Holocaust, Palestinians should not be made to suffer. He’s got a point. In fact, ben Gurion said much the same thing to Nahum Goldmann, future head of the World Jewish Congress:

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”

Why indeed? Since the EuroJews who created “Israel” came mostly from Slavic countries, it does seem logical to move the “Jewish State” to Ukraine, Poland, Russia or Byelorus.

That’s two for the plucky president!...

 

There’s more, but I’d advise you to down a couple of Dramanine before proceeding any further.

 

What can you say about someone who thinks that a) the Globe and Mail’s Mark “Malarkey” MacKinnon is a “pro-Israel typist” (the typist part I'll buy; the pro-Israel part is cracked) and b) that Moo Jihad is “plucky”?

 

That he’s seriously, even dangerously, deluded?

 

That he’s an egregious Jew-hater?

 

That he wouldn’t know real pluck if it snuck up from behind and bit him on the heiny?  

 

All of the above, I’d say.

 

I so look forward to reading Greg’s thumbs-up for Moo’s latest genocidal squawk (said scaramouche, with bitter sarcasm).

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:33 | link | comments (5)

 

Harper stands resolute: Stephen Harper spoke at a B’nai Brith gala dinner last night and once again affirmed his government’s solid support for Israel.

 

Here’s some of what he said:

 

• “Those who attacked Israel and those who sponsor such attacks don’t seek merely to gain some leverage, to alter some boundary or to right some wrong. They seek what they and those like them have always sought—the destruction of the Jewish people.”

• “Those who seek to destroy the Jews will, for the same reason, ultimately seek to destroy us all.”

• “We are fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. We have arrested alleged terrorists here in Toronto. Therefore, it is very straightforward. When it comes to dealing with a war between Israel and a terrorist organization, this country and this government cannot and will not be neutral.”

He also said this:

 

• “I must tell you that we must also seek a fair and just future for the Palestinian people. Our government believes in a two-state solution –in a secure democratic and prosperous Israel living beside a viable democratic and peaceful Palestine.”

This marks the first time the Prime Minister has come out in support of the “two-state solution” and both the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star see this as evidence that Harper is beginning to bow to political realities and “moderate” his previously inflexible stance.

 

But is it?

 

Oh, sure, Harper tossed them the bone of the “two-state solution”; that’s the least of what he could have given them. Because, reality being reality (and biting big time, one might add), at present, with Islamism in ascendance and the global jihad well along, the “two-state solution” is about as likely as, well, as likely as Muslims deciding to jettison all those problematic post-hejira passages in the Koran and hewing to the nicey-nicey messages of Mohammed’s Meccan period—the ones that were specifically abrogated, one by one, after he decamped to Medina.

 

In other words, not bloody likely.

 

I have no great regard for the intellectual and political acuity of my fellow Canadians, and I predict that, even with this sop to the “let’s mediate” crowd who comprise the bulk of the population, Harper is likely to be a one-termer.

 

I do, however, have immense regard for Stephen Harper, a man of principle and clarity of vision, who is unwilling to compromise his principles, even if it doesn’t sit well with most Canadians, and even if it ultimately results in his defeat.

 

In this, he is the polar opposite of Michael Ignatieff, a man who is willing to compromise his beliefs and whore himself to those who can get him elected.

 

It will be a tragic day—for Israel, and for all those who cherish freedom and who know that it can only be preserved through a show of strength, not weakness—when Harper falls and the Liberal retake the reigns of power.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:33 | link | comments

 

Harpoon’s veiled accusations: I had hoped that the recent shake-up at the Toronto Star would have shaken Harpoon Siddiqui from his twice-weekly bully pulpit. No such luck. There he still sits, as sleek and smug as ever, berating us “arrogant"—his word—infidels, er, non-Muslims, for daring to pass judgement on anything having to do with any aspect of the one true faith.

 

Today he hauls out the heavy guns—quotes from the Koran—to prove that there’s nothing inherently troubling about women, ahem, “choosing” to perambulate in cumbersome black pup tents. Muslim women, he says, have a multipicity of other head covering options and besides, Islam isn’t the only religion which calls for women to dress, what’s that word?, oh, yes—“modestly”:

 

As in most discussions on Muslim religious and cultural practices, the arguments often turn to what the Islamic position might be on any given issue. This presumes that there is one definitive religious ruling for every issue. Obviously, there isn't.

 

The point is illustrated by the controversy over the niqab, the all-enveloping women's garment that covers the face as well.

 

Muslims have been arguing about it, and even about the hijab, the head scarf, for more than 1,400 years — i.e., for as long as there has been Islam. They may continue unto eternity, as is their right.

 

The Qur'an does not instruct women to cover their faces. In fact, during the pilgrimage to the holy city of Mecca, they are required to uncover their faces.

 

The scripture only urges modesty, for both men and women:

 

Say to the believing men that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts ...

And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-covering over their bosoms. 24:30-31.

 

Scholars are divided over what's meant by "ornaments," or "adornments," the other word used in translations. Is that a reference to a woman's natural beauty or to her jewellery or other fashion accoutrements? And what's the meaning of "what appears thereof"?

Nobody is sure. No one can ever be, as with all divine texts.

 

There's also a debate over another pertinent Qur'anic verse:

 

O Prophet! Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments; this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus will not be molested. 33:59.

 

One interpretation — mostly by men, of course — has been that women must cover themselves head to toe.

 

But even under such a reading, the results have varied from culture to culture — the Taliban's all-enveloping burqa to the chador wrapped like a shawl over the body and the head, leaving the face exposed, as in Iran or parts of Pakistan.

 

Other relevant verses:

 

O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other women ...

Stay in your houses and do not display your finery like in the time of ignorance (the pre-Islamic period). 33:32-33

.

O you who believe! Do not enter the houses of the Prophet unless permission is given to you ... And when you ask of them (his wives) any goods, ask of them from behind a curtain; this is purer for your hearts and their hearts. 33:53.

 

The edicts are clearly addressed to the household of Muhammad, during whose lifetime many women outside his family did not wear the veil. Yet some theologians have held that the rule applies to all women, the argument being that emulating the Prophet's family can only be good.  

 

Gender separation is sometimes cultural, depending on the region, where the practice may not be confined to Muslims...

 

But the practice of swathing women in all-encompassing black sheets so as to expunge their personality and identify and to deny their very humanity, is confined to Muslims.

 

At least they allow for eye slits (or mesh) so these women won’t bump into things and stray into traffic.

 

My letter to the Star recalls a disturbing personal encounter with the niqab:

 

A few summers ago, I was traveling by bus to a doctor’s appointment in Scarborough. It was a blazingly hot day--I believe the Humidex was hovering somewhere in the high 40s—in a summer of blazingly hot days. Sitting across from me on the bus, which was not air-conditioned, sat a woman wearing a heavy black niqab and holding a small infant. The woman did not have a stroller or any other kind of baby carrier.

 

Several stops before mine, the woman get off the bus, with her baby in her arms, and made her way slowly and somewhat unsteadily down the side of the street. I was extremely disturbed, to say the least, not only because, in wearing a garment that was so clearly unsuited to the weather conditions, the woman was putting herself at serious risk of heat stroke, but because she was also risking the life of her baby.

 

Haroon Siddiqui can quote all the religious text he wants to bolster his case that the veil is a beautiful, meaningful clothing option, and that those who criticize it are arrogant bigots. All I know is that there was nothing beautiful or spiritual about a mother endangering two lives by wearing a garment like that in an August heat wave in Toronto.

 

If that make me a bigot, so be it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:35 | link | comments (3)

 

Good news/bad news: The good news is Hellzbollocks is telling the eminently suggestible Arabs under its sway that the UNFIL “occupation” is as bad as an Israeli one; that’s good news in the sense that at least they’re spreading the hatred around a bit and not focussing it all on the Jews.

 

The bad news is: ditto. From the Boston Globe (link via Martin Kramer):

 

The 6,000 international peacekeepers deployed in southern Lebanon are supposed to provide a buffer between Israel and Hezbollah fighters and help Lebanese villagers recover from the deadly war this summer.

 

Instead, the United Nations forces are increasingly the object of popular suspicion and anger, fueled by the alarmist proclamations of some Hezbollah leaders -- raising serious obstacles for a mission that depends heavily on Hezbollah's cooperation.

 

Israeli forces have all but completed their withdrawal from southern Lebanon after the monthlong war against Hezbollah fighters ended with a cease-fire on Aug. 14. Units from the beefed-up force of UN peacekeepers from 11 nations now crisscross the hilly terrain each day.

 

But in Beirut mosques, clerics preach that the UN troops are being used as a ``tool of Israel and the United States" to de-fang Hezbollah's ``resistance." Hezbollah supporters openly express their distrust of the UN force. They liken the peacekeeping troops to the Israeli occupation force that held southern Lebanon from 1982 to 2000.

 

``The next war won't be with Israel. It'll be against the United Nations," said a man who identified himself as a Hezbollah fighter and gave only his first name, Abdullah.

 

A burly man in a tight T-shirt, Abdullah stood with another Hezbollah member on the edge of the village of Chemaa and surveyed a camp under construction by Italian peacekeepers from a marine unit called the Lagunari.

 

``I see them as occupiers," the second fighter, Hassan, said.

 

The angry sentiment is stoked in part by conspiracy theories that the UN peacekeeping force, with its armored personnel carriers and warships patrolling the coast, is actually the vanguard of a renewed assault, this time by international troops, on Hezbollah…

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:29 | link | comments (2)

 

Amalek lives!: One of the reasons the EU is such an inhospitable place for Jews these days is likely due to the different lessons that Jews (at least, the observant ones) and EUnuchs derive from history. The Jews are a people, who, from time immemorial, have had a keen awareness of the existence of radical evil; how could they not, when so much of it has been directed specifically at them? To the EUnuchs, on the other hand, any awareness of evil must take a back seat to the overwhelming desire to keep a lid on the situation at all costs, lest it erupt into the kind of  horrific full-scale conflagrations that swept the Continent in two World Wars.

 

A French-born Rabbi ponders this dichotomy and what it means for the Jews of Europe—as well as Europe itself. From the Jerusalem Post:

I, a French-born rabbi, have been sitting in a small synagogue in Brussels, celebrating the High Holy Days. Almost 200 years ago to the day, Napoleon convened an assembly of Jewish leaders to help him open the door of citizenship to French Jews. It was the Enlightenment. The Jews of France prepared to receive equal rights and become full partners in the affairs of state. They could call Europe home.

Now I wonder if it was all an illusion. I and other Jews have begun moving toward the sad and frankly terrifying realization that ultimately we may have no home in Europe. It is not that I no longer identify as a European, or that somehow my sense of loyalty to the place of my birth has weakened. No, it is not me who has changed, but Europe. A conflict has emerged between this new Europe and my Jewishness, and I do not know how to resolve it.

MUCH HAS been said and written about the reemergence of anti-Semitism in Europe, but all the discussion hasn't made the phenomenon any more comprehensible to me. I suppose that after the Holocaust, no amount of anti-Semitic madness should surprise us. Yet, I am surprised - and frightened.

I am frightened not just by the anti-Semitism but by the collective European response of indifference and appeasement. Today, Europe worships compromise. It is "fanatical" in its non-violence. It is a Europe that, in the face of Islamist fanaticism, is ready to stay silent.

This is the heart of the matter. By refusing to truly battle the Islamist ideology, by refusing to firmly and consistently oppose the dangers of Iranian nuclear proliferation, by refusing to support Israel in its battle against the menace of Hizbullah, Europe is saying everything is "negotiable."

MY FAITH forces me to reflect on the eventuality of having to confront radical evil. It teaches that everything is not negotiable; not everything can be compromised.

When I read in Deuteronomy that it is my religious duty to "erase the memory of Amalek from beneath the heavens," I frankly find myself frightened by the violence of the passage. How can we accept a religious commandment that necessitates us, under certain circumstances, to annihilate the Other?

This dilemma is not only mine. There's a story about an Orthodox Jew who went to Martin Buber, the great German-Jewish philosopher of the 20th century, to tell him of his profound dilemma: "How is it," he said to Buber, "that when King Saul showed mercy in his struggle against Agog, the king of the Amalekites, he was chastised by the Prophet Samuel for showing himself capable of compassion and being ready to compromise?"

Buber remained silent for a few moments before answering. "I think that Samuel was mistaken about God's intentions."

BUT RABBI Emil Fackenheim, one of the great post-Shoah thinkers, strongly criticizes Buber's reply and tells us: "Through this answer, Buber disposes of the problem of absolute evil, because if Amalek is not its incarnation, then absolute evil does not exist. Here, we are therefore better served by tradition: Amalek continues to be recognized for what he is, but [also] as a symbol.

"On the level of Jewish values, to distinguish between Amalek and evil in general is always a difficult task. To an extreme extent, one risks seeing a replica of Amalek in every enemy, while in fact the rabbis recommend trying to make a friend of every enemy.

"However, our era has shown that the opposite danger is greater: that which consists in believing or dreaming that Amalek does not exist."…

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:10 | link | comments (1)

Tiny tyrant: Following the appearances of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his compadre, Hugo Chavez, at the UN last month, US UN Ambassador John Bolton dismissed their "cartoonish" antics. That got me to thinking. Which cartoon characters do these "populists" most resemble?

I decided that Moo's a definite Wile E. Coyote. And Hu? He's certainly no Speedy Gonzales--too beefy and splenetic to be the gentle Chihuahua. No, he's more like the Tasmanian Devil, freaking out with great frequncy, and spinning round and round for no good reason at all.

As for the third 'toonish leader who's drawing our attention at the moment, I've decided he's a dead ringer for this guy:

If you don't recognize this character--and, unless, like me you have an eight-year-old son, there's no reason why you should--his name is Plankton, and he's SpongeBob SquarePants's nemesis.

Plankton (full name, Sheldon J. Plankton) is a small, angry, ambitious blowhard--dressed in grey, you'll note--who causes all sorts of problems in Bikini Bottom, where for years he's been trying to put the Crab Shack out of business with his rival, but failed, fastfood joint, The Chum Bucket.

See any parallels with Dear Leader?

Persusing Plankton's Wikipedia entry--yes, he does merit his own page--I noticed some other eery similiarities:

- Plankton is said to be "1% evil, 99% hot gas," a ratio, which, reversed, might well describe Kim.

- "Plankton is a science wiz, and even knows how to induce thermonuclear fusion." Kim is also into nuclear physics, though he's more of a fission guy.

- "His main catch phrases include "I WIN! I WIN!"..."I wish to rule you," "Hehhehhehhaa!!" and others."

- "Sometimes Plankton is depressed because of his continual failure...He is also depressed because his short stature tends to make him ignored or squished."

Unless, that is, he can throw Bikini Bottom into a tizzy by setting off a nuclear device, and threatening to explode another.

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

 

Shoe singer: Wonder what’s been happening with Richard Reid, the British jihadi with the explosive sneakers? He’s settled nicely into his new life as an American inmate, and has been passing the time praying to Allah and putting new words to old Beatles’ songs.

 

Here’s one of them, his take on Paul McCartney's tribute to the Beach Boys, “Back in the U.S.S.R”:

 

Flyin' to Miami

AA Flight six three.

Man, I had a dreadful flight.

Nikes packed with semtex

Purchased just for me.

Couldn’t get them to ignite.

I’m here in the U.S. of A.

And I ain’t goin’ away-hay.

Here in the U.S. of A.

 

Wasn’t s’posed to be like this.

I shoulda blown.

Passengers they kept me down.

Reverted just for martyrdom,

‘Cause Mo’s the man.

Wanted to spread his renown.

I’m here in the U.S. of A.

And I ain’t goin’ away-hay.

Here in the U.S.

Here in the U.S.

Here in the U.S. of A.

 

Well, those virgins up in Paradise

Can treat a man real fine.

They know all kinds of sexy tricks,

They're always on my mah-mah-mah-mah

Mah-mah-mah-mah-mah-mah-mind.

 

Show me to my jail cell

Give me a Koran.

 Let me pray five times a day.

Three square meals, a jumpsuit,

My own private digs—

Who says the jihad doesn’t pay?

I’m here in the U.S. of A.

And I ain’t goin’ away-hay.

Here in the U.S.

Here in the U.S.

Here in the U.S. of A.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:04 | link | comments

 

Loons online: While googling “Jonathan Cook,” writer of the India Outlook piece, I came across this intriguing, Quebec-based site.

 

In case you wanted to know what’s on the minds on cutting-edge, tinfoil-hatted Canadians, here’s a piece that posits the idea that nefarious Conservative “Quisling,” Stephen Harper, is planning to turn over the keys to the Great White North to George W. Satan. And, ohmigod, Jack Layton is in on it! 

 

Sit back and enjoy the lunacy:

What would you think if it was announced that Canada was to cease as an independent country as early as 2007? Would it matter to you? Would you want to know who was responsible? What would you do?

Well, during the last week there have been announcements from at least two sources that Canada will soon cease to exist as a sovereign country.

The first notice I received was in the form of an Aug. 18 email from Connie Fogal, leader of the Canadian Action Party. The email includes a bulletin from the Fraser Institute entitled, "The Case for the Amero: The Institutions of a North American Monetary Union." A statement near the end of the bulletin reads, "On the day the North American Monetary Union is created--perhaps on January 1, 2010--Canada, the United States, and Mexico will replace their national currencies with the Amero. On that day, all American dollar notes and coins will be exchanged at the rate of one US dollar for one Amero."

Then much worst news came. On August 30 I received, indirectly from an email correspondent, an article from 'Vivelecanada.ca' entitled, "Timeline of the Progress Towards a North American Union". At the end of the timeline it projected that the North American Union would be created in 2007, three years before the projection of the Fraser Institute!

You might ask how we got into a situation where our country would be dismantled without our consent. Well, from World Net Daily we read that "the White House has established working groups, under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the Department of Commerce, to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership (also called the North American Union) signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005". This was done without authorization of the U.S. Congress or any level of government in all three countries as far as I am able to ascertain.

Where is all this heading?

We are heading into a One World neo-fascistic government and a One World economy where sovereign countries are being systematically destroyed. It's >called the New World Order and it's been in the works for decades. At the moment, George W. Bush is the figurehead leader in front of a neo-conservative (fascist) ruling elite which is the driving force behind the NOW agenda. It is an agenda by and for the ruling elites. The middle class, the only collective power that has the strength to fight back against this agenda, if they could ever unite in purpose, is being systematically destroyed. If the trend continues, the vast majority of workers will be driven down to the lowest level.

Don't look to Prime Minister Stephen Harper to "Stand up for Canada" as the they indicated during the last federal election campaign; and fight against the take-over of Canada via a U.S. imperial "North American Union and to save our sovereignty. He is solidly behind President George W. Bush. It is even said that NDP leader, Jack Layton, has formed an alliance with Stephen Harper - see Jacques Lemieux's article in The Canadian in which he makes his case and concludes, "A working alliance between Mr. Harper and Mr. Layton is the only thing that can explain why Mr. Layton has chosen not to apparently rally Canadians against the clearly reactionary agenda of Mr. Harper."...

Get a grip there, fella. I agree that we’re heading into a One World fascist government--but not the kind you're worried about. Here, I’ll give you a hint: “I submit.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:06 | link | comments (2)

 

Opposing views: Two views of the collision course on which Israel and Iran seem to be set. In the first, from periodical Outlook India, Israel—you know, that tiny entity that Moo Jihad, host of the ever-popular World Without Zionism conference, has promised to wipe off the map—is seen as the needlessly belligerent party:

The Middle East, and possibly the world, stands on the brink of a terrible conflagration as Israel and the United States prepare to deal with Iran's alleged ambition to acquire nuclear weapons. Israel, it becomes clearer by the day, wants to use its air force to deliver a knock-out blow against Tehran. It is not known whether it will use conventional weapons or a nuclear warhead in such a strike.

At this potentially cataclysmic moment in global politics, it is good to see that one of the world's leading broadcasters, the BBC, decided this week that it should air a documentary entitled "Will Israel bomb Iran?". It is the question on everyone's lips and doubtless, with the imprimatur of the BBC, the programme will sell around the world.

The good news ends there, however. Because the programme addresses none of the important issues raised by Israel's increasingly belligerent posture towards Tehran.

It does not explain that, without a United Nations resolution, a military strike on Iran to destroy its nuclear research programme would be a gross violation of international law.

It does not clarify that Israel's own large nuclear arsenal was secretly developed and is entirely unmonitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or that it is perceived as a threat by its neighbours and may be fuelling a Middle East arms race.

Nor does the programme detail the consequences of an Israeli strike on instability and violence across the Middle East, including in Iraq, where British and American troops are stationed as an occupying force.

And there is no consideration of how in the longer term unilateral action by Israel, with implicit sanction by the international community, is certain to provoke a steep rise in global jihad against the West.

Instead the programme dedicates 40 minutes to footage of Top Gun heroics by the Israeli air force, and the recollections of pilots who carried out a similar, "daring" attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor in the early 1980s; menacing long shots of Iran's nuclear research facilities; and interviews with three former Israeli prime ministers, a former Israeli military chief of staff, various officials in Israeli military intelligence and a professor who designs Israel's military arsenal.

All of them speak with one voice: Israel, they claim, is about to be "wiped out" by Iranian nuclear weapons and must defend itself "whatever the consequences".

They are given plenty of airtime to repeat unchallenged well-worn propaganda Israel has been peddling through its own media, and which has been credulously amplified by the international media: that Iran is led by a fanatical anti-Semite who, like Adolf Hitler, believes he can commit genocide against the Jewish people, this time through a nuclear holocaust.

Other Israeli misinformation, none of it believed by serious analysts, is also uncritically spread by the film-makers: that Hizbullah in Lebanon is a puppet of Iran, waiting to aid its master in Israel's destruction; that Iran is only months away from creating nuclear weapons, a "point of no return", as the programme warns; and that a "fragile" Israel is under constant threat of annihilation from all its Arab neighbours.

But the programme's unequivocal main theme—echoing precisely Israel's own agenda—is that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is hellbent on destroying Israel. The film-makers treat seriously, bordering on reverentially, preposterous comments from Israel's leaders about this threat…

Yeah, everyone knows he’s pulling our leg about all that genocide and Mahdi stuff.

 

As a corrective, here’s one from The American Thinker site:

Mahmood Ahmadinejad is an extremely shrewd customer, who is perfectly capable of provoking an attack by Israel and/or the United States in ways that play to his strengths and their weaknesses. There is reason to think he may be doing exactly that.

In the Hezb’allah War, Israel pulled its punches. It’s perfectly conceivable that Ahmadinejad pulled his also, by not making use of his full missile capacity located in Lebanon. Hezb’allah’s rockets are Tehran’s counterpunch against an Israeli attack on its home territory. That counterpunch might be a great deal more powerful than Israel now believes, based on its limited experience in the Hezbo War. All Tehran had to do was forbid Hezb’allah from firing its most formidable rockets, or smuggle in more powerful ones after the Hezbo War.

Tehran is constantly parading fake “new” weapons, like Hitler’s “ultimate weapons” that he kept on threatening at the end of WWII.  Given another five years, Hitler would have had usable jet planes, missiles, and early nukes. So it wasn’t all bluff. But Tehran’s  parading of obviously fake weapons may be designed to give the impression that it is all bluff.

Threatening nukes is partly a provocative display, as is Holocaust denial. Ahmadinejad may not really believe his provocative speeches and actions on this score. It may be psychological warfare, designed to trigger an Israeli attack to forestall his nukes. Once he is attacked, he can pretend injured innocence and retaliate in force, with the cooperation of Syria and his proxies in Iraq and Lebanon, and perhaps elsewhere in the world. This guy is one nasty customer...

To say the least.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:42 | link | comments

 

Oops!: Las Vegas developer/tycoon Steve Wynn accidentally poked a hole in one of his paintings, a Picasso he was about sell for $139 million (link via Drudge).

 

Don’t you just hate when that happens?

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:06 | link | comments (2)

 

No keys; no olives: Here’s a story you’ll never hear Margaret “the Voice” Evans report on the Ceeb. By Caroline Glick in JWR:

In Acre, Israel, this past weekend, what was supposed to be a joyous celebration of Simchas Torah degenerated into a near pogrom when for two nights an Arab mob physically attacked Jewish worshipers with crowbars, rocks and firecrackers, and verbally assaulted them with anti-Israel and anti-Semitic slurs. The worshipers were students from the hesder yeshiva Ruah Tzfonit (Northern Wind) located in the mixed Jewish-Arab Wolfson neighborhood.

According to Rabbi Yossi Stern, who leads the yeshiva, "Each year we dance in the city's neighborhoods. On Friday, as we walked to where we planned to celebrate, the Arabs attacked us with rocks and firecrackers. We ignored them and kept walking to our destination."

Saturday night the attacks spun out of control. "We danced in a different part of town on Saturday night. As we returned to the yeshiva, the attacks began."

A group of some 100 Arabs attacked 60 or so yeshiva students with crowbars, firecrackers, rocks and dry blows. One of the students, a soldier on leave from the IDF for the holiday, was carrying his M-16 rifle. "He was being hit and his friends were being hit, and the Arabs kept touching his rifle. He felt that his life was in danger," Stern explains, "and so he shot a warning shot in the air to get them away from him."

According to Rabbi Stern, in the weeks that preceded the holiday, there was a marked rise in Islamic incitement of the Arabs in the neighborhood. "It was clear that there was organized incitement going on." Islamic flags were unfurled on homes and businesses. Posters of the mosques on the Temple Mount were hung throughout the neighborhood. Then, for the first time in the neighborhood's history, an Arab resident placed an enormous loudspeaker on his roof and began blasting the muezzin's calls to prayer five times a day.

Concerned about the possibility that the increased Arab hostility could lead to violence, Rabbi Stern contacted the police before the holiday and requested a police escort for the students during the holiday. The escort never arrived.

Once the soldier fired his rifle the situation degenerated still further. As the students fought their way to their yeshiva and holed up in their study hall, the Arabs surrounded the building and refused to leave. At this point, a large police contingent arrived at the scene. But, according to Rabbi Stern, the main thing that interested them was the shooting incident. The police seized the soldier's rifle and interrogated him for several hours before releasing him - without his weapon - to military police for further investigation…

There are no words.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:43 | link | comments

 

Aaronovitch feeds the crocodile: While chiding the Muslim Council of Great Britain—official mouthpiece of U.K. true believers—for refusing to participate in Holocaust remembrance ceremonies, Times columnist David Aaronovitch says, all in all, the situation’s not as dire as the gloomy Gusses (like Roy Liddle and Melanie Phillips) who continue to forecast a falling British sky. All would be well, says Aaronovitch, if people would only forget about divisive issues—like the veil—and sit down together for a polite chat:

…I not only think that Jeremiahs such as Liddle, and Melanie Phillips, of the Mail, are wrong, I think their approach could lead us into utter disaster. For a fortnight now we have been discussing veils — so just how many veil-wearing teachers are there? Ten? Five? Just Ms Azmi? What’s the problem for the rest of us once we have (rightly) taken the decision that she cannot teach while looking like a Dalek? Why should a Muslim cab- driver who is (also rightly) being sued for not carrying a guide dog make it to the banner front page of the London Evening Standard? Or a single Muslim chemist who refused to prescribe a “morning-after” Pill get half a page in the Telegraph?

In each case where a minister or an opposition spokesthing has given an opinion on matters Muslim in the past two weeks, I have agreed with much of what they have said, while wishing that they had spread the news more evenly over the national agenda. The interventions in the space of a fortnight, from at least four members of the Government and David Davis, have helped to create an atmosphere of assault. Mr Davis has said, for example, that “there is a growing feeling that the Muslim community is excessively sensitive to criticism”. Maybe, but if everyone says it every day for a week, the sensitivity becomes justified. Try it at home if you don’t believe me.

Put this together with the headlines and TV stories and, sure enough, we get the early signs of a physical response. There’s the woman on Merseyside who had her veil snatched from her; the Glasgow imam who was assaulted at an Islamic centre; the Falkirk mosque that was firebombed.

And the process of polarisation speeds up. The Muslim organisations feel under greater threat and the language turns increasingly intemperate.

Those youngsters who might well have been persuadable that they have a big stake in Britain become convinced that this is no country for brown men. The instincts of the sectarian — to emphasise difference, not similarity — begin to win out.

Here’s the question that each non-Muslim has to answer clearly. Are they — Muslims — ours? Are they in? Hijab, niqab or kebab, I say they are.

They are, even if they are anti-gay or backward on women’s rights. So, until very recently, was most of the British Establishment and almost all the churches. They are in, even if they hate my politics, excoriate Zionism, call me degenerate, loathe Darwin and want to build absurdly oversized mosques instead of social housing. To all of that we can say: “Very well, let the argument between fellow citizens commence.” All they — or we — have to do is obey the law. And in that regard the veil-wearer is far more a proper Briton than the veil-snatcher…

Got that? If so, could you please explain it to me, because I read the above paragraph three times, and I still can’t make head nor tails of it.

But wait, there’s more:

When I next blow on my birthday candles I shall wish that a million people would read Ian Buruma’s new book, Murder in Amsterdam, dealing with the killing of the Dutch controversialist Theo van Gogh by an Islamist terrorist. Exploring the impact of Muslim immigration into the Netherlands, Buruma concludes on the absolute necessity of making distinctions between who is an enemy and who needn’t be. It will be the Muslims’ choice, but, Buruma writes: “Such a choice depends partly on the way they are treated by the country in which they were born. And this depends on another choice: whether to accept an orthodox Muslim as a fellow free citizen of a European country.

I do, when I remember…

So now Theo van Gogh is a “Dutch controversialist.” Is that how the EUnuchs are describing those who dare to eschew dhimmitude and embrace free speech?

Pardonez-moi while I barf.

And as if the above weren’t bad enough, Aaronovitch wraps things up with this trenchant observation:

Of course there is an alternative that we are sizing up right now: we could march on towards a clash of civilisations, a Kulturkampf. But we won’t like it. “Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?” asked Goebbels. “Ja!” they replied. “Nun,” said Goebbels, “Volk, steh auf und Sturm brich los!” (Now, Nation, arise and let the storm break loose!) And it did.

Is it just me, or is Aaronovitch suggesting that the U.K. is like Nazi Germany, and is about to unleash a culture war? I guess that fits in with all the talk in the U.K. about the Jews being the new Nazis and the Muslims being the new Jews. And isn’t it, oh, I dunno, bizarre for him to quote Goebbels—Goebbels!—when even now ardent, home-grown Islamo-fascists, for whom the Nazis serve as an inspiration, are likely plotting the next big kaboom on British soil?

Does Aaronovitch seriously think it can all be resolved with a little tea and sympathy? If so, I’m sure it will come as a great surprise to him when, on that fateful day (should it come) one of the subjects of his compassion decides to liberate his head from his torso for being—what’s that expression they like using so much?—oh, yeah, a Jewish ape (or, alternatively, pig).

Update: Roy Liddle in The Spectator on the veil debate. Like me, he believes that the veil itself isn’t the problem; it’s a symbol of a much larger problem, one that Western societies prefer not to confront:

…And in attacking those who wear the full veil — rather than countering the bitter, misogynist ideology which insists that women disport themselves with modesty lest they incite the uncontrollable urges of men — we do ourselves down. In our confusion, faced with a coherent, intractable and antithetical ideology, we flail at the wrong targets and leave ourselves open to the one charge which we should reasonably be able to level at the Islamists, without being gainsaid: intolerance.

 

The veil — whether a gentle covering of the hair with an agreeably patterned silk scarf or the full burka — matters only in that it is a symbol of female subjugation. The varying extremes to which Muslim women will (‘voluntarily’) go in order to comply with their religious strictures does not matter one jot; what matters is the central tenet, that women need to dress this way because otherwise they will be culpable for the lascivious attentions of men. That they are thus guilty of contributory negligence. And that, further, women have a clearly defined and specific role in life, which is to support their menfolk and do as they are bidden…

Update: And here’s Melanie Phillips on the Aaronovitch piece:

…Aaronovitch writes many things nowadays with which I tend to agree, but on this matter he could not be more wrong. Here’s why. First, I have said time and again that truly moderate Muslims, who are excessively brave, need far more support and encouragement than they receive, and that it is extremely important not to demonise Muslims in general. Of course, physical attacks on Muslims are dreadful and should be prevented. But Islamic extremism is promoting violence or aggression towards non-Muslims, and it is the failure to deal with this that is causing anti-Muslim feeling. The claim that the belated ministerial attempt to address this problem is creating an ‘an atmosphere of assault’ is hard to stomach. It is British Jews, after all, who are running a gauntlet of aggression and have to be guarded at every single synagogue service or communal event.

Second, his basic argument that unless we are nice to Muslims we will drive moderate individuals into the arms of extremists is badly flawed. The recent Pew survey showed that, of all the countries of Europe, the British were the nicest to their Muslim minority — and yet British Muslims hated their host country, the west and the Jews more than Muslims anywhere else. Moral: Islamic extremism is not reduced by the emollience of the host nation, and it may even be exacerbated by it. That is because it feeds not on strength, but on weakness: not on hostility, but on a collapse of cultural and religious nerve.

Furthermore, if Muslims can so easily be tipped into violence, as Aaronovitch suggests, they can’t really be moderate in the first place. And the suggestion that their excessive sensitivity to criticism is caused by the excessive bombardment of said criticism ignores the fact that this excessive sensitivity was on display right from the immediate aftermath of 9/11, when the mere use of the term ‘Islamic terrorism’ produced instantaneous accusations of ‘Islamophobia’ — a response that has occurred after every single atrocity or outrageous statement by community representatives.

Third, Aaronovitch fails to grasp the most crucial point of all. This is that the veil is a political statement of cultural and religious hostility to British society and western values. As I have said before, it is not a symbol of piety — for which the theology is, in any event, highly dubious — but a political weapon of the jihad. It symbolises the belief that Islamic values must take precedence over the secular state. The wearer thus effectively declares her support for Islamising the society. The more prominent the veil becomes on the streets, the more women wear it, either because they are forced or intimidated into doing so or because the enthusiasm spreads itself. Either way it strengthens the forces of the jihad, intimidates and demoralises the host community and helps spread extremism still more widely. It is the veil, and not the criticism of it, that pushes more Muslims into extremism…

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:01 | link | comments

 

"Super" Star: There’s been a major shake-up at the Toronto Star. Publisher Michael Goldbloom and editor-in-chief Giles Gherson are out. They’re being replaced by Jagoda Pike, most recently, the publisher of the Hamilton Spectator, and the unfortunately named Fred Kuntz, who’s been involved with a group of papers in south-western Ontario.

 

Of course, the announcement was phrased so as to cause minimum embarrassment to Goldbloom and Gherson, who’ve only been there a few years. (Not that such efforts ever work.) But word is that they were turfed out because they failed to stem the Star’s haemorrhage of profits and readers. (The Star remains the Canadian newspaper with the highest circulation—which goes to show how difficult it is for even a paper with that kind of readership to make a buck.)

 

Don’t worry, though. The Star intends to be the same clueless, leftist, squishy-headed rag it’s always been:

 

…Torstar's president said the Star's new leadership team is dedicated to preserving the newspaper's cherished Atkinson Principles, which promote social justice and progressive, small-l liberalism.

 

"The Star has a distinctive, progressive voice which has informed Toronto and Canada for over a hundred years, and will continue to," Prichard said.

 

"Jagoda Pike and Fred Kuntz are deeply committed to the Toronto Star as a great metropolitan newspaper, observing and promoting the Atkinson Principles, which have guided us for a hundred years. Our readers will continue to receive an excellent newspaper, focused on Toronto, constantly striving for a greater Toronto and a greater Canada."…

 

You mean the Star'll keep fighting for truth, justice and the Canadian way?

 

Oh, goody.

 

Update: In case you were wondering, the Atkinson Principles are nothing at all like the Atkins Diet.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:26 | link | comments (4)

 

Olive oily: You’ll have to forgive me. I heard earlier this morning on Ceeb radio that some dastardly settlers in the West Bank were trying to keep some poor, oppressed Palestinians from their fruit-laden olive trees and, well, I’m feeling all ferklempt—and outraged by the obvious injustice.

 

Luckily, as Ceeb sob sister Margaret Evans reported, there are some good Jews out there. A bunch of Israelis who belong to a group called “Rabbis for Human Rights” (catchy moniker, no?) rode to the rescue and prevented the awful settlers and wretched soldiers from laying claim to the unpicked Palestinian olives (no doubt so that the pitiful Palestinians could pick a peck and pickle ‘em).

 

Margaret spoke in “the voice”—the soft one fraught with barely containable emotion that she trots out whenever she talks about saintly Arabs and how the nasty Jews have done ‘em wrong.

 

I’m so glad the Ceeb provides this type of much-needed insight into the most pertinent issues in the region, and has decided to focus on those really crucial matters—like stolen olives and useless keys—instead of boring us with blather about jihad, Islamic fascism, and how the majority of Palestinians want to reclaim their territory, i.e. all of Israel, for Dar al Islam.

 

Who wants to hear about that stuff?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:57 | link | comments (2)

 

Wrong venue: Hugo Chavez struck out yesterday at the UN yesterday when he tried to make the case for Venezuela acquiring a (temporary) seat at the Security Council.

 

Should have given the UN a pass and visited with these other clowns: He’d have fit right in.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:31 | link | comments

 

Novelist takes a Baath: A news snippet in the THIS JUST IN section of the Globe and Mail’s review section (sorry, no link):

 

Damascus. Renowned Syrian writer Colette Khoury, who shocked the Arab world in 1959 novel about love, has been named “literary adviser” to President Bashar al-Assad, an official said yesterday.

 

Author of at least 20 novels since 1957, 75-year-old Khoury is best known for her book Ayyam Maahou (The Days With Him), in which she wrote openly about love—the first time a woman had come out so boldly on a subject considered taboo in Syrian society.

 

More recently, she has become known for her articles in the Arab media, including Al-Baath, the newspaper of the ruling party in Syria, in which she tackles political and literary issues…AFP

 

The snippet doesn’t mention it, but here’s one of the political issues the new literary adviser recently tackled. From WorldNet Daily, August 11:

TEL AVIV – On the heels of a recent WorldNetDaily article reporting Palestinian newspapers have been using racist rhetoric to describe Condoleezza Rice, Syrian television has aired a program in which the secretary of state's "ugliness" was the topic.

Syrian author Colette Khuri, being interviewed last week on her country's main state-controlled television network, was asked to comment on recent statements by Rice referring to the "birth pangs" of a new Middle East.

According to a translation provided by he Middle East Media Research Institute, Khuri replied, "If I were asked, as an author, to portray malice, I would sketch an image of Condoleezza Rice. This woman is grim, both in the way she looks and in the way she is inside. I don't know why she is always malicious from within."

The interviewer chimed in, "In any case, her external ugliness reflects her internal ugliness."

Khuri responded, "It's the other way around, my dear. It is the internal ugliness that is reflected in one's face. A woman can only be ugly from the inside. Any woman can be beautiful, if she is beautiful from within. It is the internal ugliness of this woman (Rice) that reflects her looks."

Sounds like a charming, erudite woman.

 

It looks like Baby Boy Assad made an excellent choice. I’m sure Ms. Khouri will offer up exactly the kind of “literary” advice that a tyrant who presides over a society where “love” is taboo but Holocaust denial is de rigeur wants to hear—that is, if she knows what’s good for her (which, clearly, it seems she does).

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:19 | link | comments

 

Free love: Did you know that “Islam is the only monotheism that advocates free and spontaneous access to sexuality”?

 

No? Me neither.

 

I’m sure that comes as news to women who’ve had their sexuality expunged by female genital mutilation or whose fathers/brothers/uncles lay claim to their vaginas and have murdered them in the name of preserving family “honour.”

 

I guess what the “expert” really means is that Islam advocates free and spontaneous access to sexuality for those members of the faith lucky enough to have been born with, er, a member.

 

As an aside, I watched this YouTube video of the remarkable, the intrepid, Walid Shoebat this morning. In an interview last August on Fox, he was asked if, when he was waging jihad, he expected to be rewarded with 72 virgins up in Paradise. Shoebat explained that, actually, what martyrs are promised are "72 mansions" with a bed in each one, and on each bed there are 72 virgins.

 

In other words, it looks like we've been grossly under-calculating the virgins-per-martyr ratio.

Update: “Dirty” math problem: If all the virgins in Paradise were laid end to end, how many happy martyrs would there be?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:01 | link | comments (2)

Excess baggage: My favourite political cartoonists nail it--again:

Caroline Glick, my favourite political commentator, sees the above spectacle as a sign that ties between Israel and the U.S. are weakening—and she says a “tiny minority” of Jews on the Left are all but ensuring an eventual rift. From JWR:

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's speech at the American Task Force for Palestine's inaugural dinner in Washington on Wednesday evening was but the latest sign that America's alliance with Israel is weakening.

Rice's statement that "there could be no greater legacy for America than to help to bring into being a Palestinian state," just about says it all. The secretary of state of a president who was once friendlier to Israel than any of his predecessors now claims that the establishment of a state for a people who have distinguished themselves as the most overtly pro-jihad, terrorist society in the world would be the greatest thing American could ever do.

Unfortunately, unless concerted steps are taken by the Israeli government, Israeli citizens, and the American Jewish community, the downward trend in relations with the US will only get worse. Perhaps most upsetting is the central role that a tiny minority of American Jews has played in souring ties between Jerusalem and Washington. That minority has undermined support for Israel in the Democratic Party and now seeks to undermine Israel's general position in the US.

The Democratic Party's sharp turn leftward in recent years has been a major factor in weakening the US-Israel alliance. The ideological transformation of the party is the fruit of a collaborative effort by leading financiers, radical-leftist ideologues and political activists. Together these forces built organizations that dictate the party's agenda; finance the campaigns of politicians who embrace this agenda; and work to defeat conservative Republicans and Democrats who disagree with their agenda…

I’m sure I don’t have to state the obvious, but I can’t help myself: If the U.S. withdraws its support, the Jewish state is toast.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:42 | link | comments (2)

 

Religious profiling in the U.K.: As if Jack Straw’s unveiled complaints about the veil haven’t kicked up enough of a fuss, the Guardian is reporting a possible new flash point: British university professors have been asked to take note of—and report back to the authorities—suspicious behaviour on the part of one group of students. From the Jerusalem Post:

Senior university personnel throughout Britain have been asked to spy on Muslim or Asian students who are suspected of being involved in terrorist activities, the British newspaper, The Guardian reported Monday morning.

According to the report, police are enlisting university professors to help locate potential suspects who might be supporting terror. From this point on, professors and other senior staff will be asked to look out for suspicious activity by their Muslim and Asian students.

"It sounds to me to be potentially the widest infringement of the rights of Muslim students that there ever has been in this country. It is clearly targeting Muslim students and treating them to a higher level of suspicion and scrutiny. It sounds like you're guilty until you're proven innocent," Wakkas Khan, president of the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, told The Guardian.

The article also reports that the British government is convinced that a Muslim terrorist network is currently being established within college campuses…

I don’t think Wakkas Khan has anything to worry about. Given the political slant of most “senior university personnel,” they are far more likely to enable, or at least ignore, any efforts to subvert British society through violent means.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:36 | link | comments

 

An Olympian conflict: Looks like the Londonistan Olympics have run into a hitch: some nincompoops have scheduled it to coincide with Ramadan.

 

This is a particularly nettlesome issue since, as this story in the the National Post affirms, the Olympics were supposed to effect a rapprochement between the Brits and their restive Muslim population. The Brits are even planning to build a humungous mosque, the world’s largest, to loom in the background when TV cameras hone in on the Olympic village. That way, viewers around the world can see for themselves the power and influence the one true faith wields in the U.K. (Londonistan is already home to a centre for inter-religious understanding built in the shape of a giant Arabian tent—a symbolism which, like the Olympics mosque, seems to be lost on the Brits.)

 

Now, with the whole Ramadan mix-up, the aggrieved and their enablers are once again crying foul and pointing to Muslim victimization at majority hands—and the timing couldn’t be worse:

The Ramadan dilemma comes on the heels of controversial comments by Jack Straw, the ruling Labour party's leader of the House of Commons, that he finds veils on Muslim women to be "a visible statement of separation and of difference."

India Knight, a prominent Sunday Times columnist, countered yesterday that, in Britain, "Muslims are the new Jews."

Riiiight. Unfortunately, the old Jews, the real ones, are still getting beaten up and spat upon in vicious anti-Semitic attacks being perpetrated by, um, the new Jews—and the larger society seems unwilling to do much of anything about it.

 

But that’s par for the course, I guess, in the land of ginormous mosques and oblivious infidels.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:00 | link | comments

 

Expert opinion: Islam, we are told, is the fastest growing religion in the world, and a portion of new adherents are Western “reverts” who grew up in a different faith, or with no religion. And for some reason that continues to confound the “experts,” a portion of these “reverts” revert precisely so they can join the jihad.

 

What gives?

 

Well, according to French expert, Olivier Roy (quoted in an article in the Toronto Star) it’s easily explained: in another era, these restless lads, thirsting for spiritual connection and burning with the righteous indignation of youths in an imperfect world, would have been channelled into the freakazoidal (my word) far left:

 

Olivier Roy, a Paris-based authority on Islamic radicalism, says the common denominator among violent Islamists — converts and non-converts — is that all are "born again." They broke with the religion of their parents to fervently embrace a new one, or a more fundamentalist stream of Islam, such as Saudi Arabian-based Wahhabism. He describes converts turning to jihad as following the well-established path of European rebels embracing an extremist cause.

 

"The people going to Al Qaeda today, a good part of them would have gone to the extreme left 30 years ago," said Roy, research director at the French National Centre for Scientific Research.

 

But according to American expert Marc Sagerman, the “reversion” has more to do with group dynamics:

 

"If you look at the history of converts, they usually converted because their friends became Muslims, and when the group radicalized they radicalized along with the group," said Sageman, who studied the profile of 172 known terrorists.

 

The word in the mainstream media is that recruitment to the jihadi cause is sparked by scenes of Western encroachment on Islamic soil, but Sagerman says that, in Europe at least, reverting has less to do with Western foreign policy than it does with Muslim “marginalization”:

 

Sageman cautions against seeing Western foreign policy as the determining factor on the road to terror. U.S. Muslims see the same images of destruction in Iraq as those in Europe, yet Europe produces far more Islamists prepared to commit acts of terror…U.S. Muslims are less marginalized, socially and economically, than those in Europe.

  

Roy and Seligman also differ on the best way to remedy the situation. Sagerman calls for integration, which seems to have worked so well in America. Roy, conversely,

 

calls for a new "social contract," part of which would see Islam as a European religion rather than a foreign import. It won't stop European-based terrorism, he says, but violent extremists will have a much harder time recruiting converts and non-converts to their cause.

 

They will?

 

For an expert in Islamic radicalism, Roy seems to be a bit foggy about the jihadis’ mindset. More likely, in espying how successfully Islam has taken root in Europe, they would be even more emboldened to prevail over the infidels, and would have an even easier time finding recruits attracted to the winning side.

 

You see, Olivier, jihadis aren’t interesting in sharing power. They want is all for themselves.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:37 | link | comments

 

Batter up: Q: What do the Liberal leadership race and the World Series have in common? A: They’ve both had their share of strike outs.

 

First at the plate, Joe “the Zombie” Volpe, who got caught trying to foist Liberal party memberships on the exanimate:

 

Of Joe Volpe it’s often been said

He’s rushing to get ahead.

But his stature’s decreased

Because the deceased

Have stubbornly, inconveniently stayed dead.

 

Next up, Michael “the Brain” Ignatieff, who, despite his much-vaunted smarts, can’t seem to keep his pedal extremities out of his mouth:

 

A gaffe-prone contender, Ignatieff,

Was given a turn up at batieff.

Though he tried to resist

He swung and he missed,

And all his supporters cried “drat!”-ieff

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:29 | link | comments

 

Seething in the U.K.: I told you to expect a Seeth-a-thon after that second British Cabinet minister spoke out about Muslim behaviour. And, also as expected, the seethers have hit all the hot buttons, from “Islamophobia” to “we’re the victims” to that terrifying “far-right neocon agenda” we’ve heard so much about. From the Sunday Times (Online):

 

MUSLIM leaders have accused ministers of “stigmatising an entire community” and launching a “relentless barrage” against Islamic Britons.

Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), has written to Ruth Kelly, the communities secretary, accusing her of pandering to an “Islamophobic” agenda.

The letter follows Kelly’s announcement last week that the government was cutting funding and official ties with the MCB, which until now has been the main body representing British Muslims. One senior Muslim source said: “The government is pandering to a far-right neocon agenda which is promoting Islamophobia.”

The MCB says in the letter: “In recent months there has been a drip-feed of ministerial statements stigmatising an entire community. We have seen ministers’ tours and even legislation being proposed on the premise that ‘mosques are a problem’.”

The council is understood to be particularly concerned by comments by Jack Straw, the Commons leader, about Muslim women wearing full veils.

They are also concerned by the level of stop-and-search by police of Muslim suspects.

According to a poll by Yougov, Straw’s popularity has jumped 15 percentage points since he made his comments.

So Jack Straw is now more popular than ever because he dared to take a stand.

 

That’s the most encouraging news about the U.K. I’ve read in quite some time.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:23 | link | comments

 

The Crackpot and Jong-Il: Whether or not they’re actually brothers in arms, there’s one thing that will likely keep Moo and Kim together: their mutual totalitarian loathing for America.

 

And here’s how the two tyrants might vocalize their shared antipathy. (Just don’t tell them the song was written by a Jew):

 

Hate.

Hate will keep us together.

In all kinds of weather.

We’ll be bound by one certainty:

Our enmity.

Won’t stop,

Hatin’ Great Satan.

Won’t stop,

We’ll incinerate him.

Look in our hearts and let hate

Keep us together.

Forever.

 

We’ll,

We’ll go build some nukes now.

First tests ain’t no flukes now.

Just you wait as we hatch our plots.

Then we’ll call the shots.

Won’t stop,

Till you’re on the floor now,

Stop, you can’t do much more now.

Look in our eyes and see hate

Keeps us together.

 

Short and ugly as sin.

For beauty, we’re winnin’ no prize.

Some dumbkopfs want to talk to us

And work out a compromise.

They’re nuts,

They’re nuts,

They’re nuts.

And we’ll be there to push the button.

Turn you into mutton.

Wipe you off the face of the world

As our flag’s unfurled.

Won’t stop,

We loathe and revile you.

Won’t stop,

Until we annihle' you.

Look in our eyes and see hate

Keeps us together...

 

(La, la da da da, the Nazi's are back, la da da da, the Nazi's are back...)

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:07 | link | comments

 

Women in black: Harpoon Siddiqui thinks it’s awfully hypocritical, not to mention “obscene,” of Westerners like Jack Straw to--get this--“hound powerless Muslim women” at a time when--get this as well--the “Muslim world is under seige.”

 

“Seige,” apparently, is Harpoon-speak for what occurs when infidels fight and die for the sake of implanting democracy (of a sort) in Muslim lands.

 

From, where else?, the Sunday (Toronto) Star:

 

Confusion and hypocrisy continue to mark many aspects of the widening debate on Muslims, particularly those living as minorities in the West.

 

Jack Straw, former British foreign secretary and now House leader of the ruling Labour party, has spoken out against the niqab, the all-enveloping women's garment that also covers the face. Imposed on Afghan women by the tyrannical Taliban (1996-2003), the outfit is voluntarily worn by some women in the West.

 

Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown thought that Straw was just peachy in preaching against the outfit.

 

"It is important," said the prime minister, "that these issues be raised and discussed."

Sure. Let's.

 

Straw said niqabi women make him feel "uncomfortable." But there is no shortage of bigots who feel similarly "uncomfortable" in the presence of Jews, Hindus, Hutterites or the Amish or ...

 

He also said the niqab, also known as the burqa, is "a visible demonstration of separation and difference," and a symbol of "parallel societies."

 

It is. But so are scores of others, starting with the strictly compartmentalized British social and cultural class structure.

 

Blair, clever as ever, added a caveat: "I don't think anyone is suggesting it's not a matter of personal choice in the end for people to do what they want."

 

It is. What, then, was the point of raising this ruckus?

 

Sensible rules already exist for people to show themselves in person for security checks and in photos for passports and drivers' licences. If we wish to go further, women need well-defined rules, not patronizing lectures — by men.

 

In Amsterdam, Alderman Ahmed Aboutaleb, a Muslim, has suggested depriving social assistance to women who refuse face-to-face interviews, thereby reducing their chances of finding work.

 

The niqab does inhibit participation in society. But, in varying degrees, so do the hijab, the kippa and the locks of the Orthodox Jews and the turban for the Sikhs. Most democracies have managed to minimize discrimination against such faith-based practices...

 

And here’s a letter on the subject that will never make it into print:

 

Haroon Siddiqui would like us to think that the niqab, the all-encompassing garment which reveals only a woman’s eyes, is no different from an Orthodox Jew’s kippa or a Sikh’s turban. That comparison won’t wash. For one thing, the Jew and the Sikh have an unobscured field of vision when they wear those items; for another, one is unlikely to trip over a kippa or turban. And, most crucially, wearing a kippa or a turban doesn’t shut you off from the larger society.

 

When women wear the niqab it is because in their culture, they are considered second class beings. And to keep them out sight—because the sight of an uncovered woman is considered both offensive and disturbing—they are encased, head-to-toe, in a black garment that expunges their identity and turns them into a walking blank.

 

A woman can certainly abide by the wishes of her community and cover herself up in this way; whether or not this is, as Tony Blair called it, “a matter of personal choice” may be up for debate. But, please, spare us the inaccurate comparisons between the niqab and what males of other religions wear on their heads.

 

I would note that if these Muslim women are, as Harpoon concedes, “powerless,” one way of gaining more control over their lives would be to reject the extreme version of Islam which considers them to be nullity, a void, and throw off their encumbering pup tents.

 

Of course, should they to do that, there's a good chance their pious menfolk will kill them for “dishonouring” the family.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:19 | link | comments

 

Aga Khan in serious denial:  In an interview with Der Spiegel, the Aga Khan, spiritual leader of 20 million Ismaili Muslims and a noted “moderate,” explains that “Islam is a faith of reason”:

…SPIEGEL: Does Islam have a problem with reason?

Aga Khan: Not at all. Indeed, I would say the contrary. Of the Abrahamic faiths, Islam is probably the one that places the greatest emphasis on knowledge. The purpose is to understand God's creation, and therefore it is a faith which is eminently logical. Islam is a faith of reason.

SPIEGEL: So, what are the root causes of terrorism?

Aga Khan: Unsolved political conflicts, frustration and, above all, ignorance. Nothing that was born out of a theological conflict.

SPIEGEL: Which political conflicts do you mean?

Aga Khan: The ones in the Middle East and in Kashmir, for example. These conflicts have remained unresolved for decades. There is a lack of urgency in understanding that the situation there deteriorates, it's like a cancer. If you are not going to act on a cancer early enough, ultimately it's going to create terrible damage. It can become a breeding ground for terrorism.

Now to the issue of spreading faith by the sword: All faiths at some time in their history have used war to protect themselves or expand their influence, and there were situations when faiths have been used as justifications for military actions. But Islam does not call for that, it is a faith of peace.

SPIEGEL: It's true that horrible crimes were committed in the name of Christianity, for example by the crusaders. That was long ago, that's the past. But jihadists commit their crimes now, in our times.

Aga Khan: It is not so far in the past that we have seen bloody fights in the Christian world. Look at Northern Ireland. If we Muslims interpreted what happened there as a correct expression of Protestantism and Catholicism or even as the essence of the Christian faith you would simply say we don't know what we are talking about.

SPIEGEL: "The West (will stand) against the Rest" wrote Professor Samuel Huntington in his famous book "Clash of Civilizations." Is such a conflict, such a clash inevitable?

Aga Khan: I prefer to talk about a clash of ignorance. There is so much horrible, damaging, dangerous ignorance…

Including, alas, his own.

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

 

Moo Jihad, Superstar: A woman reporter from the Beeb has a miserable time following Moo around on his whirlwind tour of the Iranian hinterland but is able to record the effect the “charismatic” President has on rural womenfolk.

 

Let’s just say he makes 'em swoon. (Then again, it could be the result of wearing burqas in hot weather.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:51 | link | comments

 

The Sun nails it: An editorial in the Toronto Sun has Mike and the (Liberal) mechanics all figured out:

 

…Ignatieff seems to be under the delusion that the source of this controversy is that Canadians don't understand his positions on the Mideast, rather than that his own thoughtless rhetoric -- twice now on this one issue -- is the real problem.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday set Conservative cat among the Liberal pigeons when he said Ignatieff's "war crime" comments were typical of the generally anti-Israel positions held by most of the Liberal leadership contenders.

We agree. Ignatieff's ramblings on the Mideast, and the hypocritical attacks on them by other Liberal candidates, who were no friends of Israel during its recent war with Hezbollah, suggest all that is wrong with the Liberals.

Their principles change with the polls.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:24 | link | comments

 

The failure of “isolation”: We’ve tried scolding ‘em, isolating ‘em and shutting off the jizya spigot, and still those recalcitrant genocidal Islamists in Gaza don’t seem to want to get with the program. From AP (in the Washington Post):

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip -- The U.S. government and Hamas agree on at least one point: More than half a year of economic strangulation of the Palestinian government has yielded no results.

The radical Islamic group, target of a crippling aid boycott since taking power last March,is no closer to moderating itself and no closer to falling.

For Israel, the Palestinians and the international community, time and options are running out _ with civil war looming in the West Bank and Gaza, poverty soaring and prospects for peacemaking disappearing.

"All the crises that we have been through in the past seven months proved even to the Americans that there is no way that this government is going to fall by economic pressure," said Abdel Rahman Zeidan, a Cabinet minister in the Hamas-led government.

After seven months, it's become clear Hamas will not accept the international community's No. 1 condition for doing business with it: recognizing the Jewish state's right to exist. And the international community is not about to accept Hamas's proposed solution: a long-term truce, or "hudna," while it maintains its goal of eliminating Israel.

It's also become clear that the person calling the shots in Hamas is not Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh or any other local leader in the West Bank or Gaza. It's the exiled Khaled Mashaal, the hard-line ideologue sheltered by Syria and funded by Iran.

Speaking at a news conference in Damascus on Thursday, Mashaal said again that Hamas will not recognize Israel…

But don’t worry. Hamas itself has come up with a way out of the impasse, one that will no doubt find favour with many in the “Peace in Our Time” camp:

…Haniyeh's political adviser, Ahmed Yousef, argued that Hamas has come a long way toward moderating its stances, and that Israel and the world should consider its "hudna" proposal and its willingness to allow the PLO to negotiate on its behalf and to respect the past peace accords it deems desirable.

"In the whole world people analyzing Hamas have said this is excellent, a drastic change," he said. "But you can't make that big step in one day or two. You have to give the moderates time to spread their message ... We have very conservative people among the Islamists."

Fatah spokesman Tawfiq Abu Khoussa said time is running out on Hamas to recognize Israel.

"They can't wait 40 years to get to this stage like Fatah did. The world will not wait for them."

In other words, let’s all pretend that Fatah really wants “peace” (which it does, but only in the Dar el Salaam sense, i.e. the peace that will exist once Islam has finally triumphed world-wide) and allow it to get on with the charade so the poor, oppressed, and all too combative Palestinians don’t starve. (And part of the charade is that it’s the sanctions that are making them so combative, and not the desire of one faction to prevail over the other.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:02 | link | comments

 

Scholars in Dreamland: The Seethe-a-thon that followed the Pope's citation of a 14^th Century Christian who suggested that Islam had more than a glancing acquaintance with violence may be coming to an end. A bunch of Islamic mucky-mucks are prepared to accept Benedict's apology, even if it wasn't abject and dhimmified enough to satisfy some of the more frenzied elements of the ummah. From Islam Online:

CAIRO — Thirty-eight Muslim scholars from around the world have appreciated Pope's personal expression of sorrow over citing anti-Islam quotes by a 14th Century Byzantine emperor.

"Muslims appreciated your unprecedented personal expression of sorrow and your clarification and assurance (on the 17th of September) that your quote does not reflect your own personal opinion," said an open letter by the Muslim scholars cited by the Islamic Magazine on Saturday, October 14.

"Muslims appreciated that (on September 25th) in front of an assembled group of ambassadors from Muslim countries you expressed "total and profound respect for all Muslims", added that letter which will be handed over to the papal nuncio in Jordan on Sunday, October 15.

Delivering a lecture in Germany on September 12, Benedict quoted emperor Maneul II Palaeologus that everything Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) brought was evil and inhuman, "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The Muslim scholars refuted the claims in the Pope's lecture that Islam was spread by the sword.

"As a political entity, Islam spread partly as a result of conquest, but the greater part of its expansion came as a result of preaching and missionary activity," the letter stated.

"Islamic teaching did not prescribe that the conquered populations be forced or coerced into converting."

The letter also refuted as "incorrect" the lecture's citation that the Qur'anic verse beginning "There is no compulsion in religion" is from the early period when the Prophet "was still powerless and under threat".

"'There is no compulsion in religion' was not a command to Muslims to remain steadfast in the face of the desire of their oppressors to force them to renounce their faith, but was a reminder to Muslim themselves, once they had attained power, that they could not force another's heart to believe," the letter said.

Signatories of the letter include the Grand Muftis of Egypt, Russia, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Istanbul, Uzbekistan and Oman as well as Shiite Ayatollah Muhammad Ali Taskhiri…

They may be 'no compulsion in relgion' (in theory, anyway), but there does seem to be an awful lot of denial, collective delusion and historical revisionism going on.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:34 | link | comments

 

Read it and retch: From UN News Centre:

13 October 2006 – Reinforcing further his "zero tolerance" policy for sexual exploitation and abuse by United Nations peacekeeping forces, Secretary-General Kofi Annan has appointed a second group of legal experts to ensure that the rules are binding on contingent members and applicable to all categories of peacekeeping personnel.

The problem surfaced in 2004 with the revelation that what a UN report called a "shockingly large number" of peacekeepers had engaged in such practices in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), with payments for sex sometimes ranging from two eggs to $5 per encounter. Some victims were abandoned orphans who were often illiterate.

Mr. Annan immediately instituted the policy of zero tolerance and it has been progressively fleshed out ever since to fill in any gaps in the procedures…

Meanwhile, I have a feeling that some of the UN "peacekeepers" continue to "progressively flesh out" and "fill in the gaps" of their charges, so to speak.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:30 | link | comments

 

Ignatieff’s analysis: In light of Michael Ignatieff’s ‘war crime’ gaffe, Martin Kramer reposts an entry from his Sandstorm blog. The post looks at an article Ignatieff wrote for the Sunday New York Times Magazine back in 2003 (and links to another article) in which the then-academic/journalist, now leading contender for leadership of the federal Liberal party, displays some of that “anti-Israel” sentiment Prime Minister Stephen Harper said yesterday was a trait shared by virtually all the Liberal leadership hopefuls:

 

...I admit I have a hard time taking Ignatieff seriously on the Middle East, in part because of an article he published back in April in the London Guardian entitled "Why Bush Must Send in His Troops." Before you decide that Ignatieff is a sure guide to things Middle Eastern, read it.

You'll find that it includes, in one form or another, every trendy calumny against Israel. There is the infamous South African analogy: Palestinian self-rule was really "a Bantustan, one of those pseudo-states created in the dying years of apartheid to keep the African population under control." The Palestinian Authority had "failed because Israel never allowed it to become a state." Reading through this piece, you would never know that there were Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at Camp David--because they're never mentioned. Perhaps Ignatieff didn't want to get into the debate over what happened or didn't happen in those talks, in which an Israeli leader proposed the creation of a Palestinian state on virtually all the lands occupied in 1967. But that would only have complicated things for Ignatieff's inevitably Solomonic verdict: "Both sides have an equal share of blame."

As for the Palestinian half of the blame, Ignatieff quickly shifts some of that to Israel's shoulders, too. Israel kept the Palestinian Authority too weak. "Had Israel realized that its own security depended on assisting in the establishment of a viable and, if necessary, ruthless Palestinian Authority it might now be secure." In particular, Israel did not allow the PA "enough military and police capability."

Not enough? Did Ignatieff have a clue about what was going on in the PA? The PA (even according to David Hirst in the Guardian) had forty to fifty thousand persons in its security services--ten to twenty thousand more than the number agreed upon in Oslo II. As one observer put it, "the PA has become the most heavily policed territory in the world, with an officer-to-resident ratio of 1:50; the U.S. ratio for police officers and sheriff's deputies, in contrast, is 1:400." So what, in Ignatieff's view, would have been "enough military and police capability"? (And why military?)

In fact, the problem was never one of capability. It was one of will. The PA decided to wage war with the weapons it had been given to keep peace. Some think that had there been fewer "security services" and guns, there might not have been an intifada at all.

But the absolute low point of this article is Ignatieff's invocation of the "sacrifice of the young people on both sides in a mutually reinforcing death cult." It's an insufferable case of false symmetry, especially coming as it did in the midst of the worst suicide bombings. Even if you believe Israelis and Palestinians are locked in a "cycle of violence," you're showing yourself ignorant if you compare the suicidal "death cult" rampant among Palestinians to the stoic resolve of Israelis...

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:08 | link | comments

 

Not newsworthy: For some unfathomable reason, the editors of National Post think their readers would be interested in a new book that reveals the sexual peccadilloes of the young Pierre Elliott Trudeau. “Young Trudeau’s sexual woes revealed,” reads the headline of a page 2 article in today's paper.

 

Yuck (or as my late Bubby would have put it, “feh”). Personally, I think “young Trudeau’s sexual woes” are better left filed—and forgotten—under the heading of “too much information.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:20 | link | comments

 

More feeble excuses: Mel Gibson is blaming his anti-Semitic outburst this past summer on Jewish criticism of his movie, The Passion of the Christ, and the war in Lebanon.

 

Funny, I thought it was due to the ingrained Judenhass he learned from his papa, a rabid Holocaust denier, and their membership in a Catholic sect that refuses to acknowledge the Second Vatican Council and still considers the Jews to be demonic Christ-killers. Also on the fact that he’d imbibed so much booze he was unable to curb his true feelings.

 

Shows how know much I know.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:44 | link | comments

 

Today’s rant about the Ceeb: Ceeb radio show, The Current, had an interview with Israeli filmmaker Avi Mograbi yesterday. Mograbi, who sits in the nosebleed section of the far left arena (a location the Ceeb is not at all uncomfortable or unfamilar with) has a “controversial” (i.e. cockamamie) theory that he explores in his latest documentary film. It goes something like this: Historically, the Jews have had an affinity for suicide—witness the story of Samson, who brought down the temple on himself and his tormentors, or what happened at Masada when the Jews were about to be overrun by the Romans—and this sensibility plays into the way Israelis comport themselves in the modern world. The idea, of course, is to draw a parallel—hello, moral equivalence—between Israelis and Muslims: the Jews have suicide; Muslims have suicide. Even Steven, n’est-ce pas?

 

Here’s how the interview with Mograbi  is described on The Current's website:

A suicide attack is intended to cause as much collateral damage as possible, while killing the attacker as well. And in the Middle East, these acts have become closely associated with Palestinian militants.

But according to our next guest, filmmaker Avi Mograbi, Israelis are also taught that suicide is preferable to surrender and it is this deadly common ground that he explores in his new film. Mr. Mograbi is known for making films that are highly critical of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, and this time is no exception. His film, called Avenge But One of My Two Eyes, argues that Israelis need to explore their own past--whether it be the story of Samson and Delilah or Masada--in order to develop compassion for the modern plight of the Palestinians.

Needless to say his film has generated international controversy. Avi Mograbi is currently touring parts of Canada with his film, Avenge But One of My Two Eyes and he joined us from our Montreal studio.

And here’s why Mograbi’s ideas are utter bullcrap:

 

• The Israelis are fighting an existential war for survival against jihadis who believe that a) Jews are apes and pigs and b) the Zionist entity belongs now and forever to Dar al Islam. Is it “suicidal” to keep fighting this war? Perhaps. But, like Patrick Henry, all the Jews are saying is “give me liberty, or give me death”—and I doubt very much that demand has anything to do with the examples of Samson or Masada. That’s the cry of free people everywhere who are willing to fight for their freedom in the face of an implacable foe.

 

• Jihadis who blow themselves up don’t think of it as “committing suicide.” They are taught that killing infidels to further the cause of Islam is the highest possible calling, and that, as a reward for their martyrdom, they are bound for an eternity of inconceivable pleasures.

 

• It’s true that, according to the story, Samson, shorn of his hair by that vixen, Delilah, brought down the Philistine temple in a final show of strength. But apart from a now-banned poster on the LGF site, whom long-time readers will remember fondly (or not so fondly) as “bigel,” no one seems to be proposing a “Samson option”—i.e. “if our defeat is a fait accompli, let’s take as many of our enemies with us as we can when we go down.” For Jews, the Samson example is an anomaly. The Jewish understanding of martyrdom—like the Christian one—involves a willingness to die for one’s faith. It does not entail killing one’s enemies in the process.

 

• There are plenty of “compassionate” Israelis, like Mograbi, who are concerned about the modern plight of the Palestinians. Alas, along the way these compassionate folks seem to have jettisoned all compassion for the modern plight of Israelis, surrounded by enemies who have the same agenda as Adolf Hitler. Oddly enough, these compassionate Jews also seem singularly unimpressed by the paucity of compassion—and the excess of hatred—being demonstrated by Israel’s foes.

I, for one, am sick to death of the CBC, the national public broadcaster that is funded in part by my tax dollars, spreading this type of manure on its airwaves, day after day after day. And insisting that it isn’t stinky dung at all, but the approved, the proper—the only—way to look at things.

 

The Ceeb sees itself at the default setting on the national consciousness. It’s not. It is a far-left propagandist in the grip of a multicultist dementia and is actively working to subvert our freedom and our way of life.

 

The Ceeb, I have come to realize, isn’t just working for the enemy. It is the enemy.

 

Now, the question is what do we as Canadians do about it?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:07 | link | comments (2)

 

The mouth that roared: “Look at me, look at me,” cried the height-challenged despot with the freaky hair to the world. And the world, to his great delight, obliged.

 

Me too, as I’ve reworked this song from the Roaring Twenties just for him:

 

Five foot two,

Cracked like Moo.

Wants to trounce Great Satan, too.

Has everybody seen his nuke?

 

Did it flop?

Did it go?

We may never really know.

Has everybody seen his nuke?

 

Now if he only grew

Just a few

Inches for a start.

Maybe he’d

Not feel the need

To be a tinpot Bonaparte.

 

Oh, does he preen?

Does he pose?

Does he punch Bush in the nose?

Has everybody seen his nukes?

Update: Here’s a page of google images of “Stretch” Jong Il. Notice something strange about the final shot? Here’s a hint: I don’t think Dear Leader ever wiggled his hips while singing “Day-O.” (I could be wrong, of course. Maybe he's a closet Calypso karaoke buff.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:04 | link | comments

 

The truth hurts: With the possible exception of Joe Volpe, the Liberal leadership contenders have strived for a middle ground in matters relating to Israel and her enemies. That is, the have floated lots of hot air balloons about not playing favourites and wanting to play “honest broker” when the time comes for “negotiations” between the Jews and the genocidal Islamists who are engineering Holocaust, Part deux. The acknowledged leader of this fence-sitting pack, Michael Ignatieff, got in heck the other day when he slipped off the fence for a moment and averred, on a Quebec TV chat show, that Israel had committed a “war crime” in Qana.

 

In surveying this sorry scene, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, no fence-sitter he, has had the temerity to point out the obvious: that none of the candidates has come out fore square in favour of the Jewish state—and you would not believe the ruckus he’s kicked up for saying the Liberals' Israel policy, like Hans Christian Andersen’s emperor, is buck nekkid. From the Globe and Mail:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday accused the Liberal Party of an anti-Israeli bias, charging that Michael Ignatieff's comment that Israel committed a war crime against Lebanon this summer reflects the leanings of most Liberal leadership candidates.

All the major contenders for the Liberal leadership quickly criticized Mr. Harper for lobbing "insults" and "lies." Beyond the anti-Conservative solidarity, murmurs were growing within the party about whether Mr. Ignatieff's style might prove a liability if he leads the Liberals in an election.

"This is consistent with the anti-Israeli position that has been taken by virtually all of the candidates for the Liberal leadership," the Prime Minister said about Mr. Ignatieff's remarks that an Israeli strike on the Lebanese village of Qana that killed 28 civilians was a war crime. "I don't think it's helpful or useful."

Mr. Harper's comments exploit concerns expressed by many in the Jewish community that the Liberal Party did not back Israel strongly enough in this summer's conflict — and the perception that the Conservatives have emerged as Israel's defender in Canada.

A visibly angry Bob Rae, noting that his wife and children are Jewish, said he has been associated with the Jewish community his entire life and likened Mr. Harper's comments to accusing an opponent of being anti-Catholic. He said it is dangerous "to suggest there is a pro-Israel party in Canada and an anti-Israel party in Canada."

"It's untrue. It's a big lie. It's a big smear. And it isn't going to work on me. And if he thinks he can get away with it, he's sadly mistaken," Mr. Rae said.

"It's just a basically thoughtless, deeply divisive thing to say, and I think it's something we to have to put a stop to right now. That's it. We cannot carry on politics in this country like this. It will not work. It divides Canadians. It's something for which he should be thoroughly embarrassed."

Another contender, Stéphane Dion, said the Prime Minister insulted everyone who wanted to see a ceasefire in the fighting between Israel and Lebanon.

"He is insulting all the people that legitimately thought that the solution was a ceasefire. And these people are not anti-Israel. The vast majority of them, they thought that the best way to help a friend was to request a ceasefire," Mr. Dion said. "I will not allow the Prime Minister to distort what was said in so shameful a way."…

“Insults”? “Lies”? “A big smear”?

 

Methinks they doth protest a wee bit too much.

 

But let’s look, for a moment, at what Rae and Dion are saying. Rae says that he can’t possibly be “anti-Israel” because some of his close mishpacha is Jewish. Dion says he can’t possibly be “anti-Israel” because he and others like him thought a ceasefire was in the best interest of his “friend” Israel.

 

While I agree that Rae isn’t actually “anti-Israel,” neither, during the leadership race, has he been avowedly “pro-Israel.” In fact, he has been far more muted in his support than in the past, and far more willing to cater to the delusions of the crowd that thinks it can sit out the jihad by playing a mediation role. And, yeah, so his wife, kids and grandpa are Jews: so what. That hasn’t seemed to factor into his calculations so far. He only seems to be getting his Jews in a row, so to speak, to deflect the sting of Harper’s words.

 

And Dion? That he considers himself to be a “friend” of Israel comes as a great surprise to Israel—and just about everyone else. Indeed, that may be an even bigger news story than Ignatieff’s slur or Harper’s truth-telling.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:52 | link | comments (1)

 

Jew-hate in the U.K.: This year marks the 350^th anniversary of the return of the Jews to England. Chased out of the scepted'd isle in 1290 because of ignorance, fear and church-fueled Judenhass, the Jews were re-admitted during Oliver Cromwell’s run as leader of an English republic. (The monarchy was restored; the Jew-hatred was always there--even without the Jews.)

 

Here’s how a piece on the Beeb website describes the auspicious anniversary:

 

...In 1656 Cromwell made a verbal promise, backed by the Council of State, to allow Jews to return to Britain and practise their faith freely.

Jews from Holland, Spain and Portugal came to Britain. They became more and more integrated into British society.

For a time, England was one of the most religiously tolerant countries in Europe. But it wasn't until 1858 that English Jews received formal emancipation.

Now 350 years after their return to the UK, Britain's Jewish community owes a huge debt to those who championed their rights more than three centuries earlier.

And here’s an e-mail alert I found in my in-box this morning from the Simon Wiesenthal Center:

With this month’s observance of the Jewish New Year and the marking of 350 years of the re-entry of Jews into England, the Simon Wiesenthal Center is expressing extreme concern about in increase in antisemitic hate crimes in the U.K., which culminated in an incident on a London public bus where a 12-year-old Jewish girl, after being asked her religion, was beaten into unconsciousness by 7 youths. According to reports, no one on the bus, including the driver, came to her rescue.

“This shocking hate crime is just the latest in an increase in antisemitic activities in Britain that include spray-paint vandalism on a synagogue, verbal abuse and hate-mails,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Wiesenthal Center. “When we take into account  the fact that the recent thwarting of a mega-terrorist attack by British-born Islamicists raises the fear of a backlash against the Jewish community and also the fact that London’s mayor, Ken Livingstone, has made it crystal clear that he is more interested in embracing terrorist proponents like Sheikh Qaradawi than dealing with antisemitism” he adding that “it is painfully clear that British Jewry has little to celebrate  with the coming New Year and the marking of the upcoming 350th Anniversary of their readmittance into England.”

“The situation is further exacerbated by the litany of one-sided attacks against Israel by respected NGOs and religious leaders in wake of the Hezbollah war,” Cooper said.

Rabbi Cooper noted that when there was a spike in anti-Jewish hate crimes in France, there was a concerted public effort in word and deed by Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy to take on the antisemites in France leading to a sharp decrease in such attacks.

“We hope that authorities in Britain will do the same to aggressively confront the ugliness of antisemitism in all its nefarious manifestations,” Cooper concluded.

This horrific development spurred the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism, co-written by fourteen British lawmakers and presented to British Prime Minister Tony Blair.  The Report’s thirty recommendations included asking the British government to provide greater security for Jewish institutions. According to the Times of London, the report confirmed that “antisemitic violence has become endemic in Britain, both on the streets and university campuses.”

The Sunday Telegraph pointed to recruitment of Muslim students on British campuses to take part in terrorist attacks. This included one university student who was suspected of having links to the foiled plot to blow up transatlantic flights. In addition tapes made by al-Muhajiroun, a disbanded terrorist group, were also discovered.  Al-Muhajiroun, headed by radical London cleric Omar Makri Mohammed, had ties to last year’s July 7th terrorist attacks in London and is currently exiled in Lebanon.  Makri Mohammed is featured in the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s documentary, Ever Again.

Looks like it may be high time for another English exodus.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:32 | link | comments

 

Ignatieff’s fumble: And speaking of gumption (see post below), Liberal MP Susan Kadis has resigned from Michael Ignatieff’s leadership campaign. Kadis, who co-chaired his Toronto area campaign, could no longer support a man who was willing to smear Israel with the charge of  a ‘war crime’ in a sickening bid to suck up to the anti-Israel crowd.

 

Clifford Orwin in the Globe and Mail has a commentary in which he skewers the ambitious but politically maladroit Ignatieff:

…Israel had every right to target those missile launchers, to target military infrastructure, to target dual-use infrastructure. It remained obliged, under these circumstances, to minimize civilian losses as much as is possible. That it did so, as a matter of general policy, is confirmed by what was, in fact, a very low toll in the conflict. So many days of bombing, and only a thousand civilian casualties (many of whom were almost certainly fighters whom Hezbollah refused to declare as such, thus suppressing the number of its losses while inflating civilian ones).

As to the Qana incident, much remains uncertain. We know that Hezbollah was firing missiles from nearby. We know that many hours passed between the air raid on the adjacent launchers and the collapse of the building. What happened during those hours? Why were the residents not moved? And what of the Israelis' claim that they had assumed the building was deserted? We don't possess sure answers to any of these questions, and neither does Mr. Ignatieff.

Mr. Ignatieff hasn't always been so hard on Israel over civilian casualties in Lebanon. While the war still raged, he said he wasn't losing any sleep over civilian deaths. That sounded both foolish and callous. But maybe he didn't mean it, as he doesn't mean other important things he says.

But he did say it, and so felt called on to unsay it, by making his recent equally injudicious remark. Having earlier alienated Muslims, one erstwhile Liberal constituency, he has now atoned by offending Jews, another.

Late yesterday, Mr. Ignatieff issued a statement reaffirming his lifelong support for Israel and its right to defend itself, and describing Qana as a "terrible human tragedy." He did not clarify or allude to his recent remark about the war crime.

Is Mr. Ignatieff condemned to lurch from one wrong to another, hoping that somehow the two will make a right? Is this his sorry version of even-handedness? The usual likenings of him to George Bush are partisan, malicious and unfair. But, to quote the late Ann Richards's great line, Mr. Bush was born with a silver foot in his mouth. Will this prove Mr. Ignatieff's epitaph as well?

Either that or “he never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:45 | link | comments

 

France shows some gumption: In a shocking display of backbone (who knew it even possessed one after behaving so spinelessly with the suburban car-b-cue “youths”?) France has enacted a new law making Holocaust denial—Amenian Holocaust denial—a punishable offence. This on the same day that Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk, who, not long ago, got himself into some hot water in his homeland for refusing to submit to its state-sponsored denial, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature.

 

Could it be there’s a glimmer of hope for the old Continent yet?

 

From Bloomberg:

France's lower house of Parliament defied pleas by Turkish officials and adopted a law punishing anyone denying that the killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in 1915 amounted to genocide.

Lawmakers of the National Assembly in Paris today voted 106- 19 in favor of the bill, which sets out fines of up to 45,000 euros ($56,460) and a year in prison for denying the events were genocide. French senators from the upper house will now examine the proposed legislation at a date yet to be specified.

The European Commission criticized the vote for hindering ``reconciliation'' over the killings, further straining the European Union's membership talks with Turkey. The Turkish Foreign Ministry said the vote ``dealt a heavy blow'' to bilateral relations with France.

``Turkey has no lesson to teach us on the repression of opinions,'' Patrick Devedjian, a French lawmaker of the governing UMP party of Armenian descent, said in the National Assembly today, in a reference to a Turkish law used to prosecute writers who challenge Turkey's denial of the genocide. ``The Turkish government is very hypocritical.''

Nobel Prize

Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk, who was prosecuted by Turkey's courts last year after he said Turks had persecuted Armenians, was today awarded the 2006 Nobel prize in literature. Pamuk is one of about 80 writers and intellectuals tried by the nation's courts over the past year for ``insulting Turkishness.'' An Istanbul-based court threw out the case against Pamuk in January.

The European Union says Turkey's refusal to acknowledge that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred during World War I clouds the nation's bid for membership. Accession talks began a year ago. Turkey denies Armenian allegations of genocide, saying tens of thousands of ethnic Turks and Armenians were killed after Armenian groups sided with Russia in the war.

``Should this law indeed enter into force, it would prohibit the debate and the dialogue which is necessary for reconciliation on this issue,'' European Commission enlargement spokeswoman Krisztina Nagy told a Brussels press conference today.

Turkey may bar French companies from bidding for state-owned assets, including nuclear power stations, if the bill becomes law, according to a report Oct. 7 in Turkey's Hurriyet newspaper that cited Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul. Hurriyet today carried a headline ``Liberte, Egalite, Stupidite,'' to describe the French Parliament's move.

Let’s see if France has the fortitude to stick to its guns.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:24 | link | comments (1)

 

Unfunny woman: You can divide the world as follows: there are those who despise Barbra Steisand and who’d sooner have root canal than endure one of her histrionic, faux-sincere performances; there are those who think Barbra Streisand has one of the greatest voices of modern times, and who enjoy the political perspective she brings to her concerts; there are who don’t cotton to her politics, but who are willing to endure her political hectoring for a chance to sit in the audience during one of her seemingly endless farewell concert tours. (Babsy has bid “farewell” so many times—only to return for yet another farewell tour—that she should be called “the Babs who cried wolf.”)

 

Then there are those who wish she’d just shut up and sing. From the Toronto Star:

 

NEW YORK—More tunes, less talk. More ballads, less Bush. More "People," less politics.

 

That's what America has been telling Barbra Streisand during the first three stops of her concert tour, which is scheduled to play the Air Canada Centre on Oct. 17 and 20.

 

And her performance at New York City's Madison Square Garden on Sunday night, which should have been a red-letter night, turned into a four-letter one as she lost her temper and shouted an obscenity at a heckler.

 

The superstar entertainer is a well known heart-on-her-sleeve liberal and the second act of her show features a sequence where impersonator Steve Bridges enters disguised as one of Streisand's particular bêtes noires, George W. Bush, and engages in a comic dialogue with her.

 

The one universal criticism of Streisand's generally acclaimed performances to date has been that the Bush segment goes on too long and really isn't that funny.

 

Sample joke:

 

Streisand: "How would you get rid of the National Debt?"

 

Bush: "I'd sell Canada. They only use half of it."

 

At her opening in Philadelphia last Wednesday, a solo male voice shouted out, "We came to hear you sing, not preach," only to be shushed by the crowd.

 

In Columbus, Ohio, on Friday, there was no such outburst, but Streisand had begun to respond to criticisms of her show's didactic tone by cutting a heavy-handed speech about feminism which led into a song from A Star is Born — "The Woman in the Moon."

 

But then came Sunday night at Madison Square Garden, in the middle of Streisand Country. She was born here, raised here, and the city's politics are known to be generally left of centre. If any one performance could have been expected to be a love-fest it was that one. But it didn't work out that way.

 

During the Bush sequence, Variety's critic David Rooney told the Toronto Star that "scattered pockets of heckling were heard throughout the arena, gradually escalating into booing."

 

But after the Bush section, a particular solo heckler kept taunting her during one of her most sensitive ballads, "Have I Stayed Too Long at the Fair?" and Streisand finally reached her limit.

 

"Shut the f--- up, would you?" she snapped angrily. "Shut up if you can't take a joke."

The audience applauded overwhelmingly and the rest of the concert went without event. Streisand stepped away from her prepared introductions to apologize for her outburst, but reminded everyone that "the artist's role is to disturb..."

 

In that case, mission accomplished.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:02 | link | comments

 

Freedom of the press in Somalia: Apparently, there isn’t any. From VOA:

 

The Paris-based media-rights organization Reporters Without Borders is condemning a set of what it calls "draconian" rules being proposed by Islamist leaders in Somalia to control the press.

 

The list of 13 rules of conduct for journalists came out Sunday, after the head of the Islamic court's judicial administration, Sheik Hassan Osman, summoned representatives of all privately owned media in Islamist-held areas of Somalia.

 

The proposed rules forbid journalists from, among other things, reporting information deemed contrary to Islam and from participating in foreign-sponsored seminars or programs without the permission of the Islamic courts' information bureau.

 

Another rule states that the media may not use terms which, in the words of the courts, "infidels use to refer to Muslims such as terrorists, extremists, etc."

 

The director of the Africa Desk for Reporters Without Borders, Leonard Vincent, tells VOA that although most of the rules are aimed at limiting freedom of the press, he finds one of the rules particularly troublesome.

 

"The second one says that the media must not disseminate information likely to create conflict between the population and the Islamic courts," he said. "What does that mean?  That means any information that would be negative for the image that the Islamic courts have of themselves will be considered a crime.  I mean, it is impossible to exercise journalism in these conditions.  They believe that they are going to restore peace and justice in Somalia.  But, in fact, they are going to just plunge Somalia into a blackout of information and into obscurity."

 

Vincent says it is not clear what type of punishment the Islamic courts would mete out for journalists who disobey the rules.  But he says he believes the penalties would be harsh…

 

Gee, ya think?

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:43 | link | comments

Anti-dhimmitude in Britain: Get ready for the next U.K. Seethe-a-thon. Hard on the heels of the Jack Straw burqa imbroglio, another Cabinet minister has made a suggestion that is unlikely to find favour with those who have an overweening sense of entitlement—one that the government has long fueled and fed into. From the Times Online:

The Government was accused today of trying to engineer a subservient "state-sponsored Islam" after a Cabinet minister warned Muslim groups that they risked losing Government funding if they did not actively tackle the problem of extremism.

Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, used a speech to a Muslim audience in London to call for a "fundamental rebalancing" of the Government’s relations with Muslim organisations.

In it, she pledged the Government’s support to Muslim groups which took on the arguments of radicals, and indicated there would be a "significant shift" in state funding and engagement in favour of organisations which spoke out clearly against extremism.

Ms Kelly was also critical of groups and individuals who chose to boycott commemorations such as Holocaust Memorial Day, although she stressed it was their right to do so.

The Muslim Council of Britain, which has received state grants, has not taken part in the event commemorating the murder of six million Jews by the Nazis, arguing it should be expanded to cover all genocides.

Ms Kelly said: "I do not come here to say that tackling extremists is your problem as Muslims alone. This is a shared problem. It is a shared battle for the kind of society we want to be and the values that we all hold dear.

"But I do say that without you fully on side we will fail. Your voice is more powerful than mine and your actions can be more effective."

The Communities Secretary said that the Government was committed to working in partnerships with Muslim groups who show that they are "determined to take on the extremists and defend values that the vast majority of us share".

She added: "It is not good enough to merely sit on the sidelines or pay lip service to fighting extremism. That is why I want a fundamental rebalancing of our relationship with Muslim organisations from now on.

"In future, I am clear that our strategy of funding and engagement must shift significantly towards those organisations that are taking a proactive leadership role in tackling extremism and defending our shared values.

"It is only by defending our values that we will prevent extremists radicalising future generations of terrorists."

"We will judge them by their words and their actions," she said. "We know Muslim organisations have a particular role they can play. Over time we will support those that stand up for our shared values and not support those who don’t."

Ms Kelly’s speech comes amid furore over her Cabinet colleague Jack Straw’s call - backed last night by Chancellor Gordon Brown - for Muslim women to consider removing the veil.

Ms Kelly today restated her position that the decision on whether to wear the veil was one of "informed personal choice". But she said there were a series of more fundamental things that all Britons should hold in common - including the English language, a sense of British history and the values of freedom and respect.

 

Does that mean the Brits are belatedly getting set to chuck all that multiculist bunkum?

 

Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:20 | link | comments (1)

 

Ignatieff’s ignoble change of heart: Q: Political affiliation aside, what’s the biggest difference between Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Liberal leader wannabe, Michael Igantieff?

 

A: Prime Minister Harper, who continues to stand up for Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, is willing to take stance based on principle, even if it gets in hot water with that portion of the populace that loathes and reviles Israel. Michael Ignatieff, on the other hand, is like a slender reed that bends in whichever direction the wind is blowing—and, currently, the political winds in Quebec are blowing in favour of Hezbollah and against the Jews. From the National Post:

Michael Ignatieff, the front-runner in the race for the federal Liberal leadership, has accused Israel of committing "a war crime" during its conflict with Hezbollah last summer.

In an interview on a widely watched Quebec talk show, Mr. Ignatieff apologized for comments in August when he told a newspaper he was "not losing sleep" over an Israeli bombing that killed dozens of civilians in the Lebanese village of Qana.

"It was a mistake. I showed a lack of compassion. It was a mistake and when you make a mistake like that, you have to admit it," he told the French-language Radio-Canada program Tout le monde en parle.

"I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime, and I should have said that. That's clear."

His comments, broadcast on Sunday, sparked an angry reaction among Jewish leaders who learned of them yesterday.

"That's appalling. To call it a war crime is totally, totally unacceptable," said Frank Dimant, executive vice-president of B'nai Brith Canada.

"I have to wonder if he is pandering to certain delegates who will be voting in the Liberal election for leadership."

Shimon Fogel, chief executive of the Canada-Israel Committee, said it was frustrating to hear Mr. Ignatieff's accusation.

"For somebody as well-informed and experienced as Mr. Ignatieff, he should know that is not a reasonable charge to level against Israel," he said. "What he ought to be preoccupied with is the kind of intolerance that gave rise to the conflict to begin with and the extent to which there are efforts to have it leach into Canadian society."

He said his group had been concerned by previous comments about the war made by Mr. Ignatieff's chief Quebec organizers, Denis Coderre and Pablo Rodriguez. Mr. Coderre took part in a pro-Lebanon march in Montreal in August at which some participants carried the flag of Hezbollah, which Canada has classified as a terrorist organization.

Since joining the leadership race, Mr. Ignatieff has had to back down from controversial comments several times. Contacted for clarification yesterday, an aide to Mr. Ignatieff said he would not retract the use of the term "war crime," but said he had been misunderstood…

Ignatieff seems to have ripped a page out of Paul “Gumby” Martin’s playbook, a politician well known for his expedient vacillations. Heaven help us if he becomes the Liberal leader, and the Canadian electorate elects to make him the next Prime Minister.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:50 | link | comments

Victim nation: According to a recently released report, only 27 per cent of people in the U.K. do not belong to a recognized “victim group.” And that makes for nation of cranky, whiny children vying for extra-special attention from the Mommy state. From the Times Online:

THE vast majority of people in Britain are officially oppressed, according to a report that claims we have become a “nation of victims”.

The study calculates that 73 per cent of Britons are members of officially recognised “victim groups”, including the disabled, women, ethnic minorities and homosexuals. Each group is given government support, including protective legislation.

The report, We’re (Nearly) All Victims Now, by the socially conservative think- tank Civitas, gives warning that the rise of a “victimocracy” undermines democracy because people are no longer considered equal under law.

“We have become a nation of victims,” it says. “Victimhood today is a political status that is sought after because of the advantages it brings, including preferential treatment in the workplace, the possibility of using police power to silence unwelcome critics, and financial compensation. To be classified as a victim is to be given a special political status, which has no necessary connection with real hardship or oppression.”

In October next year the Government is setting up the Commission for Equality and Human Rights, which merges the disability, race and equal opportunities commissions.

Many people, such as black women, are victims of so-called multiple discrimination. The report uses official figures to strip out the overlapping groups to calculate that nearly three quarters of people belong to one category or other. The biggest oppressed group is women, who constitute 51 per cent of the population and are protected by a range of legislation covering discrimination, equal pay and domestic violence. Ethnic minority men amount to 4 per cent; white disabled men 11 per cent; white male pensioners 5 per cent; and white, gay, able-bodied men, 2 per cent.

The report attacks the increasing tendency to judge crimes as more serious if they are committed against official victims — so-called hate crimes. Police have been encouraged to give priority to such cases, which the Civitas report says is undermining equality under the law.

It cites the trial this year of the killers of Jody Dobrowski, a barman murdered on Clapham Common, South London, in October last year. Jailing the two men for 28 years, the judge said that the sentence would have been halved if they had not voiced any opposition to the victim’s sexuality. “Is animosity to gays a worse motive than, for example, a calculated killing to silence a witness?” it asks.

It also states that claiming official victim status enables groups to silence critics, often using taking offence as a political tactic. The benefits of taking offence are so great in any debate, that it has encouraged the growth of “increasing touchiness” in Britain.

However, the report gives warning that seeking victim status can harm the victims, denying them personal responsibility by always blaming others and undermining their self-respect.

Since the squeaky wheel (or victim) gets the grease, I suggest the non-victimized 27 per cent mobilize as a special interest group and claim to be victimized by virtue of victim groups demanding and receiving special attention denied to non-victims. That way the U.K. can go for a perfect score of 100.

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

 

Wishing and hoping: A number of pundits, including Islam historian Bernard Lewis and Paul Berman, author of the polemic, Liberalism, have insisted that Islamism came into existence because of modern day fascist/totalitarian movements like Nazism, which Islamism mimics and from which it draws inspiration. This way of looking at it enables experts to distance it from its real inspiration: Mohammed’s exploits as documented in the Koran and the Hadiths, and the jihad imperative contained therein which commands the faithful to conquer Dar al Harb—the non-Muslim portion of the world—for Dar al Islam. In the current issue of quarterly The American Interest, Anna Simons, a professor of defense analysis, torpedoes the Lewis-Berman characterization. She writes that

 

…contrary to much common assertion, Islamists view the struggle as a religious conflict, not an ideological one. The contention that Islamism is a wholly modern ideology divorced from the sacred, having little to do with Islam as a religion, is wishful thinking. While Islamists have borrowed liberally from Western, Marxist and other ideologies, that does not mean that Islamism is essentially an ideology, or that it is mostly borrowed. At its core there is a religious and divinely manipulated template as old as the Quran itself.

 

More wishful thinking. How...unusual. Do get the feeling that all this wishful thinking boils down to a refusal to confront the ugly face of reality and trying to tart it up with some makeup (Oslo Accords, Sunshine Policies and the like) instead of subjecting it to some drastic plastic surgery?

Me too.

I think the subject of my next essay may be "How Wishful Thinking Is Paving the Road to Hell."

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:48 | link | comments

 

Food terror: A few weeks ago, my husband has the misfortune to eat some tainted take-away chicken. (He told me it didn’t taste quite right, but continued eating it anyway, thus defying one of life’s cardinal—sorry, no pun intended—rules: If the chicken tastes funny, DON’T EAT IT.)  He paid for his defiance with several days running of the runs—and when he wasn’t running, he was lying incapacitated in bed.

 

It turns out that the type of bacteria that felled him was specific to poultry. (I can’t remember what it was called, but it wasn’t one I had heard of before.) And if the chicken bug didn’t get him, he could always have been undone by something in the spinach, or lettuce, or carrot juice, or hamburgers, or yogurt.

 

So I was thinking that maybe the next big terrorist attack won’t involve hijacked airliners and pilots who lack landing skills. Maybe the next “big one” will be about some clever jihadis who figure out a way to infuse our food or water supply with e-coli or salmonella or botulism, or something even more dependably fatal than that.

 

Something to consider (and quickly put out of your mind, because who can live with such fears?) as you're tucking into the local all-you-can-eat salad trough.

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

 

Stop the presses: Forget about that lunatic in Pyong Yang. The really big news today is that Paris Hilton and barely-there former BFF Nichole Richie are said to have “buried the hatchet.”

 

I don’t know about you, but the only way I’d be even remotely interested in this story is if they happened to bury it in each other.

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

 

Short leaders: “WHAT DOES THIS MAN WANT?” blares the headline on the front page of the Toronto Star. (That’s the dead wood version of the paper; the online link has a different heading.) The “MAN” in question, of course, is “Dear Leader,” North Korea’s Kim Jong Il, who yesterday compelled the entire world to cast its collective gaze on him when North Korea tested a nuke.

 

What does this man want? I’d say he wants exactly what the test got him—attention, power, the fear and respect of multitudes around the world.

 

For years silly appeasers have been trying to “gentle” Kim into making concessions, offering all sorts of inducements in a vain attempt to get him to drop his nuclear agenda. The South Koreans were so devoted to this wishful thinking/death wish effort that they gave it a lovely, upbeat name: “the Sunshine Policy.” They could have called it the “Fluffy Puppy Policy” too, but it wouldn’t have changed the reality that there’s nothing sunny or cute about a height-challenged totalitarian—Dear  Leader stands a scant 5’2” tall—who along with his father, the previous tyrant, has presided over the wilful starvation of millions of people.

 

In discussing another abbreviated fascist, Caroline Glick said it’s crucial to distinguish between insanity and evil. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, she says, is evil. I suggest that in Kim Jong Il, we have someone who, double whammy, is both evil and insane.

 

In “honour” of Moo and his little buddy, Kim, (and as means of preserving my own sanity in world that has hurtled into Loony Tunes territory) I’ve revised an old Randy Newman song. See if you can guess which one it is:

 

Short leaders got no reason,

Short leaders got no reason,

Short leaders got no reason to live.

They got little hands,
Little eyes,
They walk around
Tellin' great big lies.
They got little noses
And tiny little teeth.
They wear platform shoes
On their nasty little feet.

Well, I don't want no short leaders.
Don't want no short leaders,
Don't want no short leaders
`Round here.

Short leaders are not the same
As you and me.
(What fools are we.)
Want power and fame and nukes
It’s plain to see.
(It's a terrible world.)

Short leaders got lots of people,
Short leaders got lots of people,
Short leaders got lots of people
To hate.

They got little baby legs
That stand so low
You got to pick 'em up
Just to say hello
They’re such little pricks,

As we well know,

They gotta take Viagra

To make ‘em grow.
They got grubby little fingers
And dirty little minds
They're gonna get us every time
Well, I don't want no short leaders
Don't want no short leaders
Don't want no short leaders
'Round here.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:14 | link | comments

 

Amis awakens: Martin Amis, one of Britain’s most acclaimed novelists (though he’s never been my cuppa) and a notable voice on the left, is about to have a good deal of anger! outrage! hostility! aimed in his direction. From the Times Online:

 

MUSLIMS are not doing enough to engage with Britain’s otherwise thriving multicultural society, Martin Amis has said.

Commenting on the recent row over Islamic veils, the author said at the Festival: “The only element that’s not fitting in is Islam. Who else is not fitting in?”

Amis, who has written extensively about Islamist terrorism, and wrote a short story imagining the last days of Muhammad Atta, the 9/11 hijacker, said that home-grown terrorism was a separate problem, bound up in the allure that “death cults” have to the vulnerable young men who become suicide bombers.

“In this country what’s happening is that young men in late adolescence and early manhood have a period of self-hatred and disgust and thoughts of suicide,” he said. “The idea you can turn this into world history is tremendously powerful.

“The absolutely crucial thing is to see whether it mutates. Death cults take on a terrible momentum.”

The allure of a philosophy based on the rejection of reason and embrace of death was intense but short-lived, Amis said. However, if this fused with a sense of the individual exerting an influence on history “then al-Qaedaism will mutate as we feared”.

Amis, 57, returned to Britain last month after 2½ years in Uruguay, where part of his wife’s family lives. He said that he had been struck by how successful British society appeared when viewed through fresh eyes. “It looks like a multicultural society that’s working apart from a few miserable bastards.”

Amis’s father, Sir Kingsley, was a passionate communist who became a virulent anti-communist after the Soviet Union’s crushing of the Hungarian Uprising in 1956.

Amis himself is suspicious of ideologies and says he welcomes the similarity between the two main political parties in Britain. “All the big [political] battles have been won. We no longer rule a quarter of the world but we are supposed to feel relieved about that because we don’t like empires, do we?” he said.

“What we have now in England is an evolved market state that doesn’t feel humiliated about the loss of its position at the highest table. The result seems to be an increasing concentration on surfaces, outlines and glitter without substance.

“As The New Yorker said, ‘the Brits are now at the point where they feel Schadenfreude about themselves’.”

“Schadenfreude about themselves”—isn’t that just a fancy, Continental way of saying that the Brits are gripped by a terminal self-loathing?

 

Incidentally, the reason Amis fils has suddenly turned on the Islamic ideologues is because his wife, writer Isabel Fonseca, is Jewish, and he has admitted to being alarmed by the Judenhass he saw on display during his recent sojourn in South America.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:52 | link | comments

A ‘novel’ approach: Noah Richler (son of late novelist, Mordechai) urges the people of the world to drop their competing narratives and consider the “universals” of the novel. (Globe and Mail link available by subscription.) “The novel demands, of its author and then the reader, the imaginative leap into the lives of its characters, no matter how alien…”

How true. The novel is—what’s the world the moral relativists like so much?—oh, yeah, “nuanced.” The novel has subtleties. “In the narrative culture of the novel,” writes Richler, (as opposed to cultures which prefer the black/white dichotomies of epic tales, like, say, Beowulf and, one might add, religious texts) “good and evil are human qualities, but they cannot be absolute because thinking this way turns men and women into monsters (or saints) and puts them beyond the realm of our “common humanity.””

Richler’s “cure” for those stuck in the simplismes of the epic—that would be you, Mr. Jihadi, as well as you, Messers Bush and Harper: “…we must combat teaching with teaching, for in truth there is no other civilized way forward but that which the novel offers over its rival, the epic.”

Yeah, that’ll work.

Here’s the letter I sent the Globe:

Noah Richler calls upon us to make an immense mental leap and think about ourselves and each other in novelistic terms. The ability to perceive the “universals” on display in the novel, he says, would go a long way toward helping us resolve our perpetual squabbling, the result of our competing narratives.

 

Alas, that would only be possible in, to quote a famous line from Voltaire’s proto-novel, Candide, “the best of all possible worlds.” In this messy, confounding real world of ours, there are those who have the freedom to read the great works of literature, and those, like the Taliban and other Islamists, who are more inclined to ban and burn them, seeing them as being in eternal conflict with the only narrative they consider worthwhile: the narrative of the Koran.

 

Perhaps in his next piece Mr. Richler can explain how we might persuade these religious fanatics to set aside their narrative—the one they are convinced includes all the “universals” we’ll ever need—and  pick up Madame Bovary (or War and Peace) instead.

The problem with calling upon people to make the leap from the epic to the novel is this: it ignores the fact that there is genuine, galloping evil in the world, and if we rely solely on genteel educational tactics, it will engulf and destroy us. And then there will be no novels, nor anyone to read them.

Ammon Rubenstein in the Jerusalem Post writes that it’s essential to stare evil in the face and see it for what it is:

…While societies are complex structures embracing opposing components - this was true even of Nazi Germany, which contained substantial non-Nazi, liberal and leftist elements; of Russian society under Stalin; and of the Iranian people, which incorporates strong secular and pro-Western elements - these complex social traits have been wrongly ascribed to non-democratic regimes.

Dictatorial and totalitarian regimes - whether secular or, as in the case of Iran and Hizbullah, fundamentalist - are not complex. They are one-dimensional and can be summed up in a few words. They are, though are not necessarily, evil in the true sense of the word…

When Nasty Nasrallah and/or his children get around to reading Catcher in the Rye and The Great Gatsby, I’ll know there’s some hope for the jihadis. But, thanks all the same, I don’t think it’s in our interests to sit around and wait for them to evolve from their 7^th Century epic outlook to a more novelistic--i.e., a more modern--way of seeing the world because, frankly, that's never going to happen.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:14 | link | comments

 

Change of venue: UN spokesbabe, Angelina Jolie, is mighty upset that she’s not going to be able to play Mariane Pearl, wife of murdered Jewish reporter Daniel Pearl, in the country where he was actually decaptitated by jihadis. For reasons of safety, the movie based on Mariane’s memoirs is being filmed in India. From the Beeb:

…"I am disappointed that we could not shoot the film in Pakistan, a country that I love and have visited three times," she said in a statement.

The statement was released through her adviser Trevor Neilson.

"They talked with people from all levels of the Pakistan government and there's certainly no hard feelings, but it became clear that it was preferable to film in India," he told Reuters news agency.

Jolie plays Mr Pearl's widow Mariane in the film, which is directed by Michael Winterbottom.

She arrived in Pune, India, on Thursday with partner Brad Pitt, who is a producer on the film, and their three children.

Wall Street Journal reporter Mr Pearl, 38, was kidnapped in Karachi in early 2002 while researching a story, and later killed.

A Mighty Heart is based on the book written by Mrs Pearl in the aftermath of his death.

The film will examine his reasons for being in Pakistan, his abduction and his wife's attempts to find him.

In her statement, Jolie said A Mighty Heart was about "cross-cultural understanding and the values that people of all faiths share".

One of the values Pearl’s murderers don’t share with people of all faiths is the same one that prompted them to slice off his head. And I’m sure, given the chance, they’d do the same to the fetching—but clueless—Jolie.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:31 | link | comments

 

Revisionaries: Arabs/Muslims may not be too good at the mechanics of government—in general, their nations are a morass of corruption and misrule—but there is one thing at which they excel: Holocaust denial.

 

I say, you gotta go with your strengths. From the Washington Post:

Virtually alone among peoples of the world, Arabs appear to have won a free pass when it comes to denying or minimizing the Holocaust. Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah has declared to his supporters that "Jews invented the legend of the Holocaust." Syrian President Bashar al-Assad recently told an interviewer that he doesn't have "any clue how [Jews] were killed or how many were killed." And Hamas's official Web site labels the Nazi effort to exterminate Jews "an alleged and invented story with no basis."

Such Arab viewpoints are not exceptional. A respected Holocaust research institution recently reported that Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia all promote Holocaust denial and protect Holocaust deniers. The records of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum show that only one Arab leader at or near the highest level of government -- a young prince from a Persian Gulf state -- has ever made an official visit to the museum in its 13-year history. Not a single official textbook or educational program on the Holocaust exists in an Arab country. In Arab media, literature and popular culture, Holocaust denial is pervasive and legitimized.

Yet when Arab leaders and their people deny the Holocaust, they deny their own history as well -- the lost history of the Holocaust in Arab lands. It took me four years of research -- scouring dozens of archives and conducting scores of interviews in 11 countries -- to unearth this history, one that reveals complicity and indifference on the part of some Arabs during the Holocaust, but also heroism on the part of others who took great risks to save Jewish lives.

Neither Yad Vashem, Israel's official memorial to Holocaust victims, nor any other Holocaust memorial has ever recognized an Arab rescuer. It is time for that to change. It is also time for Arabs to recall and embrace these episodes in their history. That may not change the minds of the most radical Arab leaders or populations, but for some it could make the Holocaust a source of pride, worthy of remembrance -- rather than avoidance or denial…

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:58 | link | comments

 

Page rage: Mark Steyn (can’t wait to read what he thinks about “Little Mosque on the Prairies”) on the hyperventilations surrounding the Foley sex scandal. As Steyn remarks, it’s pretty pathetic when a sex scandal doesn’t include any actual sex. All in all, the Brits seem to be a whole lot better at this sort of thing:

...J. Dennis Hastert actually stood up in public and made that announcement. And, of course, the Democrats immediately denounced the notorious Gay Pedophile Ringleader of the House for the pitiful inadequacy of his page tip-line: Oh, sure, now he wants to set up 1-800-GAY-PAGE and invite anyone with info to use the secure log-in at www.GOPpredators.com, but where was he when the buck stopped here en route to the end-of-legislative-session communal showers? Speaker Hastert called in the FBI, the CIA, the DEA and announced an emergency bill to rename the BATF the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Pages. He declared Mark Foley's pants a federal disaster area. He voted a $4 billion reconstruction earmark to the congress- ional page program and invited Dubai Page World to run it. And, with every press conference designed to get himself out of the hole he'd dug at the previous press conference, the 50 percent of Americans who pay minimal attention to politics (which, if there's any justice, will be up to 93 percent by now) caught Hastert floundering on the evening news and thought, "So that's the gay pedophile, eh? Disgusting. There oughtta be a law against it."

Well, there is. Many laws, in fact. And it's not clear any of them were broken. It's a good basic rule of thumb that no matter how bad a scandal is, the political class' response will be worse, largely hysterical and lacking any sense of proportion. But, even by those minimal expectations, this last week has been unbecoming for a serious nation. In London, sex scandals come along every other week. You name it, British parliamentarians do it: three-in-a-bed, auto-erotic asphyxiation, gay teen flagellation, getting your toes sucked while wearing the soccer kit of Chelsea Football Club. But at least at Westminster, sex scandals require actual sex. That the governing party of the world's only superpower could be felled by one creepy pervert's masturbatory e-mails and IMs is an event historians will marvel at. Granted that the Roman Empire in its death throes got hung up on gay sex, the American hyperpower seems set to be the first to collapse over gay non-sex...

 Update: Charlie K. on the Foley flapdoodle.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:04 | link | comments

 

Funny terror: Last week, the Ceeb treated us to Avi Lewis and invited guests talking trash about Israel during a broadcast of “The Big Picuture.” And coming soon, “Little Mosque on the Prairies,” the Ceeb’s high-larious glimpse into what it’s like to belong to a certain oppressed minority on the Canadian plains—and we ain’t talkin’ your aboriginals.

 

The Sunday Star has an interview with Zarqa Nawaz, the show’s creator. I think it confirms where the Ceeb’s mindset is stuck (i.e. firmly up its clueless, leftist, multicultist butt).

 

On the plus side, it’s nice to see that at least some of the faithful aren’t averse to having a few yucks, even if it’s at the expense of us silly-ass infidels:

 

Your company is called FUNdamentalist Films and you use the provocative catchphrase, "putting the fun back into fundamentalism." What are you talking about here?

 

It was a signature line from one of my films, Death Threat, in which an Iranian mullah, who everyone thought was so severe and serious with no sense of humour, wanted to start a romance-publishing house called Desert Desire on Fire. He wanted to give Harlequin a run for its money.

 

I had to pick a name, right? Back then we were known as fundamentalists; now people think I'm a right-wing Christian when they see the name of my company.

 

Some people may not find the notion of comedies about terrorism — or as you call them, "terrordies" — very funny.

 

Obviously it's not about terrorism but the fallout from the stereotypes about Muslims and terrorism. How our daily lives are affected — being plucked from airplanes or being falsely accused and arrested like Maher Arar. These are horrible things that happen not only to Muslims but non-Muslims who happen to look like Muslims.

 

To me, I've always reacted to very difficult subjects with humour. The only way I can deal with these issues is to make them more universal and appeal to a greater number of people, to get across the ridiculousness of what is happening and the paranoia and worry that exists now in the community.

 

You've said the mosque is one of the most important parts of your life, though there is a tension there for you as a woman, as you showed in the documentary "Me and the Mosque." Why, in a progressive society like Canada, are men and women still separated at prayer in two-thirds of the mosques?

 

I think a lot of Muslims think it's appropriate and they've misunderstood their own faith. We have become obsessed about this whole segregation of men and women to the detriment of our own communities. That's why I decided when I made the documentary to go back go the original religious sources — the Qur'an and the Hadith and prove there is no emphasis on segregation of the sexes. It's something that came up over the centuries, as Muslims spread into different lands and there were cultural differences. In the Byzantine Empire, the upper classes kept their women apart, behind screens, and Muslims (after the conquest) adopted that.

 

It's a classic case of tradition being mixed up with theology. I wanted to prove that it was wrong and couldn't be supported. If anything, the texts support men and women working together for the betterment of their community.

 

Are you still involved in mosque life?

 

There's only one mosque in Regina; you have to stay and participate and agitate for change, and a lot of women did that. A lot of men, too. They realized the harmful effect of segregation on the women in their lives. Their wives and daughters didn't feel comfortable going to mosque if they weren't treated with the same respect as men.

We've done a 180. There are signs up that say women are now welcome in the main prayer hall. I'd never thought I'd live to see the change, but it shows how democracy works. We had an election, and the very conservative element was removed and more moderates came into power and wanted to make it a more woman-friendly mosque.

 

Can you account for the overarching conservatism in Muslim public life in Canada?

 

More conservative people tend to flock to mosques and be more vocal and active and make sure their ideology is the dominant one, and alienate the vast majority of Muslims, who, I feel, are middle of the road. As Muslims we have to continue to go to our mosques and participate fully in the democratic process and not give up and leave.

 

If you leave, who's left? Only the conservative element, and they have no vision for the future or the community. The mosque needs women and young people or we'll not get anywhere.

 

You wear the hijab and that might come as a surprise to those who see the headscarf as an expression of conservative Islam or a symbol of repression. I gather that's not the case with you and many other women of your generation.

 

To me it's a symbol of my faith and gives me a sense of my identity. How would they like it if someone said wearing short skirts and heels is a sign of sexual exploitation? It's too simplistic an argument to say that how much or how little you wear represents how you're treated. We can't judge each other on superficial values. Think of what extremists say about Western women — Look at them, they're sexually exploited, they don't even realize it.

 

Why do you tackle controversial subjects so directly?

 

When I was making Me and the Mosque I realized that we weren't going to move forward unless we talked about our differences. The advantage we have in Canada is freedom of expression and lack of censorship…

 

Ironically, not for long, if some of her more fervent co-religionists have anything to say about it.

 

Update: More Islamic hilarity.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:22 | link | comments

 

Breakfast at Ahmadinejad’s: Here’s a song for a beautiful fall day (to the tune of “Moon River”).

 

Moo Jee-had,

Crafty like a fox,

He’d like to put a pox

On Jews.

Oh, hate-monger

He’s no longer

Pretending our ending’s not

Tomorrow’s news.

 

Too ardent,

Racked by true belief.

The End Times a relief

For him.

He’s after the Mahdi’s return.

But first the Jews must burn.

That’s how the world will learn

Moo Jee-had’s a ghoul.

 

Moo Jee-had,

Hugo is his friend.

Great Satan, they contend,

Must fall.

Hirsute liar,

Shoah-denier,

Those nukes he’s enrichin’

To pitch at us all.

 

Taqiyah's

Something he must spin

Then smile a wicked grin

With glee.

He’s after Islam’s golden age.

That’s why he’ll rant and rage.

A holy war he’ll wage.

Moo Jee-had, that ghoul.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:48 | link | comments

 

Killing Jews: A chilling reminder that the jihad against the Jews is poised to strike anywhere at any time. From israelinsider:

 

Islamic terrorists planned to kidnap dozens of Jews in Prague and hold them hostage before murdering them, the daily Mlada Fronta Dnes reported Friday.

The Czech Republic's leading newspaper quoted sources close to intelligence agencies as saying the captives would have been held in a Prague synagogue while the captors made broad demands that they knew could not be fulfilled. When those unspecified demands would not be met, the terrorists would blow up the building, killing all inside.

The paper did not indicate whether any arrests had been made and did not specify the identities of the terrorists.

On Sept. 23 the government deployed armed guards around dozens of buildings and on the streets in the Czech capital after security services issued a warning that an unspecified attack was imminent.

Czech Chief Rabbi Ephraim Sidon said the attack had been planned against the Jerusalem Synagogue in central Prague, not the highly-concentrated tourist attractions in the old Jewish Quarter.

Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek and government officials have refused to divulge details of what kind of attack they feared in Prague. "I am not authorized to provide any information in this case," the paper quoted Topolanek as saying.

"Concurrent with the government decision, I only continue to insist that the measures and the extent of information supplied to the public were, and are in proportion to the information obtained (by intelligence officials) and to the threat."...

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:20 | link | comments

 

No way out: Hugh Fitzgerald over at DhimmiWatch puts that “two state solution” to bed:

 

…There is no "solution" to the Arab and Muslim siege of Israel. Israel sits on land that was once possessed by Muslims. Its size is irrelevant. It cannot conceivably, in Muslim and Arab eyes, be allowed to permanently exist. The only quarrel between Abbas and Hamas is over tactics and timing. Abbas wants the Slow Jihad of growing economic pressure, diplomatic isolation, and internal demographic conquest -- all with Israel as the victim. Hamas wants the Fast Jihad, and no pretense of ever acquiescing to Israel's existence…

I think that more or less says it all.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:56 | link | comments

 

No nudes, please, we’re dhimmis: Further evidence that the U.K. is willfully sliding into dhimmitude. From the Ceeb:

A curator at a British art gallery alleges several works by surrealist Hans Bellmer, known for his life-size nude dolls of girls, were removed out of concern that they might upset Muslims.

Agnes de la Beaumelle, a curator at the Whitechapel Art Gallery in London, said Friday that Bellmer's works were taken away from an exhibit the day before it was due to open on Sept. 20.

Beaumelle, who protested the action, alleged that the gallery’s director pulled the pieces "simply not to shock the population" of Muslims who live in the east London neighbourhood. 

But the gallery issued a statement saying some pieces from the well-known artist, who died in 1975, were not included because of space constraints.

Beaumelle said, as a curator, she was "surprised" by the decision of the gallery’s director, Iwona Blazwick.

Beaumelle said Blazwick would have known the kind of art she was committing the gallery to after agreeing to show Bellmer’s art.

The exhibit runs until Nov. 19…

A great number of Western masterpieces incorporate or are exclusively devoted to the female nude (including this one, a personal favourite). How soon before this artwork is pre-emptively removed from the galleries of Western Europe so as to prevent their causing offence?

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:44 | link | comments

 

Four thousand veils in Blackburn, Lancashire: There’s still plenty of outrage among the faithful at Jack Straw for daring to “insult” Islam. From the Times Online:

 

IT MIGHT just have seemed this way but every Muslim woman in Blackburn appeared to be wearing a veil yesterday. In greengrocers’ shops, post offices, launderettes, everywhere you looked black headscarves seemed, quite conspicuously, to be the order of the day.

Could the Muslim women of Blackburn be making a mass two-fingered gesture to Jack Straw, a message of defiance that nobody, especially middle-aged white politicians, were going to tell them how to dress? It was a nice idea but, disappointingly, it proved not to be the case. In this area a great many abide by the Hanafi philosophy, which advocates the wearing of veils.

Many said that they always dressed this way and that Mr Straw was irrelevant. When asked about the rumpus he has caused by asking Muslim women who come to his constituency surgery to remove their veils, some just shook their heads and gestured as if swatting away a pesky fly.

There was little doubt, though, that Mr Straw’s remarks, made through his column in a local newspaper, had left a lot of Muslims, male and female, feeling angry.

Many would not talk and those that would were reluctant to give their names. One woman called her husband on her mobile telephone to ask whether she should speak to the press. He told her: “No.”…

That sound you hear is Emmeline Pankhurst and dozens of other British Suffragettes who agitated for women's rights in the early part of the 20^th Century rolling over in their graves.

 

Update: Melanie Phillips on Straw’s “outrageous” request:

It is in itself a commentary on how far the British have already slid into cultural servitude that asking someone politely if they wouldn’t mind removing the black shroud from their face before having a conversation should have provoked such a storm of controversy over whether or not this was an infringement of personal and religious liberty. We communicate with each other not merely through speech but by looking at the other person’s face. People expect to be able to see others as people, not depersonalised shrouds with eyes. Such concealment diminishes the sense of human community, the feeling that we share the world with other beings like us. It creates a profound sense of anomie and unease.

But more significantly – and Straw did not say this – this type of veil is itself a direct threat to liberty. Clearly, it is a matter of debate within the Islamic world whether it – or, indeed, any type of veil – is necessary to satisfy the injunction upon women to preserve their modesty. What is beyond doubt is that the blackout veil is associated with most extreme interpretation of Islam, which holds that Islamic values must supersede all other values, including those of the secular state. Wearing this veil is thus a political statement of cultural and religious hostility to the British state. Objecting to it, therefore, is not an example of intolerance or religious discrimination. Religious garb should certainly be tolerated, even if it is outlandish; what people wear is their own affair. But this veil is not their own affair. It affects the rest of us because it is inherently aggressive and intimidatory. That is why it is unacceptable.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:02 | link | comments

This just in: Congressman Mark Foley has confessed to killing JonBenet Ramsey.

Just foolin', of course. But I think I may have hit on the one news story that would make Wolf Blitzer's head explode.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:48 | link | comments

Fear and loathing in Kandahar: Wonders never cease—an anti-Taliban story in, of all places, Harpoon Siddiqui’s Toronto Star. As Mitch Potter writes, the Taliban are on the cusp of a comeback, and teenaged girls in Afghanistan have been forced to retreat into their protective black pup tents; they’re afraid that if the religious fascists see them uncovered, they will try to kill them for defying Islamic law.

Charming people, those Taliban:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan—Peel back the burqa, and the eyes of Afghanistan's seldom seen future stare back in frustration, fear and the feeling time is not on their side.

The teenage girls of Kandahar offer little insight on the work of the Canadians in their midst, except a solemn prayer that the foreign boots of NATO not leave them, not now especially.

 

But they can tell you everything about how frightening it is to walk the streets of Afghanistan's second-largest city today, nearly five years after the fall of the Taliban.

Even beneath the burqa, they fear the hidden hand of religious extremism is closing in, having already marked these young women for pursuing studies in English and computer programming.

 

"How does it feel? It feels dangerous. You see men on the streets with turbans and long clothes and beards and moustaches and they look like Taliban," Suhila, 17, told the Toronto Star. "If one of them puts his hand in his pocket you think, `They are going to shoot us right now.' We are so scared. The Taliban want to come back. And we are breaking their law by coming to school. Totally, they want to kill us."

 

Suhila cannot bear any more to listen to the news on television or radio. "I'm not interested because it always talks about how many people were killed today and that is the same news I have heard since I was born here. All we can do is wear the burqa to protect ourselves. It is not fun, but it is for our security."…

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:40 | link | comments

 

Births of a nation: Carolynne Wheeler, the Globe and Mail freelancer who, along with her hubby, staff writer Mark “Malarkey” MacKinnon, never loses an opportunity to put a negative slant on a story about Israel, is at it again today. In a story about the great strides that Israel has made in the areas of in-vitro fertilization and other medical procedures to counteract infertility—which, I dunno, kind of sounds like a good news story to me—Carolynne finds a way to make government support for such efforts sound like some kind of nefarious Jewish eugenics program designed to preserve the Jewish majority in Israel.

 

As if a Jewish majority in Israel is supposed to be a bad thing:

…Israel's slow growth rate contributes to the political pressure. State demographers carefully record the birth rates among Jewish Israelis and Muslim-Arab Israelis over fears the Muslim population will increase and diminish what is termed by politicians the “Jewish democratic” nature of the state. Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics showed the country's population in 2005 at just under seven million — 76 per cent of that Jewish and just under 20 per cent Arab Muslim and Christian — but growing by a mere 1.8 per cent.

While the Jewish birth rate among women of childbearing age remained at 2.7 children for each woman — high by Western standards — the Muslim birth rate is still at four children for each woman. The rate is estimated to be about the same or higher in the neighbouring West Bank and Gaza Strip.

“This is a scare about other cultures, a prejudice about Islam,” said Dr. Jona Schellekens, a demographer in the department of sociology and anthropology at Hebrew University, who said that realistically, such a heavy focus on fertility programs makes little difference to actual population growth, since the number of women affected is so small.

“It's political. You have to distinguish between two groups who are encouraging Jewish fertility. It's a political group who are scared Arab fertility might increase and change the Jewish nature of the state. And you have an ultra-Orthodox minority who have an ideology for having lots of children,” he said. “It's symbolic, I think. ‘Look, here, we're doing something about the problem.'”

And so the focus on promoting and funding the creation of families continues, through family allowance programs as well as funding of fertility treatments…

Here’s my letter to the Globe:

In Western Europe, the demographics and birth rates are such that, should current trends continue, the Continent will likely have a Muslim majority by the end of the century, if not sooner. If the Israeli government is doing everything medically possible to boost the Jewish birth rate, which stands at around 80 per cent Jewish and 20 per cent Muslim, I’m pretty sure it’s not out of “a prejudice about Islam”—although, obviously, there are some, including the demographer quoted in Carolynne Wheeler’s article, who prefer to see it that way. It’s because, in order to retain its Jewish character and survive as a sovereign Jewish nation—the only one in the world—Israel cannot afford to go the way of Western Europe.

 

That’s not “prejudice.” That’s called self-preservation.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:24 | link | comments

Mesmerizing Moo: Wearing the vintage leisure suit he picked up for a song at the Teheran Value Village, thrifty genocidal Islamist, Moo Jihad, attempts to hypnotize his own hand. (Tomorrow, he plans to try out the same move on a large crowd.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:40 | link | comments (1)

 

Foley…Foley…Foley…: Ben Stein takes aim at the Mark Foley feeding frenzy. While noting that Foley is a slime-ball who should have been cashiered from Congress a while ago, Stein says that the media’s All-Foley-All-the-Time coverage is evidence of a country whose priorities are seriously askew. From The American Spectator:

...In Ferris Bueller's Day Off, when Ferris's best friend tells him that his Dad's favorite thing on earth is his Ferrari, Ferris says, "A man with priorities so far out of whack does not deserve such a fine car."

We do not devote more than a few instants each month to the rape and murder in Congo. We barely notice the rape and genocide in Darfur. No one on earth except George W. Bush and John Bolton and Condoleezza Rice is trying to stop two maniacs from acquiring nuclear weapons even though one of them has promised to wipe out Israel if he gets them. But we can devote 24 hours a day, day after day, to the e-mails of one nutty Member of Congress to a teenage boy.

A country with its priorities so out of whack does not deserve to be the world's shining city on a hill. Let's take a moment, pray for guidance, turn Mr. Foley over to the proper mental health authorities, and try to, as the moral exemplar of the world, use every bit of strength we have to stop the slaughter of the innocents now and in the future. Mark Foley is important, but to me, he's no more important than those teenage girls in Congo who get raped, have their arms chopped off, and then are murdered...and there are a lot of them. Let's get our priorities straight. And don't bother writing and telling me you hate me for caring more about murder than about e-mails, even extremely bad e-mails. You're not going to change me. Our challenge as a moral people is about genocide far more than about sick individuals, even sick ones who carry the initials M.C. after their names. When I reflect that we live under the providence of a just God, I wonder how we will ever explain how much time we have wasted...

 

Incidentally, the famously monotonal Stein started out as a speechwriter for Richard Nixon but took a detour into acting. I’m sure you recall his brief but memorable turn as Ferris Bueller’s attendance-taking teacher in the movie mentioned above.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:05 | link | comments (1)

 

The jihad and public safety: Here’s a conundrum for you. Is the war in Iraq increasing jihadi ire and their resolve to vanquish Great Satan, or does the war provide a focus for that rage, thereby keeping the holy warriors from launching successful terror attacks on American soil?

 

The U.S. “intelligence community” seems to favour the former; Charles Krauthammer argues for the latter (link via RealClear Politics):

...How important is Iraq in this calculus? The vaunted National Intelligence Estimate -- unspun -- offers a completely commonplace weighing of the relationship between terrorism and Iraq. On the one hand, the American presence does inspire some to join the worldwide jihad. On the other hand, success in the Iraq project would blunt the most fundamental enlistment tool for terrorism -- the political oppression in Arab lands that is deflected by cynical dictators and radical imams into murderous hatred of the West. Which is why the Bush democracy project embodies the greatest hope for a reduction of terrorism and why the NIE itself concludes that were the jihadists to fail in Iraq, their numbers would diminish.

It is an issue of time frame. The bombing of the Japanese home islands may have increased short-term recruiting for the kamikazes. But success in the Pacific War put a definitive end to the whole affair.

Moreover, does anyone imagine that had the jihadists in Iraq remained home they would now be tending petunias rather than plotting terror attacks? Omar Farouq, leader of al-Qaeda in Southeast Asia, escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan a year ago and was apparently drawn to the "cause celebre'' in Iraq. Last month, he was killed by British troops in a firefight in Basra. In an audiotape released on Sept. 28, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq said that 4,000 of its recruits have been killed there since the American invasion. Like Omar Farouq and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, they went to Iraq to die in Iraq.

It is clear that one of the reasons we have gone an astonishing five years without a second attack on the American homeland is that the most dedicated and virulent jihadists have gone to Iraq to fight us, as was said during World War I, "over there.''

Does the war in Iraq make us more or less safe today? And what about tomorrow? The fact is that no definitive answer is possible. Except for the following truism: During all wars we are by definition less safe -- and the surest way back to safety is victory.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:57 | link | comments

 

Veiled threats: Have you noticed that when one or another Eurabian belatedly awakens to fact that problems that can arise when a country has a large, hostile, unassimilable Muslim minority in its midst, he, she or they often hone in on female head gear?

That’s what happened in France, when a law was passed banning head scarves in public schools (with ensuing howls of outrage from the aggrieved community). Now, Britain’s Jack Straw has asked some Muslim women constituents to remove their veils so he can see their faces. That request has, you guessed it, been accompanied by howls of outrage from the aggrieved community, including British Islamo-fascist buff, George Galloway. From the Times Online:

Jack Straw has reignited the row over his request for Muslim women to remove their veils, by admitting he would prefer the garments not to be worn at all.

His comments came a day after he disclosed that he asks women who hold constituency meetings with him to remove their veil so that they can truly talk "face to face".

Those remarks sparked controversy, with Muslim leaders in his Blackburn constituency saying that many Muslim women would find his comments "offensive and disturbing" and George Galloway, the Respect MP, demanding his resignation. However, others said they understood Mr Straw’s position.

Today, the Leader of the Commons went a step further. Asked on BBC Radio Four’s Today programme if he would rather the veils be discarded completely, he responded: "Yes. It needs to be made clear I am not talking about being prescriptive but with all the caveats, yes, I would rather."

Echoing his contentious comments of yesterday, Mr Straw said he had seen more women wearing the veil in the street and he had "picked up quite considerable concerns about this being a rather visible demonstration of separateness".

He warned against the "development of parallel communities", adding: "Unless we bring some of these issues out which lead to parallel development, we will all be worse off."

I don’t really want to get into the ins and outs of the head gear debate, but I do think that all the focus on one piece of apparel—even one fraught with such symbolism—is a bit of a red herring. It won’t prevent car-b-cue “youths” from wretched French ‘burbs from torching Renault 5s, and it won’t disuade lads from Leeds from tucking dynamite into their rucksacks and blowing themselves up on public transit.

 

At some point, the powers that be in France, Britain and other EU countries will actually have to confront the societal threat--and do something more drastic than demanding women go bare-headed. By then, of course, it will be far too late.

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

 

Folie a deux: Jeffrey S. Toobin writes that Israel and the U.S. are in the throes of a mutual delusion--the idea that Abbas is a “moderate” who can play a role in effecting a peace deal. From Jewish Exponent:

 

…The principle object of Rice's solicitude is the administration's poster boy for Arab moderation, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Called a "man of courage" by the president during a meeting at the United Nations last month, Abbas' stock seems to be rising again in Washington…

 

In the grand tradition of previous sightings of "moderates" within the Arab world, this idea is nothing short of preposterous. Condi Rice may seem a lot brighter than some of the dimmer lights that have preceded her at Foggy Bottom, but the willingness to buy into the myth of Palestinian moderation lives on like an urban myth spreading on the Internet.

 

As it so happens, just as Rice was landing in the region, competing armed factions of Palestinian moderates were staging a remake of "Gunfight at the OK Corral" in Gaza. The Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, a group of moderate terrorists aligned with Abbas, were facing down moderate Hamas terrorist cadres loyal to the Hamas prime minister and his Cabinet.

 

The competing groups of moderates were, of course, not disputing each other's record of suicide bombings or firing of missiles against Israeli civilian targets; they all agree on that stuff. They just disagree about divvying up their respective shares of the ever-dwindling Palestinian patronage pie.

 

And, like the Clantons and the Earps in old Tombstone, Ariz., they weren't shy about sending large numbers of their antagonists off to the local Palestinian version of "Boot Hill."

 

For their part, the Israelis seem eager not to stray far from the Rice/Bush line about Abbas, and they, too, speak of trying to toe his moderate line.

 

Were Abbas a genuine moderate (something a lifetime spent as an aide to Yasser Arafat would seem to belie), perhaps he would have used the considerable force at his disposal to curb Hamas terrorism (or the terrorism emanating from his own forces) during the year he had undivided control of the P.A. prior to Hamas' January election victory. But as we all know, he did not, while still managing to convince much of the world that his failure to do so was somehow the fault of the Israelis…

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:22 | link | comments (2)

 

Another country heard from: As if the deck isn’t already stacked in Israel’s disfavour, along comes Russia (again) to make a terrible situation even worse. By Caroline Glick in JWR:

...The Russian bear has awakened after fifteen years of hibernation. Under the leadership of former KGB commander President Vladimir Putin, Russia is reasserting its traditional hostility towards Israel.

On Tuesday, Russian military engineers landed in Beirut. Their arrival signaled the first time that Russian forces have openly deployed in the Middle East. In the past Soviet forces in Syria and Egypt operated under the official cover of "military advisors." Today those "advisors" are "engineers." The Russian forces, which will officially number some 550 troops, are tasked with rebuilding a number of bridges that the IDF destroyed during the recent war. They will operate outside the command of the UNIFIL.

Mosnews news service reported on Wednesday that the engineers will be protected by commando platoons from Russia's 42nd motorized rifle division permanently deployed in Chechnya. According to the report, these commando platoons are part of the Vostok and Zapad Battalions both of which are commanded by Muslim officers who report directly to the main intelligence department of the Russian Army's General Staff in Moscow. The Vostok Battalion is commanded by Maj. Sulim Yamadayev who Mosnews refers to as a "former rebel commander."

With the deployment of former Chechen rebels as Russian military commandos in Lebanon, the report this week exposing Russia's intelligence support for Hizbullah during the recent war takes on disturbing strategic significance.

According to Jane's Defense Weekly the Russian listening post on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights provided Hizbullah with a continuous supply of intelligence throughout the conflict.

Much still remains to be reported about the impressive intelligence capabilities that Hizbullah demonstrated this summer. But from what has already been made public, we know that Hizbullah's high degree of competence in electronic intelligence caused significant damage to IDF operations. Now we learn that Moscow stood behind at least one layer of Hizbullah's intelligence prowess.

Moscow's assistance to Hizbullah was not limited to intelligence sharing. The majority of IDF casualties in the fighting were caused by Russian-made Kornet anti-tank missiles that made their way to Hizbullah fighters through Syria. Indeed, as we learn more about Russia's role, it appears that Russia's support for Hizbullah may well have been as significant as Syria's support for the terror organization. And now we have Chechens in Lebanon.

Russian backing of Hizbullah, like its support for Syria and Iran has been matched by its extreme, Cold War-esque hostility towards Israel. On Tuesday, Channel 2 reported that for the past few months Putin has been obsessively demanding that the government transfer proprietary rights and control to the Russian government over the Russian Compound, which has served as a police station since the British Mandate, and other Russian historical buildings in central Jerusalem.

Putin's demand, which has no legal foundation or diplomatic precedent, exposes startling disrespect for Israeli sovereignty. According to Channel 2, Russian diplomats have been raising this obnoxious demand at the start of every meeting they have had with Israeli officials for the past several months. This most recently reported slap in the face joins a long list of diplomatic crises that Russia has fomented in the past few months…

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:48 | link | comments

 

Hands off!: It’s official. There’ll be no pressing the flesh (spanking the monkey, choking the chicken, visits from the Palmer sisters, etc.) during the month of Ramadan. And that’s final.

 

From YNet News:

 

Deliberate masturbation during the month of Ramadan renders a fast invalid, Iranian Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khameini has ruled.

 Khameini, who is Iran's most powerful political and religious figure, was asked on his website : "If somebody masturbates during the month of Ramadan but without any discharge, is his fasting invalidated?"

"If he do not intend masturbation and discharging semen and nothing is discharged, his fasting is correct even though he has done a ḥarām (forbidden) act. But, if he intends masturbation or he knows that he usually discharges semen by this process and semen really comes out, it is a ḥaram intentional breaking fasting," the Iranian leader said, posting the reply on his website.

Um, you mean there’s such a thing as “unintentional” masturbation?

How does that work, exactly?

Update: Turns out the Ayatollah also gave his opinion in verse:

 

“For a month, with no hesitation,

One mustn’t succumb to temptation.

That kind of abuse

Is morally loose

And ruins the concentration."

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:34 | link | comments (1)

 

Ken’s escape: Looks like Red Ken’s high-priced solicitors have managed to convince a sympathetic judge to overturn Ken's suspension for likening a Jewish reporter to a guard at a Nazi concentration camp guard. From the Times Online:

Ken Livingstone has won his court battle to overturn a four week suspension from office for comparing a Jewish journalist to a Nazi concentration camp guard.

The Mayor of London is thought to have spent tens of thousands of pounds on legal fees challenging a decision by the Adjudication Panel for England that his comment breached the Greater London Authority’s code of conduct.

James Maurici, the Mayor’s barrister, told the High Court this week that the punishment meted out to Mr Livingstone was in breach of his human rights.

In February a three-man committee of the Ajudication Panel unanimously found Mr Livingstone guilty of being "unnecessarily insensitive and offensive" in likening Oliver Finegold, a reporter on the Evening Standard, to a Nazi guard.

The comments were investigated after the Board of Deputies of British Jews submitted a complaint to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. However, the suspension order was frozen pending the outcome of the hearing.

This afternoon Mr Justice Collins said that the suspension would be quashed but he reserved his decision on whether the Mayor had brought his office into disrepute over the remarks.

The judge said that he wanted time to consider his ruling because of the "ramifications".

During the hearing, Mr Livingstone’s lawyers argued that the panel’s decision was legally flawed in part because the Mayor had not been acting in his official capacity at the time of the incident.

Mr Maurici told the judge that the "Nazi" incident took place while Mr Livingstone was off duty and attending a reception at City Hall to mark 20 years since former Culture Secretary Chris Smith became Britain’s first openly-gay MP.

While Mr Livingstone was on his way home, he was pursued and "hassled" by the reporter, Mr Maurici said. He went on to quote William Rees-Mogg in The Times who wrote that the tribunal’s decision was to "inflate trivial disputes of the late evening into matters of state".

While Mr Maurici argued in court that Londoners supported the Mayor’s right to freedom of speech as "a colourful politician expressing forthright views", Tim Morshead, appearing for the Ethical Standards Officer, rejected that argument.

He told the High Court that likening a Jewish reporter to a Nazi concentration camp guard was "no laughing matter" but represented a danger to democracy "in a multi-faceted city at a time of racial and religious tension".

Mr Morshead added: "He also occupies an office in which he exercises real power over the lives of millions of people, by no means all of whom actually voted for him, or indeed anyone else, to occupy the position of mayor.

During the first day of the hearing on Wednesday, the judge observed that Mr Livingstone’s remark was "clearly offensive and intended to be so", but that did not make it a breach of the code of conduct. He suggested that the Mayor had spoken his mind in forceful terms "while his brain was not fully engaged"…

Might I suggest that if he only spoke when his brain was fully engaged, he’d be a mute.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:14 | link | comments

 

Little Big Picture: A couple of weeks ago, I was asked if I’d be willing to be part of the audience for a taping of the CBC TV current affairs show, The Big Picture. The show is hosted by Avi Lewis, the dauphin of Canada’s First Family of the Left (grandpa David led the federal NDP; papa Stephen once led the Ontario NDP and is currently angling for a Nobel Peace Prize as the world’s go-to man on the AIDS epidemic; mama Michelle Landsberg was a long-time columnist with the Toronto Starafat; wife Naomi Klein is the poster-babe for the anti-globalization movement). It’s a reworking of his previous Ceeb show, counterSpin, the one he left not long ago to pursue a career as a documentary filmmaker. Apparently, that wasn’t paying the bills, and now Avi is back on the tube, furthering the Ceeb worldview.

 

The premise of his new two-hour show is this: the Ceeb invites an audience to screen a documentary film on a timely topic after which audience members and a number of “experts” participate in a discussion about what they’ve seen. The intention is to have a free-for-all discussion, with opposing viewpoints getting an equal chance to air their take on the subject.

 

That’s the theory, at least. In practice, when the topic is Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, and the “experts” in the audience include Norman “Ratfink” Finkelstein, and most of the other experts, quel surprise!, are either out-and-out Israel-bashers or clueless leftists, you’re unlikely to get anything that even approximates balance. And the imbalance will be so pronounced that you will want to throw your coffee mug at the TV screen in utter disgust at the Big Lies that spew forth from the bashers’ mouths and that are allowed to go unchallenged.

 

Which is why, when asked to participate in what I knew would likely devolve into another Israel hate-fest, I respectfully declined. (Actually, I think my exact words were: “Oy vey! If I have to be in an audience full of angry Palestinians and their supporters at a Ceeb show hosted by Avi Lewis, you’d have to sedate me. In which case, I’d be absolutely no use at all.”)

 

I didn’t go, but a friendly acquaintance of mine did. When I saw him the day after the taping, he looked ashen, shell-shocked. Now, he’s a big guy, not Jewish, highly intelligent and with a firm grasp on the issues. In other words, someone you would expect would be able to hold his own, even in such an inhospitable environment. But he was so overwhelmed by sitting in that hostile audience, so appalled by the lies that were told, so disgusted by the way the Ceeb had intentionally weighted the discussion in favour of the Palestinians, that, many hours later, he had not yet recovered from the experience. He said he felt like a Jew in Germany in 1938, and that, when Avi aimed his microphone at him and gave him a chance to speak, he was so flustered that he ended up tripping over his words.

 

Last night, I saw for myself what he was talking about. I’m sure that being there was much more intense than watching it on TV, but watching is was about as intense as I could handle. First, there was the screening of “Hot House,” the hour-long documentary by Israeli filmmaker Arik Bernstein. Bernstein and his crew were given access to a maximum security prison in Israel where hundreds of Palestinians, men and women, are serving time for a variety of crimes, most relating to terrorism and terrorist activities. The film showed their lives in prison (which, all in all, didn’t seem so bad), but the film aimed to be more than a “slice-of-prison-life.” It aimed to show that, for Palestinians, prison isn’t in any way punishing or rehabilitative—the point of most imprisonment. In fact, it is more like a political finishing school. Most of the Palestinians, the male ones anyway, arrive as young whippersnappers, unformed, unschooled, unwise in the ways of the world. During their stay, they take correspondence courses, earn diplomas, read Israeli newspapers and watch TV, and engage in heated political discussions with their confreres (Hamas with Hamas; Fatah with Fatah, and, for obvious reasons, never the twain shall mix). So by the time they get out (those who do get out, the ones whose crimes aren’t so heinous that they’re in there for life), they’re media savvy college graduates, ready to take on the mantle of leadership. You might say that without the opportunities afforded by the Israeli prison system, they’d still be the ignorant yobbos they were when they entered. Not only does a prison stay give them street cred with the bruthas; it gives them a leg up in the world, one they would never have had if they hadn’t resorted to terrorism.

 

I know the filmmaker wanted me to get all goosebumpy at the obvious irony of Israel footing the bill for its enemies’ education (joke’s on you, Zionist entity), but all I could think of as I listened to the interviews with these affable killers (Where, I wondered, were the angry ones? Locked up in solitary?) was that here was evidence of an entire society geared up for one “creative” enterprise—blowing up Jews. That’s it. That’s all they wanted to do. They didn’t want to build anything—although there was lots of blather about borders and the chimerical “two state solution.” They wanted to tear down what the Jews had built. In the name of justice, of course, because the one word you never heard in the entire document was “jihad.” Oh, you heard that some of the prisoners belonged to an organization called “Islamic Jihad,” but not for a second were you given a sense that these people were fighting a religious war, and that the sticking point wasn’t “borders” and “the occupation" but the fact of Jewish sovereignty over a morsel of land that Arabs claim in perpetuity for Islam. And that Islamists were making similar claims over other portions of the world. No, once again, we were given “the little picture,” camera lens focused on the big problem of little Israel and its failure to resolve its Palestinian problem in an equitable way.

 

The most chilling part of the documentary, at least for me, was the interview with the woman who planned and implemented the Sbarro pizzeria massacre in Tel Aviv. In her previous life, she had been a newsreader on Palestinian TV, and in that capacity she had the unalloyed pleasure of being the project manager of a successful terrorist plot, and then being able to report on the plot on her daily newscast. You could see from her face that she took enormous delight in that, and one had the sense, in looking at the wicked smirk on her lovely face—and hearing her remorseless, hateful words—that this was the face of pure evil. If you look closely, you can see the same kind of expression—same smirk, same dead eyes—on the face of another remorseless Jew-hater, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

 

Anyway, the film ended and the “discussion” began. Well, it wasn’t a discussion so much as it was Moshe Ronen, co-chair of the Canada-Israel Committee, talking up the Israel side, while almost everyone, including the host, who was unable to maintain even a semblance of impartiality, took turns sniping at him. Here are a few things I learned last night (and I know they must be true because I heard them on the CBC, that most authoritiative source of information, and because, with one exception, not a single person refuted them):

 

• Israel is a racist apartheid state. That is the “root cause” of the current problems.
• The Palestinian prisoners are political prisoners, like the Irish ones imprisoned in England, or black South Africans like Nelson Mandela.
• Israel is the only nation in the world that has legalized torture.
• When Palestinian women give birth in jail, they are spread-eagled and their arms are chained to a wall.
• On average, since the occupation began, Israel kills two Palestinians a day.
• Palestinians are subject to daily humiliations and forced to live in dreadful conditions ALL BECAUSE OF ISRAEL.
• Palestinians, including many of the ones in prison, are longing for that “two-state-solution” every bit as much as Israelis are.
• For the past 30 years, Israel has had a chance to sign on to the “two-state-solution,” but every year Israel and the U.S. reject the international community’s resolutions. (This observation courtesy Norman Finkelstein, who was actually far less compelling in person than I had expected him to be.)
• Israel kills children; the Palestinians kill children. Even-steven. Therefore the actions and claims of Palestinians and Israelis are completely equivalent.
• Nothing can be resolved until Israel agrees to “talk” to Hamas. It’s unfair for Israel (or Canada, or the U.S., or anyone) to demand that Hamas recognize Israel as a pre-condition of these talks taking place.

 Here are a few things I didn’t hear last night:

 

• Israel is one front in the global jihad that threatens the entire free world.
• Hamas and Hezbollah are fascist Islamic terrorist organizations committed to wiping the Jews—all the Jews, not just the ones in Israel—off the face of the Earth.
• Ahmadinejad’s Mahdi, the occluded 12^th imam, can’t return as the messiah until all the Jews are dead, hence Nasrallah’s request during the recent war that all the Jews ingather (or “concentrate”) so Moo can nuke ‘em all in one fell swoop.
• The Ceeb is a clueless yet malevolent multi-culti-besotted tool of Islamism that is helping pave the way for Western ruin, one Avi Lewis-hosted program at a time.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:27 | link | comments (3)

 

Weight watchers: During a recent visit to Guantanamo, Mark Steyn noted that jailers are so mindful of their inmates’ sensitivities that each prison cell comes equipped with a shrink-wrapped Koran, so that detainees will know that their holy book hasn’t been defiled by infidel cooties.

 

Steyn also pointed out that the prisoners are so well fed—and so indolent—that some of those lean and hungry Pashtuns have become roly-poly Olies whom their own mothers would be hard pressed to recognize. 

 

Now, ABC News confirms Steyn’s observations. In fact, it reports that one inmate has ballooned to 410 lbs. (186 kgms)—twice as much as he weighed when he arrived.

 

Looks like it may be time to cut back on the Ramadan backlava and push the tofu and sprouts.

 

Then again, keeping the mujahedeen fat and out of shape isn't such a bad idea.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:59 | link | comments (1)

 

Scaramouche’s rule: I’ve been making my way through John Irving’s latest novel, Until I Find You, the next selection of my book group. For various reasons, mostly having to do with the fact that it’s a rambling mess devoid of literary merit that reads like a bad parody of Irving replete with all his most tedious obsessions (wrestling; bad/inappropriate sex; gender confusion; genitalia, especially male genitalia; bodily excretions, etc.), I have found reading it to be an excruciating experience. However, it has enabled me to formulate a new literary rule which I’d like to share with you now. Here it is:

 

In general, the quality of writing in any given work of fiction is inversely proportional to the number of exclamation marks it contains. The greater the number of exclamation marks, the crappier the work.

 

FYI, Until I Find You has more exclamation marks than just about any novel I have ever read.

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

 

En garde, Dugard: The editorial in this week’s Canadian Jewish News blasts Louise Arbour factotum, John Dugard. Dugard, a South African internationalist, epitomizes the moral vacuity that lies at the heart of the UN and its Geneva-based Human Wrongs Council:

…At a meeting of the its Human Rights Council in Geneva, UN human rights envoy John Dugard accused Israel of turning the Gaza Strip into a prison and repeated earlier charges that Israel was breaking international law with its actions in the Gaza Strip. “Israel violates international law as expounded by the Security Council and the International Court of Justice and goes unpunished. But the Palestinian people are punished for having democratically elected a regime unacceptable to Israel, the U.S. and the EU,” Dugard said.

Dugard is well known for his anti-Israel tirades over the years. Indeed, his allegations against the Jewish state have been so full of invective and incendiary statements that the Anti-Defamation League called for his dismissal in March of this year and in October 2004.

Last week Dugard also criticized Canada, the United States and western European countries for cutting off funding to the Palestinian Authority after Hamas’ victory in legislative elections last January.

As demagogic and dangerous as Dugard’s allegations are, they are also quite fatuous and hollow. The process by which Hamas was elected to govern the Palestinians was indeed important, but far more important are the policies by which Hamas chooses to govern.

Avoiding a government that refuses to recognize Israel, advocates violence against the Jewish state and aligns itself with blood-crazed, anti-western terror groups is not only legitimate, it is quite appropriate.

The Austrian people elected Joerg Haider and his Freedom Party in March 2004 to govern the province of Carinthia. But other countries in Europe and elsewhere refused to have any dealings with him. In light of his troubling, fascist policies and background, they had every right – and were right – to do so. Eventually, he stepped aside.

Why should Canadian taxpayers send money to a government that espouses the annihilation of Israel and its people; that since its election has sent a regular barrage of Qassam rockets against Israel; and that refuses to return the soldier its forces kidnapped from Israeli soil?

Similarly, why should the brazen, anti-Israel bias of a man such as John Dugard still be the norm at the United Nations and its many agencies? The fact that it is, and that he and others like him can still peddle his outrageous calumnies against Israel under the seal and imprimatur of the United Nations, is further sad proof that the organization is a moral wreckage and in perpetual violation of its precious, but now degraded, purposes and principles.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:56 | link | comments

 

Stinky’s disguise: Condi Rice gave Stinky Abbas a big thumbs up today. Employing the royal pronoun often associated with pronouncements made by Queen Victoria, Condi told the moderate-in-name-only that “We have great admiration for you and your leadership.”

 

Me too. I think Abbas has done a great job of convincing Condi and other wishful thinkers that he’s a “partner for peace” when in fact he’s nothing more than a clean-shaven, spruced up Arafat.

 

Way to go, Stinky!

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:36 | link | comments

 

Kofi’s sleazy exploits: Outgoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has weaseled out of his promise to disclose his financial doings in the wake of the oil-for-food scam. Apparently, Annan was able to evade full disclosure because—get this—he’s not an employee of the UN. From the Washington Times:

 

 ...A spokesman said Mr. Annan submitted the questionnaire -- under a policy implemented in response to international outrage over U.N. involvement in the Iraq oil-for-food scandal -- on Sept. 22.

    "The secretary-general has filed the forms," Stephane Dujarric confirmed yesterday. But, he said, "We will not be making it public."

    John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, did not return a call asking about that decision, but other critics of the world body argued that the disclosure form should be made public.

    "Kofi Annan has not gone far enough. He should make the financial disclosure publicly available for outside scrutiny," said Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation. "The culture of secrecy remains intact in the upper echelon of the United Nations."

    Mr. Annan implemented the disclosure-form policy as one of several moves to reform the institution in the wake of the oil-for-food scandal. Massive fraud was uncovered in a $64 billion program run by the United Nations that allowed Saddam Hussein's Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil.

    Mr. Annan was cleared of personal involvement in the scandal, but questions were raised about the conduct of son Kojo, who worked for a company that won a major oil-for-food contract.

    Among other reforms, Mr. Annan ordered the creation of an ethics office and established a policy to protect whistleblowers who expose corruption within the organization. The General Assembly agreed to the changes during the 2005 World Summit.

    Until this year, U.N. undersecretaries-general were required to submit disclosure forms and declare gifts of $10,000 or more. Mr. Annan then declared that assistant secretaries-general and authorities in the U.N. procurement office also should file the forms, and reduced the gift limit to $250.

    Mr. Dujarric told reporters in January that Mr. Annan would be among the first to file the disclosure form.

    Asked whether he had filed his form at a press conference last month, Mr. Annan carefully answered: "I honor all my obligations to the U.N., and I think that is as I have always done." But the secretary-general is not technically an employee of the United Nations and, therefore, not legally obliged to do so…

 

Hmmm. You don’t suppose the only reason Kofi agreed to fill out the form in the first place was because he knew that, under his terms of employment, he’d never be forced to disclose it…? Why, that would mean there’s absolutely no accountability at the the UN and that Kofi is even more slippery and evasive than we thought he was.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:26 | link | comments

 

Knock, knock, knockin’ on Sunnis’ door: Uri Dromi, the director of international outreach at the Israel Democracy Institute in Jerusalem, is doing some outreach in the pages of the Globe and Mail (link available by subscription). In a comment piece which supposedly outlines “The real Mideast divide,” Dromi says that now’s a good time for Israel to capitalize on the Sunni-Shia rift (the “real divide” of the title). And since the Shia side of the divide seems to be a dead end, what with Ahmadinejad still rattling his nuclear sabres and desirous of wiping Israel off the map, Dromi suggests Israel go a-knocking on the Sunni door. More specifically, on the door of the Syrians and the Saudis:

 

In light of this [the possibility of Iran wresting control of southern Iraq and the threat posed by Islamic extremists who belong to various jihadi terrorist organizations], Israel has to align itself with Sunni Muslims who stand together against the Shia Iranian threat. (To be precise, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are Sunni, so we must speak about the moderate-radical divide, which most of the time is identical with the Sunni-Shia one.) Israel already enjoys a strong strategic relationship with Turkey, andits peace with Egypt and Jordan has endured grave tests. But it’s time to move on.

 

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad recently told Der Spiegel: “I don’t say Israel should be wiped off the map. We want to make peace—peace with Israel.” Now that’s good news, compared with the Iranian President…

 

Israel should throw the ball back to Mr. Assad’s court by inviting him to Jerusalem to discuss how to make peace. After all, this was the example set in 1977 by Egypt’s Anwar Sadat…

 

Yeah, that’ll work. But wait, there’s more. Dromi exhumes the decomposed corpse of a long-dead Saudi “peace” proposal:

 

In 2002, the Arab League adopted a Saudi peace plan calling for peace with Israel in return for Israeli withdrawal from all territories. It is a tricky proposal, because it leaves unanswered the question of whether Palestinian refugees return to Israel (which is unacceptable) or to the Palestinian state…

 

A bit of a sticky wicket, that. But then, unlike the blithely optimistic Dromi, I’d say the Saudi’s desire for “peace” was about as sincere as the Baby Baathist’s. That is, they’re both looking for “peace,” but it’s the kind of salaam that will descend once that pesky Entity has finally been eliminated.

 

Knowing this, I just had to send a letter:

 

Let me get this straight. Uri Dromi thinks it’s a good idea to invite Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to Jerusalem for “peace” talks, even though Assad remains a firm ally of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and it’s proxy terrorist army, Hezbollah, and even though Assad would have to have a death wish to accept such an invitation, knowing that it would almost certainly result in his assassination at the hands of extremists, the fate of Egypt’s Anwar Sadat when he negotiated a peace deal with Israel.

 

Further, Mr. Dromi thinks that it’s possible for Israel to exploit the Sunni-Shia divide and align itself with the Sunis of Saudi Arabia, even though the Saudis remain an implacable foe of the Jewish state and continue to offer financial incentives to the jihadi terrorists who are waging a holy war against it.

 

In the annals of bad ideas based on nothing more substantial than wishful thinking, I’d say those suggestions rank right up there with the Oslo Accords—which resulted in the second intifada—and the Gaza disengagement—which resulted in the election of the Palestinian terrorist regime, Hamas.

 

Any more of these ideas and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won’t need a nuclear device to “wipe Israel off the map.” Israel will oblige him and its other enemies by self-destructing all on its own.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:53 | link | comments

 

Everything old is new again: In an article in the October issue of Commentary Magazine, Hillel Halkin makes the following claim about “radical Islam”:

Nor is radical Islam quite the antithesis to this civilization—the anti-West—that it is often made out to be. Its theology comes from its reading of a Qur’an that borrows heavily from Hebrew Scripture, its political philosophy owes a great deal to 19th- and 20th-century European totalitarian thinkers, and its arsenal of terror depends on state-of-the-art Western technology. It is less an anti-West than a caricature of the West, one whose very crudeness long kept it from being recognized for the danger it is. For while its combination of intellectual primitivism and organizational and technological sophistication should have been familiar from the histories of Bolshevism and Nazism, revolutionaries swearing by the beard of the Prophet were not quickly credited with the political cunning possessed by their European predecessors.

When I first read this paragraph, I thought, “Wow, how insightful.” But on second thought, I’ve decided that Halkin, an essayist I admire and enjoy reading, is on the wrong track. Here’s why: It’s not just “radical Islam” that “borrows heavily for Hebrew Scripture.” It’s mainstream Islam as we