Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2025
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘islamofascism’

Calling evil evil

Posted by Richard on June 22, 2006

Ralph Kinney Bennett at TCS characterizes perfectly the monsters who brutally tortured and killed Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker — and, in passing, those who ignore, excuse, or refuse to judge them:

This is the routine evil of those worse than beasts.

This is the routine evil that beheaded Daniel Pearl, and Nick Berg; that left Van Gogh dead on a street in Holland.

This is the routine evil that still wraps itself in the garb of a religion while leaving young students bound and shot beside their bus and innocent women and children blown to bits in the market place.

The routine evil that draws comfort from the ignorant maunderings of a Murtha or a Sheehan; that somehow escapes the diligent moral radar of Human Rights Watch.

The routine evil that finds shelter in partisan "talking points" about the war and the shameless babble of armchair thumbsuckers about "reciprocity" with Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo.

The routine evil of men with a vision of a world of subjugated women and mindless children, ignorant of all but blood and suicide and revenge.

This is the routine evil that dreams of cyanide gas in subways and thirsts for a nuclear weapon.

This is the routine evil that some still think can be embraced into civility, "brought into government," tamed away from its loathsome imperatives.

This is the routine evil that will not be ignored and must be exterminated.

Bravo.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Sharia vs. futbol

Posted by Richard on June 11, 2006

The news out of Somalia this past week was certainly troubling:

Overlooked in light of burying Zarqawi under his safe-house and under-reported earlier in the week, Islamists now control the Somalian capital of Mogadishu and thus for all intents and purposes, the country:

After months of fierce fighting, Islamic militias declared Monday that they had taken control of Somalia’s capital, Mogadishu, defeating the warlords widely believed to be backed by the United States and raising questions about whether the country would head down an extremist path.

What this means for the future of Al Qaeda terrorism isn’t wholly clear, but it can’t be good:

Islamists who took control of Somalia’s anarchic capital this week declared war on "infidels" yesterday and warned that any American intervention in Mogadishu would be "disastrous."

Lots of smart people have taken part in interesting discussions of what this means and what to do about it. The situation didn’t look good, and our alternatives didn’t sound good.

But I was cheered by a report that not everyone in Mogadishu is ready to accept a 7th century lifestyle and submit to Sharia law — not while World Cup games are available via satellite:

Residents say Islamist militiamen have shot in the air to disperse hundreds of Somalis protesting against moves by sharia courts to stop them watching the soccer World Cup in the capital, Mogadishu.

The soccer tournament had drawn huge crowds to TV screens set up under trees and iron-sheeted shacks.

It provided some escape from the tension that has gripped Mogadishu since Islamists seized control from an alliance of warlords on Monday (local time).

Witnesses say scores of young men set fire to tyres late last night in protests that carried on into the early hours of today, after Islamist gunmen pulled the plug on makeshift cinemas airing the World Cup.

Some residents fear the latest move to outlaw foreign entertainment is proof the Islamists want to create a Muslim state, following their victory against a self-styled anti-terrorism coalition of secular warlords, believed to be backed by the US.

The Islamic courts have been popular for restoring a semblance of order in parts of the anarchic city, which is carved into fiefdoms by warlords who ousted military ruler Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991.

But the World Cup ban has stirred resentment among locals, already weary of the fighting in Mogadishu that has killed 350 people in three months.

This story got me thinking. Maybe all the geopolitical geeks are over-thinking this thing. I think the British should accept responsibility for saving Somalia from the Islamists, and I think they can do it with a fairly modest investment. Send in a few C-130s full of giant plasma TVs and satellite dishes, along with about a thousand British soccer hooligans and the supplies needed to support them (mostly bangers and beer). I’ll bet they kick Islamist ass from one end of Mogadishu to the other.

The local soccer fans will be so grateful for the plasma TVs and the chance to watch the World Cup games, they’ll root for the Brits, so the soccer hooligans will decide they’re all right. Just airlift them out of there before the beer’s all gone.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

He lived just long enough

Posted by Richard on June 9, 2006

As I made pretty clear in an earlier post, I don’t share Michael Berg’s sadness at the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. I’m delighted by it. Richard Miniter provided some further justification — as if any were needed — for feeling that way:

If you are looking for the legacy of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, do not look in the concrete rubble of so-called safe house in Baqubah that became his final resting place. Instead, look less than 10 miles to the west, on the side of the road in the desert town of Hadid, for a pile of cardboard banana boxes.

Inside those boxes were nine human heads.

Some of the heads still had their blindfolds on. Iraqi police are still attempting to identify the murdered men.

Days earlier, in Baquba, Iraqi police found another eight severed heads. One of those heads belonged to a prominent Sunni Muslim imam, who preached peace and tolerance.

Clumsy, brutal decapitations with dull knives, screaming victims, and spurting blood were al-Zarqawi’s specialty and signature — something he truly enjoyed and promoted. That imam who preached peace and tolerance? That would have been you, Mr. Berg, had you actually pursued your "reconciliation" with al-Zarqawi.

Mac Johnson captured my own thoughts and feelings about al-Zarqawi perfectly in a must-read column entitled An Evil Man’s Death Replenishes Me. He began by setting himself apart from other analysts in the media:

I do not believe that it is the job of the chattering class to divorce itself from the society that has given it the right to chatter. I do not believe it makes a journalist or a commentator moral and righteous to coldly report on a war involving his own people as if he were filing scientific reports on the inconsequential battles between two different sorts of ants.

I believe in America. Occasionally, I even believe in right and wrong, and good and evil. And I believe in taking sides between them.

Bravo!

Johnson went on to ask if this wasn’t a cause for celebration, not somberness:

Suppose, in a worst case scenario, that Zarqawi’s death did not shorten or lengthen the war by one minute. Suppose it did not result in even one fewer suicide-bombing or beheading, or death, or did not affect one popularity poll or bill before Congress.

Wouldn’t it still be a good thing? Don’t some people just need killing?

Perhaps I am callous or impolite or just simple-minded, but aren’t there some people so loathsome and onerous that their death need not have a single consequence beyond their introduction to decomposition for that death to be a happy moment for the rest of us?

Yes, there are such people — and al-Zarqawi more than qualified! Johnson outlined why at some length — read the whole thing.

In describing what he thought al-Zarqawi deserved, Johnson became prescient (emphasis added):

Not only do I hope he eternally rots, burns, re-corporealizes and then rots and burns again well within the lowest levels of Hell, I hope he did not die instantly. I hope there was a brief moment in which he realized he was dying, and that it was an American who had killed him, and an Iraqi that turned him in.

Damned if that isn’t exactly what happened!

BAGHDAD, Iraq Jun 9, 2006 (AP)— A mortally wounded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was still alive and mumbling after American airstrikes on his hideout and tried to get off a stretcher when he became aware of U.S. troops at the scene, a top military official said Friday.

"He was conscious initially, according to the U.S. forces that physically saw him," Caldwell told Fox. "He obviously had some kind of visual recognition of who they were because he attempted to roll off the stretcher, as I am told, and get away, realizing it was U.S. military."

Yesss! He saw and recognized the American special forces! The son of a bitch lived just long enough!

That just delights me no end — maybe there is a God, after all — or something to this notion of karma. πŸ™‚
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Mourning al-Zarqawi

Posted by Richard on June 9, 2006

I can’t even begin to understand the wretched and debased moral sense of the late Nicholas Berg’s father, Michael (who has been an anti-war activist for 40 years, and is currently the Green Party candidate for Congress in Delaware). According to ABC News:

Michael Berg, whose son Nick the CIA believes was beheaded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in 2004, told ABC News’ Aaron Katersky on Thursday that he abhors that the U.S. military has killed al-Zarqawi.

"I will not take joy in the death of a fellow human, even the human being who killed my son," said Berg, who blamed President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales — and not al-Zarqawi — for the death of his son because of what Berg said is their role in authorizing the torture of Iraqis at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

Berg, who said he begged the United States government not to kill al-Zarqawi so that Berg could reconcile with him, worries that only more death will come out of his killing. 

In the AP story at Fox News, Berg described what he believes should have been done with al-Zarqawi — and why:

Berg said "restorative justice," — such as being forced to work in a hospital where maimed children are treated — could have made Zarqawi "a decent human being."

Simply breathtaking…

Mr. Berg, if any of those maimed children, or their nurses or doctors, were "Jewish pigs" — or any kind of infidel, including Shiite — al-Zarqawi would gleefully saw off their heads with the same combination of enthusiasm and lack of skill that he exhibited in the barbaric murders of Nick Berg and Eugene Armstrong. Your insane fantasy of "restorative justice" making him into a "decent human being" would simply enable him to keep killing — and recruiting and directing others to kill. In other words, Mr. Berg, more death comes out of letting people like al-Zarqawi live.

A lot of people view folks like Berg as idealists — misguided and unrealistic, but well-intentioned and somehow noble or admirable. That’s a load of crap. Check out the campaign website and articles linked above, or this interview in which he compares Bush unfavorably to Saddam Hussein — compare how Berg speaks of al-Zarqawi and the terrorists ("what we call the insurgency, and what I call the resistance") with how he speaks of Bush and Rumsfeld. Does Berg sound like he’s prepared to "reconcile" with Bush and Rumsfeld and forgive them their "sins"? Do you think Berg believes a little community service will make W. into a "decent human being"?

Michael Berg is forgiving, tolerant, and non-judgmental toward some of the most brutal and barbaric people on the planet, but he loathes those of us who argue that the values of the U.S. and Western Civilization are superior to the values of Islamofascism. I think it’s disgusting and contemptible.

There are plenty more like him on the moonbat left. On-line, you’ll find them at places like DailyKos and Democratic Underground (sorry, I can’t be bothered to provide links). They greeted the death of al-Zarqawi with the same mix of disappointment, anger, paranoid skepticism, and resentment that they displayed when Saddam was captured.

Berg and his allies exhibit a venomous hatred for Bush, Blair, capitalism — everything Western, really — but they display a studied "neutrality" toward those who want to destroy us. Sorry, that’s not pacifism or neutrality — that’s being on the other side.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

More Islamic outrage in Lebanon

Posted by Richard on June 2, 2006

Oscar Wilde said, "If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they’ll kill you." Oscar Wilde apparently wasn’t familiar with radical Islam, a belief system that seems totally bereft of a sense of humor. Islamists will kill you for trying to make them laugh.

Riots erupted in Lebanon when a TV comedy poked fun at Sheik Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah:

Calm returned early Friday to Beirut and other parts of the country after Shi’ite Muslims rioted overnight, blocking roads and burning tires, to protest a TV satirical program that mocked the leader of the militant Hezbollah group.

Several thousand Shi’ite Muslims enraged by a TV comedy that mocked the leader of Hezbollah took to the streets of southern Beirut on Thursday night, burning car tires and blocking roads – including the highway to Lebanon’s international airport, police and witnesses said.


Rioters began dispersing early Friday after Nasrallah, speaking on Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television by telephone early Friday, appealed to his supporters "to end the gatherings and go home." Also, the producer of the TV program apologized, saying he did not mean to offend Nasrallah.

Ah, yes — "the gatherings." By "militants."

So, what kind of intolerable mockery would trigger such outrage? Apparently, it doesn’t take much:

The satire did not carry any insulting words of the leader, but ridiculed the group’s continued assertion of resistance against Israel. One questioner asked the person acting as Nasrallah whether he would lay down his arms, and the man replied by implying the group will use every excuse not to surrender its weapons.

The mere depiction of Nasrallah, a middle-ranking Shi’ite cleric, was enough to enrage his supporters.

OK, the Islamo-whackos are going to have to do a better job of explaining their rules to the rest of us. When the Danes published those cartoons, we were told that the "mere depiction" of Mohammed was a grave offense, justifying widespread riots, violence, mayhem, murder, and threats of mass beheadings. Some of us thought they were a bit too touchy about this prophet of theirs. I mean, the Baptists didn’t torch pickup trucks over "Piss Christ."

Now it turns out that it’s not just Mohammed — these clowns also go berserk at the "mere depiction" of some "middle-ranking" cleric whose chief goal in life seems to be the recruitment and training of suicide bombers to kill Jews.

What else will set these nutjobs off? The "mere depiction" of their drill sergeant? Disrespecting their greengrocer? Poking fun at their favorite camel?

Meanwhile in Iraq, just to prove that the Shia branch of Islam doesn’t have a monopoly on religious whackjobs, an audio tape by al-Zarqawi condemned the Shiites for being practically "atheist" and for not being sufficiently anti-Israel and anti-American:

"Oh Sunni people, wake up, pay attention and prepare to confront the poisons of the Shiite snakes who are afflicting you with all agonies since the invasion of Iraq until our day. Forget about those advocating the end of sectarianism and calling for national unity," al-Zarqawi said. …

"There is no difference between Shiites of Iran and the Shiites in the rest of the Arab world either in Iraq, Lebanon. their beliefs are the same .. their hatred of Sunnis is the same," he said, adding, "The roots of Jews and the Shiites are the same."

He said Shiite leaders in Iran and Lebanon _ including the Hezbollah guerrilla movement _ only pretend to confront Israel and the United States. He mocked Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for "screaming and calling for wiping Israel from the map," but doing nothing, referring to anti-Israeli comments earlier this year.

Sigh. Would it be feasible to secretly spike the water supplies in large parts of the Middle East with anti-psychotics?
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Agenda journalism

Posted by Richard on May 19, 2006

For those of you who still doubt that the mainstream media’s war reporting consists largely of agenda-driven, biased, anti-American propaganda, today’s front page of The Washington Post presented what I’d like the bailiff to tag as Exhibit #17,693. The story in question (log in with BugMeNot), by Pamela Constable of the "Washington Post Foreign Service," has the following headline and subhead:

Afghanistan Rocked As 105 Die in Violence

Toll Is Among Worst Since 2001 Invasion

If you just glanced at the paper (or one of the hundreds of other papers and web pages that picked up the WaPo story), you no doubt concluded that we’re in deep trouble in Afghanistan now, too — just like Iraq. If you began reading the story, the first paragraph confirmed the grim news conveyed by the headlines:

ASADABAD, Afghanistan, May 18 — Afghanistan has been rocked over the past two days by some of the deadliest violence since the Taliban was driven from power in late 2001. As many as 105 people were reported killed in four provinces as insurgents torched a district government compound, set off suicide bombs and clashed fiercely with Afghan and foreign troops.

If you stopped there (as many casual newspaper readers do), you probably thought that it’s all going to hell, that this incompetent administration has screwed up another country, and that maybe we should just withdraw from Afghanistan, too.

If you kept reading, however, you discovered that the overwhelming majority of the deaths were among the enemy, and that some of them were killed by U.S. air strikes:

Between 80 and 90 Taliban fighters were killed in Kandahar and Helmand provinces, according to Afghan, U.S. and NATO officials. Two sites in Kandahar were struck by U.S. warplanes, including a long-range B-1 bomber, which U.S. military officials said destroyed a compound that Taliban guerrillas were using to stage an attack.

So, "as many as" 90 of 105 were enemy combatants. That’s almost a 9-1 ratio, which means the phrase "Toll Is Among Worst" is accurate only from the perspective of the Taliban.

From the perspective of those of us who are on the side of the United States and Western Civilization, and who cheer the death, destruction, and defeat of the Islamofascists, these two days of fighting represent not a terrible toll, but a tremendous success. If we keep killing 9 of them for every Afghan and allied soldier we lose, things will go very well indeed!

Pamela Constable, Leonard Downie, Jr., Ben Bradlee, et al., are apparently cheering for the other side.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ayaan Hirsi Ali coming to America

Posted by Richard on May 15, 2006

It hasn’t been easy for Ayaan Hirsi Ali lately. At the end of April, a Dutch appeals court agreed with her neighbors that — since Islamofascists want to kill her — her presence put them at risk, thus violating their human rights. She was ordered to vacate her apartment.

Ponder the logic of that for a moment. The court held that Ayaan Hirsi Ali — not the murderous thugs who threaten her — had caused her neighbors to feel less safe, and thus had violated their rights under Article 8 of the European Treaty on Human Rights.

More recently, political opponents expressed shock at the "news" that she’d lied on her 1992 asylum application (even though she’d revealed this in 2002 when she ran for parliament), and demanded that she be deported. Judith Apter Klinghoffer noted that Hirsi Ali, like Anne Frank, seems to be "too much trouble" for the Dutch.

Apparently, Hirsi Ali has had enough of Dutch cowardice and dhimmitude. Today, it’s being reported that she’s accepted a position with the American Enterprise Institute and will be moving to the United States in September.

The Netherlands’ loss is our gain. Welcome, Ms. Ali!
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

These men are animals

Posted by Richard on May 8, 2006

On February 24, I blogged about the killings of Al Arabiya television correspondent Atwar Bahjat and two members of her crew. That post, The position of a neutral civilian, quoted a news story which said they’d been shot, and it went on to discuss the issue of journalists arming themselves. I quoted a fellow named Rodney Pinder on the subject of armed journalists and offered a rejoinder to his remarks:

“A journalist with a gun says ‘some people in the situation I’m covering are my enemies and I am prepared to kill them if necessary’. That is not the position of a neutral civilian.”

I’ve got news for you, Mr. Pinder — there’s nothing you can do to disabuse "certain elements" of this "misguided belief." If you go to Iraq as a "neutral observer," the jihadist terrorists are your enemies, whether you like it or not and whether you’re armed or not, because they define a "neutral observer" as the enemy; they define everyone who isn’t actively on their side as the enemy. You only have three options: stay the hell away, prepare to kill them if necessary, or prepare to die at their whim.

To the followers of al Zarqawi, the proper position of a neutral civilian is on his knees with a dull knife at his throat.

I didn’t know at the time how precisely accurate that last remark was. You see, Ms. Bahjat wasn’t just shot. Details of her murder, including a cell-phone video, have surfaced.

Apparently, she was first tortured with an electric drill, which left holes in her arms, legs, navel, and one eye. Then:

By the time filming begins, the condemned woman has been blindfolded with a white bandage.

It is stained with blood that trickles from a wound on the left side of her head. She is moaning, although whether from the pain of what has already been done to her or from the fear of what is about to be inflicted is unclear.
. . .

A large man dressed in military fatigues, boots and cap approaches from behind and covers her mouth with his left hand. In his right hand, he clutches a large knife with a black handle and an 8in blade. He proceeds to cut her throat from the middle, slicing from side to side.

Her cries — “Ah, ah, ah” — can be heard above the “Allahu akbar” (God is greatest) intoned by the holder of the mobile phone.

Even then, there is no quick release for Bahjat. Her executioner suddenly stands up, his job only half done. A second man in a dark T-shirt and camouflage trousers places his right khaki boot on her abdomen and pushes down hard eight times, forcing a rush of blood from her wounds as she moves her head from right to left.

Only now does the executioner return to finish the task. He hacks off her head and drops it to the ground, then picks it up again and perches it on her bare chest so that it faces the film-maker in a grotesque parody of one of her pieces to camera.

The voice of one of the Arab world’s most highly regarded and outspoken journalists has been silenced. She was 30.

Monsters. Depraved, subhuman monsters. Such men cannot be permitted to exist.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Bush calls war war, left goes berserk

Posted by Richard on May 8, 2006

While I wasn’t paying attention, Bush used the term "World War III" to describe the global conflict with Islamofascism, and the people suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome somehow managed to become even more deranged. Bush used the term in an interview with CNBC (that explains why so many of us failed to notice it), speaking of the film United 93:

Bush said he had yet to see the recently released film of the uprising, a dramatic portrayal of events on the United Airlines plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

But he said he agreed with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called it "our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war — World War III".

Bush said: "I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.

"It was, it was unbelievably heroic of those folks on the airplane to recognize the danger and save lives," he said.

Gerard Van der Leun bravely plumbed the depths of moonbattery in order to present some examples of what he calls "loss of blogger control." Apparently, some BDS sufferers believe that the uttering of those magic words means now we’re all going to die. Others are openly hoping for — even calling for — Bush’s assassination.

Van der Leun was amazed:

You have to wonder what morally-relativistic, rainbow colored, secular fundament these folks have been wearing for a hat for years. What part of "airplanes into sky-scrapers followed by endless sermons of Hate America and various video tapes shrieking Death to Americans" do they not understand? Have they not gotten the memos from Iran for the last 27 years? Maybe we should set up a fund to buy them all tickets to "United 93" complete with those lidlock devices from "Clockwork Orange." But then again, it has been established that for many, seeing is not believing.

In point of fact, this isn’t even the first time that the President has agreed with someone else’s characterization of the current conflict as World War 3. Last June, Bush spoke about the war at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, and he cited a rather different source:

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation."

So almost a year ago, Bush agreed with Osama, the man who formally declared war on us, that this is World War 3. His statement on CNBC merely reiterated that. Why did Oliver Willis and friends go so berserk upon hearing it this time? Is it because this time he was agreeing with someone named Beamer instead of someone named bin Laden?
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Liberal betrayal

Posted by Richard on May 5, 2006

Ayaan Hirsi AliAyaan Hirsi Ali is a remarkable woman. Born in Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1969 and brought up Muslim, she at one time was an Islamic fundamentalist who wanted to become a martyr. In 1992, on her way to Canada for an arranged marriage with a distant cousin, Hirsi Ali went to the Netherlands instead and was granted asylum. She studied political science in the Netherlands, eventually getting a Masters degree. She became active in the Social Democrat party, and today serves in the Dutch Parliament as a member of the center-right (classical liberal) V.V.D. (People’s Party of Freedom and Democracy).

Hirsi Ali is an outspoken critic of radical Islam and especially its treatment of women. She’s been honored numerous times for her work in defense of human rights and Western/Enlightenment values. She wrote the script for the short film Submission, for which director Theo Van Gogh was brutally murdered on an Amsterdam street by an Islamist thug. Her life has been threatened countless times, and she’s under armed guard everywhere she goes.

This past weekend, she was in New York, speaking at the PEN American Center’s "World Voices" event. International PEN bills itself as the world’s oldest human rights organization and defender of free expression, so they should welcome and honor someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, right?

Umm, not so much. It seems the New York liberals who run PEN aren’t all that comfortable with someone who passionately defends Western values, reason, and the Enlightenment and who challenges Western leftists’ multiculturalism and tolerance of the intolerant. Pamela at Atlas Shrugs provided portions of Brendan Bernhard’s New York Sun column (paid subscribers only) about her appearance:

Mr. Chernow’s introduction was curiously ungracious. It consisted largely of a warning that the audience might find itself in agreement with only some of what Ms. Ali had to say, or perhaps just a small portion of it, or even none of it. Nevertheless, he assured us, we could all agree that she is a woman of uncommon courage and integrity.

A slender, dark-skinned woman with a pretty face and long-fingered, expressive hands, Ms. Ali, 37, smiled politely as she took this in. She is, after all, a politician, and accustomed to what in a few minutes she would term “the liberal betrayal” — namely, the failure of the West to defend its own Enlightenment values against those who openly seek to undermine or destroy them. On this particular afternoon, it would take an African refugee to remind a New Yorker writer (Mr. Gourevitch), a multi-lingual European intellectual impresario (Mr. Holdengraber), and the president of PEN American Center (Mr. Chernow) that courage and integrity are not necessarily at odds with rational, coherent thought, and might even be an integral part of it. At least Salman Rushdie, seated in the front row in what appeared to be a gesture of moral support for a co-religionist in trouble with Muslim radicals, seemed to understand.
. . .

“My criticism of the West, especially of liberals, is that they do take freedom for granted,” Ms. Ali responded. She noted that Western Europeans born after World War II are unused to conflict. “They have lost the instinct to recognize that there can be such a thing as an enemy or a threat to freedom, and that’s what I’m witnessing in Europe now,” she stated. “[There is] a pacifist ideology that violence should never be used in any circumstances, and so we should talk and talk and talk. Even when your opponent tells you, ‘I don’t want to talk to you, I want to destroy you,’ the reaction is, ‘Please, let’s talk about the fact that you want to destroy me!’”

Reportedly, after Mohammed Bouyeri pulled a gun and shot Theo van Gogh the first time, van Gogh shouted, "We can still talk about it! Don’t do it! Don’t do it!" Bouyeri wasn’t interested in talking; he shot van Gogh a few more times, then slit his throat, and finally stabbed him in the chest.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali understands quite clearly that one can’t reason with or accommodate Islamofascism. One can submit — or die — or fight. She understands that the liberals’ unwillingness to fight — or even to let others fight — for the values they claim to support is a profound betrayal.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »

Secular dictator vs. Islamist theocracy?

Posted by Richard on April 20, 2006

The advocates of realpolitik, such as Brent Scowcroft, have always argued that our interests in the Middle East are best served by more or less secular "strongmen" or dictators who can be persuaded (bribed or coerced) to accommodate those interests. Democratization, they’ve argued, runs the risk of bringing to power Islamic fundamentalists. Recently, they’ve pointed to Hamas’ victory in the PA elections, the success of Shi’ite fundamentalists in Iraq, and the electoral strength of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

Quentin Langley wrote an interesting article about this line of thinking, which he calls the Hillaire Belloc fallacy. He said the realpolitik policy made sense during the Cold War (I disagree), but not today:

During the Cold War, the west co-operated with some unsavoury dictatorships. "He may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard" was the motto in the corridors of power. And faced with a foe like the Soviet Union, massively armed with nuclear and conventional forces, and bent on world domination, this was a reasonable policy.

Outside the Cold War context, the situation changes dramatically. We no longer have the same reason to support dictatorships which are aligned against communism, and neither Russia nor the US has any need to support insurgents against each other’s allies.

And yet, we still have enemies. There may be no Soviet Union, but there is still Al Qaeda. If an Arab dictator falls, it could still be worse for the west. The silky smooth voices of the diplomatic establishment still whisper the words of Hillaire Belloc: "always keep ahold of Nurse, for fear of finding something worse".

This is exactly what Arab dictators want us to believe. … It is what they say to western diplomats all the time. But it isn’t what they really think. President Mubarak of Egypt wants the west to THINK he is worried about the Muslim Brotherhood. But what really keeps him awake at night is the thought that western liberal democracy might infect his country.

Langley pointed out something that hadn’t occurred to me, but that makes perfect sense: Hosni Mubarak made sure that the Muslim Brotherhood would win a handful of seats and appear threatening to us. Mubarak and the Muslim Brotherhood are allies of convenience against their common enemies: middle-class Egyptians clamoring for freedom, progress, and democracy, and the Americans who share their goals.

Langley has quite a bit of interesting stuff (I’ve added him to my blogroll). Check out also his April 12 article, Clear trends in Iraqi violence — the numbers he cites must be startling to anyone who’s relied on the legacy media reports about the situation in Iraq.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

United 93

Posted by Richard on April 19, 2006

Universal’s United 93 is premiering next Tuesday, April 25th, at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City. You’ve probably read or heard that some people aren’t happy that a film about the heroes of United Flight 93 has been made. When the trailer was first shown, people in a Hollywood theater audience reportedly shouted "too soon!" I wonder if those people thought Michael Moore’s Farenheit 9/11 was "too soon"? No, I suspect they lined up eagerly to see it.

We’ve been at war with Islamofascism for almost five years (consciously and explicitly, that is; they’ve been waging war on us for longer than that, but we didn’t recognize it as such). I think it’s high time that we had a major theatrical film about this war, and it’s only appropriate that it be about what is probably the most courageous action by a group of American civilians in our nation’s history.

Back in January, I saw A&E’s low-budget TV movie, Flight 93, and I was moved by it and spoke highly of it:

It’s a story we’re all familiar with, and we all know how it ended. But I found it compelling and moving and riveting. This is no hagiography to larger-than-life heroes — it’s presentation of the events is straightforward and relatively low-key — and it’s all the more powerful for it. I’m an atheist, but when Todd Beamer and Verizon call center supervisor Lisa Jefferson spoke the Lord’s Prayer together just before Todd and the others attacked the cockpit, I wept.

"Let’s roll" was spoken firmly, but without bravado, and I didn’t cheer — but I set my jaw and unconsciously tensed in anticipation, as if hoping and wishing for success. I suppose, in a sense, success is what we got.
… 
… I strongly recommend it. I wish every American would see it.

My reaction and recommendation were driven, of course, more by the story itself than by some great achievement of the A&E production (nevertheless, it’s a decent and worthwhile depiction; it’s being rebroadcast this month, and I still recommend it). What actually happened on that flight is so compelling and inspiring that any serviceable, well-intentioned, and reasonably accurate portrayal of the events would have to be moving and riveting.

By all accounts, United 93 director Paul Greengrass has produced a film that’s far more than just serviceable, and it has the unanimous endorsement of the families of the 40 passengers and crew of Flight 93.

Dennis Prager attended a preview screening of United 93 recently, and he was impressed. He, too, thought it was about time rather than "too soon":

Five years after the most devastating attack on American soil, people are asking if Americans are ready to see a film — not some fictional, politically driven, reality-distorting film by Oliver Stone, but a film based on the phone conversations of the passengers and flight attendants, on the flight recorder tape, and approved by the families of all 40 passengers — one of the most terrible and heroic events in American history.

Did anyone ask in 1946, five years after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, whether Americans were prepared to see a film about the Japanese attack?

Hollywood’s lack of interest was especially odd, Prager noted, considering the values and goals of our Islamofascist enemies:

… For five years, America has been battling people who are dedicated to destroying every value that Hollywood claims to care most about — freedom, tolerance, women’s rights, secular government, equality for gays — and Hollywood has yet to make a film depicting, let alone honoring, this war.

Prager objected to a post-film bow to political correctness that Universal assured him would be removed, but otherwise strongly recommended this film:

I believe it is just about every American’s duty to see this film. There is no gratuitous violence — if anything, Universal went out of its way to prevent us from seeing the reality of the throat-slashing of passengers and crew — but there is unremitting tension and sadness, since we all know what will happen to these unsuspecting people, and we know this is real, not fiction.

There is also American heroism. People completely unprepared for an airplane flight to become their last hour alive rise to the occasion and save fellow Americans from death and from the humiliation of having their nation’s capitol building destroyed.

The only people likely to object to this film are those who don’t want Americans to become aware of just how conscienceless, cruel and depraved our enemy is, or those who think that our enemies can always be negotiated with and therefore object to depicting Americans actually fighting back.

Teenage and older children in particular should see this film. If the younger teens have nightmares, comfort them. But young Americans need to know the nature of whom we are fighting. If they are attending a typical American high school or college, they probably don’t know.

Congratulations to Universal Studios on making this film (presuming that, as assured to me, they removed the post-film politically inspired message). And shame on Hollywood for only making one such film in five years. 

United 93 opens around the country on Friday, April 28. I probably won’t see it right away because of some other things going on — personal and family matters. But I certainly intend to see it, probably more than once, as soon as I can. I fervently hope that many millions of Americans watch this film.

We need to remember what happened on September 11, 2001 — not just the tragedies, but also the triumph. We need to remember that on that day, a group of forty Americans thrown together by chance became the first to be fully aware of the nature of our enemy, and they chose to fight.

And they won. With no weapons, training, or special knowledge, and only the briefest period of time to fathom what was happening and determine what to do about it, they defeated our enemy’s best men carrying out their most sophisticated plan.

We need to let their courage and commitment inspire us and serve as an example of how free people act. Please make plans now to go see United 93

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Their grievance

Posted by Richard on March 29, 2006

A friend emailed a FrontPageMag.com article from about a month ago that I hadn’t seen. It’s excerpts from Brigitte Gabriel’s February 18 speech at the Intelligence Summit in Washington. Brigitte Gabriel grew up as a Lebanese Christian, living in a bomb shelter from age 10 to 17, fearing for her life every day, watching most of her friends killed by Muslims for being infidels.

A journalist who has lived in the U.S. since 1989, Gabriel founded American Congress for Truth in 2002 to bring together "Jews, Arabs and Christians from all background both secular and religious" in order to wake people up to the fact that radical Islam is waging war on all infidels. In her speech, she warned that many Americans have been too slow to understand the nature of our enemy:

We are fighting a powerful ideology that is capable of altering basic human instincts. An ideology that can turn a mother into a launching pad of death. A perfect example is a recently elected Hamas official in the Palestinian Territories who raves in heavenly joy about sending her three sons to death and offering the ones who are still alive for the cause. It is an ideology that is capable of offering highly educated individuals such as doctors and lawyers far more joy in attaining death than any respect and stature, life in society is ever capable of giving them.

America cannot effectively defend itself in this war unless and until the American people understand the nature of the enemy that we face. Even after 9/11 there are those who say that we must “engage” our terrorist enemies, that we must “address their grievances”. Their grievance is our freedom of religion. Their grievance is our freedom of speech. Their grievance is our democratic process where the rule of law comes from the voices of many not that of just one prophet. It is the respect we instill in our children towards all religions. It is the equality we grant each other as human beings sharing a planet and striving to make the world a better place for all humanity. Their grievance is the kindness and respect a man shows a woman, the justice we practice as equals under the law, and the mercy we grant our enemy. Their grievance cannot be answered by an apology for who or what we are.

Well said. Read the whole thing. Then, go sign her petition against Islamic religious hatred and intolerance.

"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." — Thomas Mann

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Anti-Dhimmi

Posted by Richard on March 24, 2006

I ran across an interesting new blog worth keeping an eye on. Anti-Dhimmi is the work of a 22-year-old female Scandinavian who "got the wake-up call from the Muhammed cartoons folly." It’s a nicely done site with lots of graphics and interesting, short posts.

Regarding Peter Risdon’s announcement that the Danish cartoons aren’t welcome at Saturday’s pro-freedom rally in Trafalger Square, she said:

And they dare calling it March for Free Expression? How can you have a March for Free Expression without Freedom of Expression? Non sense. Can you say dhimmitude?

 She’s succinct, logical, and doesn’t mince words. I like that. πŸ™‚

UPDATE: Regarding the March for Free Expression and its organizers’ desire to avoid giving offense, see also David T’s post, Compromised, at Harry’s Place, which suggests this as an appropriate chant:

"What do we want: FREEDOM OF SPEECH. When do we want it: NOT NOW BUT CERTAINLY IN A FORUM IN WHICH THINGS CAN BE SEEN AND DEBATED WITHOUT THEM BEING, IN CONTEXT, INTIMIDATING TO ANYONE"

Britain’s leftists are so much more articulate and funny than America’s.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Blair on the battle of ideas

Posted by Richard on March 24, 2006

Tony Blair and his Labor government have many faults, but I’ll give the man his due — he understands the nature of the current global conflict and articulates it better than anyone. Mary at Deane’s World and Harry at Harry’s Place (whose observations and comments you should go read) quote approvingly from Blair’s March 21 foreign policy speech, and with good reason. It was the first of three planned foreign policy speeches, and in it, Blair discussed global terrorism and the importance of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was on fire:

This terrorism will not be defeated until its ideas, the poison that warps the minds of its adherents, are confronted, head-on, in their essence, at their core. By this I don’t mean telling them terrorism is wrong. I mean telling them their attitude to America is absurd; their concept of governance pre-feudal; their positions on women and other faiths, reactionary and regressive; and then since only by Muslims can this be done: standing up for and supporting those within Islam who will tell them all of this but more, namely that the extremist view of Islam is not just theologically backward but completely contrary to the spirit and teaching of the Koran.

I don’t know if Blair’s right about the Koran, but he sure nailed it on the backwardness and the need to confront those backward ideas directly. Blair went on to reject the notion that we should ask ourselves why they hate us and the idea that this conflict is one we can choose to avoid:

This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand; and pessimism and fear on the other. And in the era of globalisation where nations depend on each other and where our security is held in common or not at all, the outcome of this clash between extremism and progress is utterly determinative of our future here in Britain. We can no more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate changing around us. Inaction, pushing the responsibility on to America, deluding ourselves that this terrorism is an isolated series of individual incidents rather than a global movement and would go away if only we were more sensitive to its pretensions; this too is a policy. It is just that it is a policy that is profoundly, fundamentally wrong.

Blair touched on an important point regarding the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan:

The fact is: given the chance, the people wanted democracy. OK so they voted on religious or regional lines. That’s not surprising, given the history. But there’s not much doubt what all the main parties in both countries would prefer and it is neither theocratic nor secular dictatorship. The people – despite violence, intimidation, inexperience and often logistical nightmares – voted. Not a few. But in numbers large enough to shame many western democracies. They want Government decided by the people.

Blair touched on something very important above, but didn’t fully pursue the thought. It’s a crucial idea that the Islamofascists seem to understand clearly, but the critics and pessimists just don’t get: once the vast majority of the people buy into the concept of democratic government — even a Sharia-based or Shia-dominated democratic government — the reactionary theology of the Islamofascists has already lost. Their version of Islam can’t tolerate people choosing, period — even if you make the "right" choice, the very idea that it’s up to you to decide between competing ideas undermines their entire belief system and will eventually destroy it.

Eventually. But we may have to be patient, and we’re not very good at that. Granted, it’s not easy to be patient with a new, democratic government that threatens to execute someone for changing his religion.

Blair expressed his frustration with the critics, nay-sayers, and defeatists, and called on us to have patience and courage:

That to me is the painful irony of what is happening. They have so much clearer a sense of what is at stake. They play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party. Every act of carnage adds to the death toll. But somehow it serves to indicate our responsibility for disorder, rather than the act of wickedness that causes it. For us, so much of our opinion believes that what was done in Iraq in 2003 was so wrong, that it is reluctant to accept what is plainly right now.

What happens in Iraq or Afghanistan today is not just crucial for the people in those countries or even in those regions; but for our security here and round the world. It is a cause that has none of the debatable nature of the decisions to go for regime change; it is an entirely noble one – to help people in need of our help in pursuit of liberty; and a self-interested one, since in their salvation lies our own security.

Across the Arab and Muslim world such a struggle for democracy and liberty continues. One reason I am so passionate about Turkey’s membership of the EU is precisely because it enhances the possibility of a good outcome to such a struggle. It should be our task to empower and support those in favour of uniting Islam and democracy, everywhere.

To do this, we must fight the ideas of the extremists, not just their actions; and stand up for and not walk away from those engaged in a life or death battle for freedom. The fact of their courage in doing so should give us courage; their determination should lend us strength; their embrace of democratic values, which do not belong to any race, religion or nation, but are universal, should reinforce our own confidence in those values.

Read, as they say, the whole thing.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »