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

    al qaeda barbarism big government blogging colorado congress corruption culture democrats denver economics economy elections environmentalism firearms freedom global warming gop gun control guns health care human rights humor iraq islam islamofascism israel journalism leftists liberty media bias military moonbats msm music obama politics presidential candidates republicans socialism soldiers spending terrorism war weather

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘islamofascism’

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

The enemy

Posted by Richard on April 15, 2007

Joseph Heller is best known for his marvelous novel, Catch-22, which was immensely popular with anti-war types in the 60s and 70s, and is undoubtedly still much-beloved by leftists, at least those of my generation. I recently encountered a great quote from Catch-22: "The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on."

This quote triggered an ironic thought: If Heller's point is valid, one can argue that Nancy Pelosi and her leftist anti-war friends are no longer the loyal opposition, they are now the enemy.

If you're inclined to agree, you might want to join the Center for Individual Freedom in urging the President and the Republican leadership to "get some back-bone" and strongly oppose Pelosi's pursuit of her "alternate" (Chamberlainesque) foreign policy.

Thinking about Catch-22 made me think of an anti-war slogan popular in the 1960s: "What if they gave a war and nobody came?" Today, we need to ask a slightly different question: What if they gave a war and only one side showed up?

The anti-war left is growing louder and completely dominates the Democratic Party. Many short-attention-span Americans are weary of Iraq in particular and the "War on Terror" in general (partly because it was unfortunately named and inadequately explained). Most of the Republican leadership either can't clearly articulate the danger we face and the need to fight, or they're afraid to for pragmatic reasons, or they've become discouraged and given up.

So here's where things stand: A ruthless and growing global Islamofascist movement is waging war against every culture, society, and religion different from itself, and it vows not to stop until all the world has been forced to submit to its 7th-century rule. Only the United States and a handful of allies have recognized the global nature of this conflict and the seriousness of the threat. Now, it seems that our will is failing, and more and more of us are ready to join the Europeans in pretending there is no threat, or believing that some accommodation with the enemy is possible, or insisting that it's all about a handful of fighters in the mountains of Afghanistan and nothing else.

What happens when one side in a war decides to stop fighting, but the other side continues?

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

About Iran’s latest hostages

Posted by Richard on April 2, 2007

Does anybody do this sort of thing better than Scrappleface? I don't think so:

(2007-04-01) — In a fresh, un-coerced video communiqué released today by the Iranian government, 15 British sailors and marines held captive for eight days, said they would seek asylum in Iran, “the only country that really seems to want us.”

The hostages said they have already begun the paperwork to become Iranian citizens, and have started classes to prepare them for conversion to Islam.

“Whatever else you might think about President Ahmadinejad,” said one British sailor under no duress, “at least he took risks to get us, and genuinely desires to keep us in his country; which is more than we can say for Prime Minister [Tony] Blair."

On a more serious note, here's Newt Gingrich's brilliantly simple suggestion for an effective response to the hostage-taking:

 

Mark Steyn heaped appropriate scorn on the British (and European, and American) alternative plan:

The British ambassador to the U.N. had wanted the Security Council to pass a resolution "deploring" Iran's conduct. But the Russians objected to all this hotheaded inflammatory lingo about "deploring," and so the Security Council instead expressed its "grave concern" about the situation. That and $4.95 will get you a decaf latte. Ask the folks in Darfur what they've got to show for years of the U.N.'s "grave concerns" — heavy on the graves, less so on the concern.
…

The U.N. will do nothing for men seized on a U.N.-sanctioned mission. The European Union will do nothing for its "European citizens." But if liberal transnationalism is a post-modern joke, it's not the only school of transnationalism out there. Iran's Islamic Revolution has been explicitly extraterritorial since the beginning: It has created and funded murderous proxies in Hezbollah, Hamas and both Shia and Sunni factions of the Iraq "insurgency." It has spent a fortune in the stans of Central Asia radicalizing previously somnolent Muslim populations. When Ayatollah Khomeini announced the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, it was not Iranians but British, Indian, Turkish, European, Asian and American Muslims who called for his death, firebombed bookstores, shot his publisher, fatally stabbed his translator and murdered anybody who got in their way.

So we live today in a world of one-way sovereignty: American, British and Iraqi forces in Iraq respect the Syrian and Iranian borders; the Syrians and Iranians do not respect the Iraqi border. Patrolling the Shatt al-Arab at a time of war, the Royal Navy operates under rules of engagement designed by distant fainthearts with an eye to the polite fictions of "international law": If you're in a "warship," you can't wage war. If you're in a "destroyer," don't destroy anything. If you're in a "frigate," you're frigging done for.

Needless to say, it's Mark Steyn, so you should read the whole thing.

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

A Muslim parallel society

Posted by Richard on March 30, 2007

Last week, I commented on a German judge's ruling that the Koran gives a Muslim man the right to beat his wife. A few days earlier, I noted LGF's post on the "camel caravan" rule for Muslim schoolgirls' participation in field trips. A loyal reader recently emailed me about a long piece in Germany's Der Spiegel ("The Mirror") about these and related issues. It's entitled "Paving the Way to a Muslim Parallel Society." I've finally read all eight parts, and I highly recommend it. Here's the "executive summary":

A recent ruling in Germany by a judge who cited the Koran underscores the dilemma the country faces in reconciling Western values with a growing immigrant population. A disturbing number of rulings are helping to create a parallel Muslim world in Germany that is welcoming to Islamic fundamentalists.

Some of the evidence cited for this claim involves matters of headscarves, field trips, and swimming lessons. But some of it is much more grim: 

In 2005, Hatun Sürücü, a young Berlin woman, was killed because she was "living like a German." In her family's opinion, this was a crime only her death could expiate. Her youngest brother executed her by shooting her several times, point blank, at a Berlin bus stop. But because prosecutors were unable to prove that the family council had planned the act, only the killer himself could be tried for murder and, because he was underage, he was given a reduced sentence. The rest of the family left the courtroom in high spirits, and the father rewarded the convicted boy with a watch.  

Beatings and honor killings, often excused or treated leniently by the courts, are a growing problem in Germany. Even the apparently more innocuous matters supposedly involving "choice," like the field trip, swimming, and other female modesty issues, conceal the vicious reality: the "choices" being exercised aren't the apparent desire of the Muslim women and girls to be modest, they're the Muslim men's desire to subjugate and control their wives and daughters, treating them like property. Germany's women's shelters are increasingly seeing Muslim women and girls fleeing arranged marriages, slave-like living conditions, and savage beatings:

Ayten Köse, 42, who manages a shelter in the Neukölln Rollberg district, tries to help. She doesn't resemble most of the Muslim women here. Instead of a headscarf, she wears her hair uncovered. Köse knows how difficult it is for Muslim women in Germany to be courageous and rebel. …

The problem for many women, says Köse, is that they are completely alone, alone against their own family or their husband's family. "And if they haven't attended school in Germany," Köse explains, "they usually don't even know about human rights." 

Besides the human rights issues, there are other lesser public policy implications for the mulitculturalists' acquiescence to a parallel Muslim society. Germany's massive social welfare system can ill afford some of the consequences:

In another letter from Absurdistan, the Federal Ministry for Social Affairs issued the following announcement to German health insurance agencies in the summer of 2004: "Polygamous marriages must be recognized if they are legal under the laws of the native country of the individuals in question."

What the policy statement boiled down to was this: In certain cases Muslim men from countries where polygamy is legal — like Morocco, Algeria and Saudi Arabia — could add a second wife to their government health insurance policies without having to pay an additional premium.

Read it, please. All eight parts. The Germans have a head start on us, but this is where we're headed, too, if CAIR and the like have their way. 

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

“The men of Munich”

Posted by Richard on March 27, 2007

Newt Gingrich's March 26 column is about the people historian William Manchester called "the men of Munich" and their modern-day counterparts:

The news report came about mid-week. Maybe you saw it.

The Associated Press reported that terrorists in Iraq have passed an unthinkable threshold: They used two children to disguise a car bomb.

The car was waved through a checkpoint by American soldiers who could not imagine that children would be in a car filled with explosives. When the terrorists got to their target, they got out of the car and ran. They left the children behind in the car, and then blew it up.

There is a word for people who put children in a car to be blown up. The word is evil.

When I travel around the country speaking to groups of Americans, I often tell the story of a couple arrested last year in Great Britain. They were arrested on the suspicion that they were going to use their eight-month-old baby to smuggle a bomb onto an airplane. They were apparently going to disguise the bomb as baby food. And they were perfectly happy to kill their baby just as long as they killed some Americans in the process.

There is a word for people like this. The word is evil.

It's important that we say this out loud and that we render this moral judgment. Because if we fail to understand that our enemy is evil, we have failed to understand what we are fighting.

We are not used to adversaries who will kill young children — even their own children — just to get a chance to kill us. But we had better get used to it, because this is the level of seriousness in the threat we face — this is the level of its ferocity.

And yet I wonder if some of us are still not prepared to recognize and confront the evil of our enemies.

The rest is about what Gingrich calls "a suicidal inability to come to grips with evil." Go. Read.

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

Monsters

Posted by Richard on March 21, 2007

The enlightened intelligentsia, the sensitive liberals, the sophisticated Europeans, the journalists whose goal is to make this a better world — they all agree that we unenlightened American yahoos need to be less judgmental and more understanding of the grievances of the radical Islamists, that we need to be willing to talk with them, to negotiate and search for common ground. That we need to temper our hostility, abate our anger, abandon our adversarial stance, and ask ourselves and them, "Can't we all just get along?"

Yesterday, Little Green Footballs pointed out this AFP story that further illuminates the nature of the enemy with whom we're supposed to reconcile. In case you missed it:

Insurgents in Iraq detonated an explosives-rigged vehicle with two children in the back seat after US soldiers let it through a Baghdad checkpoint over the weekend, a senior US military official said Tuesday.

The vehicle was stopped at the checkpoint but was allowed through when soldiers saw the children in the back, said Major General Michael Barbero of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.

"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion. We let it move through. They parked the vehicle, and the adults ran out and detonated it with the children in the back," Barbero said.

The general said it was the first time he had seen a report of insurgents using children in suicide bombings. But he said Al-Qaeda in Iraq is changing tactics in response to the tighter controls around the city.

They parked the vehicle between a market and a school. The explosion was relatively small, really. It only injured seven and killed five. Including the two children, of course.

No, we can't understand. Or talk. Or find common ground. Or get along. There is nothing to negotiate and no middle ground. Is that clear?

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

The day the Americans leave Iraq

Posted by Richard on March 17, 2007

Abdallah Safialdeen, Hizbullah's representative in Iran, appeared on Iranian TV on March 4, 2007, and the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which operates the MEMRI TV Monitor Project, has a video clip and transcript. Safialdeen was crowing about how Hizbullah's "victory" in Lebanon set the stage for U.S. withdrawal from the region and the end of Israel:

… Do you know what an American withdrawal from Iraq will mean? It will mean that Israel will lose its support. It will mean that the Lebanese Hizbullah will not need a large-scale war in order to enter Palestine. Hizbullah will be able to simply walk into Palestine. Rest assured that the day the American forces leave Iraq, the Israelis will leave the region along with them. What was one of the reasons for Olmert's recent visit to America? He went there in order to say to the Democrats: "Don't say that the American army will leave Iraq, because this would mean the annihilation of the Zionist regime." This is because the annihilation of the Zionist regime has begun. Like some of our friends say, Palestine is no longer a problem for us, because the Americans will be forced to leave Iraq. With or without a war against Iran, they will be forced to do so. The moment they leave Iraq, you, the Muslims of the world, can walk into Palestine, because Israel will no longer exist. …

Do all the Jews out there who are still liberal Democrats have any questions? 

HT: American Congress for Truth  

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

Individual jihad

Posted by Richard on February 16, 2007

The other day, I said that the Salt Lake City shooter, Sulejman Talovic, was a Muslim, but that if there was evidence of a religio-political motive, it probably wouldn’t get reported. Robert Spencer has a new article at FrontPageMag.com that addresses this issue.

Spencer described four "random acts of violence" with multiple victims committed by young Muslim men in the past year — one was a shooter, and the other three used vehicles as weapons. According to officials, all four were just disturbed individuals acting alone, and they "had nothing to do with terrorism." That may be true, said Spencer, but another possibility ought to be considered (emphasis added):

None of these were terrorist attacks in the sense that they were planned and executed by al-Qaeda agents. And it is possible that all of them were products of nothing more ideologically significant than a disturbed mental state, although it is at least noteworthy that each attacker explained his actions in terms of Islamic terrorism. As such attacks grow in number, it would behoove authorities at very least to consider the possibility that these attacks were inspired by the jihadist ideology of Islamic supremacism, and to step up pressure on American Muslim advocacy groups to renounce that ideology definitively and begin extensive programs to teach against it in American Islamic schools and mosques.

In October 2006, a pro-jihad internet site published a “Guide for Individual Jihad,” explaining to jihadists “how to fight alone.” It recommended, among other things, assassination with guns and running people over. Is it possible that Sulejmen Talovic and some of these others were waging this jihad of one? It is indeed, but with law enforcement officials trained only to look for signs of membership in al-Qaeda or other jihad groups, and to discount terrorism as a factor if those signs aren’t there, it is a possibility that investigators will continue to overlook.

This is speculative, as Spencer himself said, but if a radical Islamist web site is promoting the idea of "individual jihad," isn’t it reasonable to suppose that some of its followers might act on that?

Pressuring American Muslim groups to renounce the "jihadist ideology of Islamic supremacism" and begin teaching against it in schools and mosques sounds like a very good idea. But it also sounds like a pipe dream. At this point, it would be a major step forward if we could get the majority of Islamic schools and mosques to give up their Saudi-provided Wahhabi texts and stop teaching that ideology.
 

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

The 1930s again

Posted by Richard on February 16, 2007

I don’t really know why this subject tears me up so much emotionally, but it does. I’m an atheist with no particular attraction to Judaism. I’ve certainly had plenty of Jewish friends, but that doesn’t explain why the threat to Israel, the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, and related stories disturb me so very, very deeply.

Maybe, perversely, it has something to do with my pure Aryan (German-Austrian) heritage — my uncle Günther was a Luftwaffe pilot who died in WWII. Maybe the fact that I’m somehow connected to the "other side" weighs on me in some weird, irrational way. Whatever… I read stuff like the following, and I just start trembling and the tears flow. I don’t want there to be another shoah — holocaust. And I’m afraid that it may happen.

Thanks to Solomon for pointing out Charles Jacobs’ moving column. Like Sol, I’ll present the whole thing. If you’re Jewish or have ties in the community, please help with the Shabbat on the Iranian Threat. If you’re not, do something else — even if it’s just some small effort to express concern and raise awareness, like this post. Let Jacobs tell you why:

It’s the 1930s for U.S. Jews

By Charles Jacobs – Thursday February 15 2007

Half the world’s Jews are in the crosshairs of the Persian anti-Semite soon to have a nuke. Like his German predecessor, Ahmadinejad has a plan to annihilate millions. This time every Jew on the planet knows it. This time, can they act to stop it?

American Jews, far less powerful in the 1930s than today, were late to use what little power they had to scream the world awake. Looking back, world Jewry adopted a motto that in part defines them against that failure: “Never Again.”

But “Again” now looms, and Jews here are about to relearn a lesson: to speak up has a cost. Experts say Americans are concerned about Iran, but when they about Iran from Jews, they become suspicious.

Anti-Zionist intellectuals have revived the “dual loyalty” accusation with a vengeance. The infamous Walt-Mearsheimer paper, soon to become a lucrative book, claims disproportionate Jewish influence over American foreign policy was used to the benefit of Israel and to the detriment of “real” American interests.

The accusation that Jews tricked America into the Iraq war for Israel’s sake is not new. “The Jews,” it will be added, now drive America to attack nuclear Iran. “The Jewish community is divided, but there is so much pressure from the New York money people to the office seekers," is how former general Wesley Clark put it.

The problem faced 65 years ago repeats: Will Jewry here risk its position to help Jews targeted for death overseas?

On moral grounds there is no question: Jews dare not be silent about the Iranian threat. But there is a practical issue that cannot be ignored. What if by raising their voices, Jews hurt this cause? Suppose people would become less convinced about Iran because it’s Jews who are protesting? A real predicament that Jews will have to overcome.

Surely there are non-Jews equally concerned about nuclearized Muslim messianics; Iran poses a threat not just to Israel but to all of the West.

But Bush-hatred and anger over the Iraq war drives so much of American politics. Never mind that Israelis, focused for a decade on Iran, warned America about the negative consequences of attacking Iraq. Facts don’t matter. Everything Bush believes will be contested whether it’s “Iran is lethal” or “the Earth is round.”

Irrationality reigns. The only folks likely to scream along with the Jews about Iran are Republicans, neo-cons, Evangelicals and conservatives: The same groups that evoke hatred in America’s opinion elite. Even if Jews join a coalition of the rationally fearful, the cry will not fade that “the Jews” push for war with Iran.

Meanwhile in Boston, “The Emergency Committee on the Iranian Threat,” launched a Web campaign: Shabbat on the Iranian Threat. They call on American rabbis to speak about Iran to their congregations on the days before Purim (March 2-3), the Jewish holiday celebrating the escape by Persian Jewry from annihilation by another Persian leader centuries ago.

Bring two gregors (noise makers).

Never again, dammit. Never again.
 

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

A Sadr farewell

Posted by Richard on February 14, 2007

Many members of Congress doubt that the U.S. troop increase will be effective or that the Iraqi government can quell the sectarian strife. Apparently, their skepticism wasn’t shared by Muqtada al Sadr, the pudgy, rodent-like, radical Shi’ite cleric. He scurried away shortly after the new plan was announced (emphasis added):

According to senior military officials, al Sadr left Baghdad two to three weeks ago and fled to Tehran, Iran, where he has family.

Al Sadr commands the Mahdi army, one of the most formidable insurgent militias in Iraq, and his move coincides with the announced U.S. troop surge in Baghdad.

Sources believe al Sadr is worried about an increase of 20,000 U.S. troops in the Iraqi capital. One official told ABC News’ Martha Raddatz, "He is scared he will get a JDAM [bomb] dropped on his house."

According to Allahpundit, it isn’t really news:

No surprises here, though: the Times of London reported on January 27th that Mahdi Army capos had slipped across the border — on Maliki’s advice — and were planning to ride out the surge in Iran while U.S. troops hammer Sunni jihadis in Baghdad. Bob Owens wrote a post just yesterday, in fact, about the sudden conspicuous absence of JAM on the streets in the capital. They’re just lying low until we’re gone, when they’ll come home and reemerge to reclaim power. It wasn’t hard to see it coming; even an idiot like me has been calling it for months.

It doesn’t matter why Mookie and his pals left or when they’re planning to return. What matters is making sure his Mahdi army gets seriously degraded, if not dismantled, during his absence. Might even make him think twice about returning.

And then there’s this novel concept called border security — admittedly, not the U.S. government’s strong suit, but what better place to learn how to do it right than the Iraq-Iran border? What if al Sadr can’t just come strolling back into Najaf whenever he feels like it?
 

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

Hitchens on Steyn

Posted by Richard on February 12, 2007

In the new issue of City Journal, Christopher Hitchens reviewed Mark Steyn’s new book, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, and the review really is a must read. I haven’t read Steyn’s book yet, but I’ve heard good things about it. Hitchens approves of it ("a welcome wake-up call"), but is far from uncritical and goes well beyond just reviewing. He points out the book’s flaws, bolsters its weaknesses, and offers some policy recommendations of his own.

This is not to deny Steyn’s salient point that demography and cultural masochism, especially in combination, are handing a bloodless victory to the forces of Islamization. His gift for the illustrative anecdote and the revealing quotation is evident, and if more people have woken up to the Islamist menace since he began writing about it, then the credit is partly his. Muslims in one part of England demand the demolition of an ancient statue of a wild boar, and in another part of England make plots to blow up airports, buses, and subway trains. The two threats are not identical. But they are connected, and Steyn attempts to tease out the filiations with the saving tactic of wit.

I still think—or should I say hope?—that the sheer operatic insanity of September 11 set back the Islamist project of a “soft” conquest of host countries, Muslim countries included. Up until 9/11, the Talibanization of Pakistan—including the placement of al-Qaida sympathizers within its nuclear program—proceeded fairly smoothly. Official Pakistani support for Muslim gangsters operating in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and India went relatively unpunished. Saudi funds discreetly advanced the Wahhabist program, through madrassa-building and a network of Islamic banking, across the globe. In the West, Muslim demands for greater recognition and special treatment had become an accepted part of the politically correct agenda. Some denounced me as cynical for saying at the time that Osama bin Laden had done us a favor by disclosing the nature and urgency of the Islamist threat, but I still think I was right. …

Of course, these have not been the only consequences of September 11 and its aftermath. Islamist suicide-terrorism has mutated into new shapes and adopted fresh grievances as a result of the mobilization against it. Liberalism has found even more convoluted means of blaming itself for the attack upon it. But at least the long period of somnambulism is over, and the opportunity now exists for antibodies to form against the infection.

Hitchens doesn’t care much for the "somewhat slapdash" 10-point program with which Steyn ends his book. Instead, Hitchens offers his own eight steps to counter Islamism, and I urge you to read and think about them. In particular, his opening point regarding "one-way multiculturalism" and "creeping Islamism" proposes the long-needed showing of some cultural backbone that’s essential to the moral and intellectual defense of Western Civilization.

Hitchens’ recommendations regarding India — "the other great multiethnic democracy under attack from Muslim fascism" — and the West African states threatened by the jihadists make a lot of sense to me, too. And I’d never even thought about the seismological implications of Iran’s nuclear program. Go read the whole thing.
 

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

Islamic Mein Kampf

Posted by Richard on February 10, 2007

Go to the Terrorism Awareness Project website and watch the 7½-minute video, "The Islamic Mein Kampf."  Then go to the Ammunition page and download the PDF of the same name. Why do we need a Terrorism Awareness Project? Read "News from the Front" for an overview of the project, why it exists, and the kinds of things it wants to raise awareness about. Here’s a bit of introduction:

In a rational world, there shouldn’t have to be a Terrorism Awareness Project. Not after the slaughter of 9/11 and the clear message that this was just the beginning of what the jihadis had in store for us. And a Terrorism Awareness Project certainly shouldn’t have to be focused on college campuses, which ought to be the intellectual spear point in the defense of our nation. But the sad truth is that America generally is sleepwalking through the war on Terror and our universities are doing something even worse: allowing an unholy alliance to form between the forces of terror and the forces of anti Americanism. Radicals on campus —and radicals continue to define the campus, as they have since the 1960s — may deny that they actively support terror, but they admit that they believe that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Since their enemy is America, the terrorist is their friend. This is why we have launched a Terrorism Awareness Project: to publicize and combat activities on campus ranging from the propaganda of pro-terrorist front groups such as the International Solidarity Movement to curricular distortions of disciplines such as Peace Studies.

Check out the rest of the site, which belongs to the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Read "What You Should Know About Jihad." Take a look at the terrorism ad they’re running in college newspapers (and see which schools refused to run it). Check out the resources available — links, videos, pamphlets, and books.

If you haven’t read David Horowitz’s book, Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left, I strongly recommend it. There aren’t many people who can speak more authoritatively about the New Left than Horowitz — he was one of its top intellectuals, after all. When the heavily-footnoted book mentioned how the editors of Root and Branch rationalized their continued support for Che Guevara after it became clear he was a Stalinist, the footnote for this claim explained that the author was one of those editors. As an ex-leftist, Horowitz has a wealth of valuable insights into the seemingly odd (on the surface) affinity of radical leftists for reactionary Islamofascists.
 

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

Radical Islam

Posted by Richard on February 4, 2007

Warm up your TV or program your VCR, DVR, or Tivo. A new special report — Radical Islam: Terror in Its Own Words — is being aired on Fox News tonight and again tomorrow, and it’s must-see TV:

Saturday, February 3 at 9 p.m. ET
Sunday, February 4 at 4 p.m ET
Hosted by E.D. Hill

The warning is loud and clear: radical Islam wants to kill you.

But don’t take our word for it. In this FOX News investigation, E.D. Hill exposes the evil aims of radical Islam — in its own words.

Muslim clerics vowing to slaughter Americans and destroy the United States.

School children brainwashed to kill.

Mothers who rejoice at the news that their sons and daughters have blown themselves up in suicide attacks.

And an Islamic media that glorifies mass murder and cheers on terrorists.

It’s an hour every American must see.
 

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

Curious pledge demographics

Posted by Richard on January 30, 2007

Last Thursday, I wrote about The NRSC Pledge, a grass-roots online protest — with teeth! — against the vertebrae-challenged Senate Republicans. The pledge is a promise not to contribute to any Republican senator who votes for a resolution disapproving the Iraq "troop surge" plan and not to contribute to the NRSC if it supports such a senator. Over 30,000 people have electronically signed it in the past five days, and this nice map shows the number of signers in each state. I’m amazed by some of the numbers.

California (population 36 million*) has by far the largest number of signers — over 6,000. Second is Texas (pop. 23 million) with about 2,500. Colorado (pop. 4.5 million) takes third place with over 2,200. Arizona (6 million), Florida (18 million), and Minnesota (5 million) all have around 1,300 signers — and no other state has over 1,000!

Look at some of the other big states — Illinois (13 million) has under 1,000, New York (20 million) and Pennsylvania (12.5 million) have fewer than 800 each, and New Jersey (8.7 million) has just over 400.

It’s not just a red state / blue state thing, either. Alabama is a decidedly red state with about the same population as Colorado, but one-tenth as many signers. North Carolina has twice Colorado’s population, but one-fourth the signers. The numbers for the smaller-population western states are pitiful: Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas have about 50 signers each, Idaho about 100, and Utah about 200.

So, how does Colorado end up hot on the heels of Texas, which has over five times our population, and far ahead of any comparable-population state? Are we that much more internet-oriented? That much more politically aware? That much less tolerant of hypocrisy and self-serving posturing? You got me.

And, yes, I most certainly do think these resolutions are self-serving posturing. The Senate just unanimously approved Gen. Petraeus. That so many senators are eager to go on record against what ought to be called the Petraeus Plan (he helped formulate it and strongly endorsed it in his Senate testimony) is an indication of how unserious and inconsistent they are. That they’re ignoring warnings by Petraeus and others about the harm their posturing does is an indication of how craven and contemptible they are.

So, have you signed the pledge yet? Why not do it right now? Oh, and if you have any theories about the participation rate differences, especially Colorado’s stand-out performance, drop them in the comments.

* All population numbers are rounded off from the 2005 figures at Infoplease.com.
 

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

Take the pledge

Posted by Richard on January 26, 2007

On Tuesday, Gen. Petraeus testified that the Biden-Warner resolution opposing the Bush plan for Iraq, or any other similar resolution, would encourage the enemy and demoralize our troops. By all accounts, Gen. Petraeus is a highly competent, honorable, and intelligent military leader, and his opinion on this subject should carry considerable weight.

But it doesn’t take an expert in military strategy and tactics to understand the consequences of the cowardliness in the Capitol. The Islamofascists have long maintained that the West lacks the will for a sustained fight, and will run away when things get too difficult or bloody. And we already know from seized al Qaeda in Iraq documents that if we abandon Iraq, our enemies will eagerly follow us back here.

Iraq is not an isolated war, it’s one front in a much larger war. At this moment, Lebanon is on the brink of civil war, and an emboldened Hezbollah seems to be preparing to seize control. Do you suppose this is unrelated to the growing evidence of America’s wavering resolve?

ln the long run, retreat from Iraq will likely lead to at least hundreds of thousands and probably millions of deaths in Iraq, and to thousands or tens of thousands of deaths in the United States — maybe more. Who knows how many more will die at the hands of emboldened and strengthened Islamofascists in Lebanon, Israel, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Australia, Britain, France, the Netherlands, …

The more that spineless Republicans and Democrats appear eager to run away from Iraq, the more al Qaeda in Iraq and Iran’s proxies must think that they’re just a few horrific IED blasts and another handful of American deaths from achieving politically what they can’t achieve militarily. Set aside for the moment the terrible long-term consequences of retreat — right now, today, this very moment, the Biden and Warner resolutions and their colleagues’ related hand-wringing and posturing are directly responsible for encouraging more violence and killing more Americans and Iraqis. It’s disgusting and contemptible and unforgivable.

This morning I joined 6100 other people (that number has since more than doubled tripled quadrupled) in signing The NRSC Pledge, which says:

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

Hugh Hewitt, the quintessential Republican Party loyalist, helped start this effort, and he explained why tonight with four little words: "The war trumps party." I couldn’t agree more.

I also won’t contribute to any organization or PAC — such as the Club for Growth or the GOA PVF — that funnels money to any such senator. Gaius of Blue Crab Boulevard, who has a son serving in Iraq, made this additional promise:

… I’ll go one better on the pledge. I WILL actively work against any Republican up for reelection who votes for a resolution – like Chucky "Dead to me" Hagel did. If our politicians are too stupid to see what kind of message they are sending to the world with their grandstanding, then they do not have the best interests of this country in mind and do not deserve to stay in office. …

Good idea. I’m not a big-bucks contributor — I’m guessing all my campaign contributions last year amounted to not much over two grand. But I will be contributing to the primary opponents of Republicans who don’t stand with their president on this issue — and I’ll start with a contribution to anyone who challenges Sen. Warner. I’ll give a pass to a few GOP representatives (Ron Paul comes to mind) who opposed the war on principle from the beginning — they’ve followed their conscience all along.

But these gutless GOP wonders with their fingers in the wind who pander to a fickle public on this life-or-death matter (but don’t have the integrity or fortitude to actually prohibit appropriations from being used to increase troop levels)? They deserve to be punished. Please join me — sign the pledge. Then contact senators on Hewitt’s hit list and tell them to grow a spine or else.
 

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

The Mahdi Hatters of Tehran

Posted by Richard on January 3, 2007

Ever wonder what interests the leaders of Iran are pursuing when they aren’t occupied with the construction of more centrifuges to hasten the day they have nuclear weapons?

Well, for one thing, they seem interested in historical research — with a rather revisionist bent. MEMRI has posted translated excerpts of a Dec. 28 interview with Mohammad Ali Ramin, Iranian Presidential Advisor, who discussed what the Iranian historical research discovered about Hitler’s Jewish parents and powerful Jewish associates (I’m not making this up):

"Adolf Hitler himself developed an aversion to Judaism because his mother was a Jewish whore. …

"Thus… Hitler simultaneously developed both feelings of solidarity with Judaism and feelings of hatred towards it, and this emotional ambivalence shaped his behavior towards the Jews. On the one hand, his entire family, the people who shared his views, and his associates who brought him into power and stood by him to the last – including his lovers and his personal doctor – were [all] Jewish. On the other hand, he welcomed the policy of expelling the Jews from Central Europe for two other reasons: Firstly, the establishment of a Jewish government in Palestine was an aspiration of the rich and influential Jews who surrounded him. Secondly, exiling the Jews from Europe and Germany was a general and historical demand of the Western Christian nations. With the full support of the British, and in coordination with them, Hitler addressed this general demand and [thereby] managed to gain widespread popularity in Europe. Obviously, publishing writings and information of this sort is forbidden in Germany and in the West…

(Hat tip to Yoni the blogger, who really needs to learn to provide links to the sources he cites.)

In addition to researching the past, the Iranian government is also very interested in predicting the future. A Ynetnews story recently drew attention to an Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) web page entitled "The World Toward Illumination." A series of posts over the past two months discuss the return of the Twelfth Imam, or Mahdi. The Dec. 11 update said he may be returning soon, and he’ll be heading for Jerusalem:

A triumphal religious prophecy has appeared on an Iranian official state media website, heralding the return of the Shiite messiah.

According to the website, "Imam Mahdi (may God hasten his reappearance) will appear all of a sudden on the world scene with a voice from the skies announcing his reappearance at the holy Ka’ba in Mecca."
…

"After his appearance the Imam would remain in Mecca for some time, and then go to Medina… a descendant of the Prophet’s archenemy Abu Sofyan will seize Syria and attack Iraq and the Hejaz with the ferocity of a beast… finally Imam Mahdi sends troops who kill the Sofyani in Beit ol-Moqaddas (Jerusalem), the Islamic holy city in Palestine that is currently under occupation of the Zionists," the IRIB added.
…

‘The World Towards Illumination’ series cites some Islamic sources as saying that the Mahdi’s return "may coincide with the Spring Equinox…

If you’ve ever wondered why many on the left seem oddly unconcerned about and even sympathetic toward the Islamists, read more of that IRIB page and you’ll begin to see. The latest (Dec. 25) update, for instance, sounds like a mixture of Marxism and National Socialism with mystical flourishes:

… The cold and calculating domineering powers impose on the weaker nations, the methods of production, consumption and technology that are to the benefit of capitalists. In the weird system of today’s powerful counties, moral and spiritual values have no place and are seen as undesirable liabilities that prevent these powers from reaching economic welfare and what they call true prosperity. However, the exploitation of the weak, the unjust system of distribution and denial of the rights of nations, will end with the reappearance of Imam Mahdi (AS). In the government of the Imam man will witness real economic welfare throughout the world without any discrimination. The main issue in his global government is carrying out social justice and one of the main products of social justice is a highly developed economy that leads to the blossoming of moral and spiritual values as emphasized by the dynamic teachings of Islam. According to narrations, justice revives the dynamics of the shari’a or religious rulings. The Prophet’s 6th infallible successor, Imam Ja’far Sadeq (PBUH) says people will be needless when justice governs their life.

In the ideal society of Imam Mahdi (AS), justice will be materialized. Elements for production and economic prosperity will increase and people will witness the full development of the Islamic society. … Imam Mahdi’s educational system will mould man’s personality and morality toward sublimity and create conditions throughout the world that will lead man to abstain from any extravagance and overuse or waste of natural resources. Thus the environment and its resources will remain immune from destruction and pollution. In the economic field, people will have complete mutual trust and conclude deals without the exchange of economic documents, and no infraction will be committed in these deals.

Anti-capitalism, one world government, wealth redistribution, social justice, environmentalism — this Mahdi is the average leftist’s wet dream. Well, except for those bothersome quirks like stoning adulterers and homosexuals, forbidding everything remotely fun and pleasurable, and treating women as chattel. But the average post-modern enviro-socialist has more in common with Ahmadinejad and his pals than first meets the eye, and probably thinks (incorrectly) that their differences could be resolved by talking.

As for the Mahdi returning in a few months and heading for Jerusalem, I can’t help but wonder if he might be wearing one of these:

Demron - Radiation Protection Suit

 

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »