Thursday, August 31, 2006

Media Attempts to Thwart Aristotle !

The Anchoress, quite brilliantly, explains quite clearly why the mainstream media refuses to call a thing what it is:

I know that somewhere in the minds of these movers and shakers they think they are protecting Muslims-in-general from reactionary prejudice, distrust and bias from us unruly, racist, mouth-breathing Americans (because we went nuts and burned down mosques after 9/11, right? We took to the streets and rampaged and lynched anyone named Abdul back then, right?) but the truth is, by their incessant downplaying, their knee-jerk move to protect-and-explain perps like this, they’re just making some people very resentful, and in the end, I think that’s going to do more to foment prejudice and bias, distrust and hate toward decent Muslim persons than would simply acknowledging the fact that when these Fundamentalists DO this crap, it is what it is - an act of aggression, hate and terror - and not some “mistake” that can be cooed away.

The MSM is trying to overturn one of Aristotle's basic laws of reality:

Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is...

To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else...

The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature.
-A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity

In Aristotle’s words, "A is A". It means that a thing is itself and no other thing. It means that a thing has a specific nature and no other nature. It means simply that there are no contradictions in reality.

An Islamist shooting up a school full of girls is not an "isolated incident"; nor is a Muslim fundamentalist running down Jews on the street practicing some run-of-the-mill "road rage". It is Muslim terrorism here at home, plain and simple. But our elite media knows we cannot handle the truth, so they keep telling us "no, don't believe the evidence of your eyes, for you see, A is B."

But a thing is what it is, and claiming "A" is "B" does not make it "B". The media is trying to go against one of the primary principles of human philosophy and human thought, indeed trying to change the very nature of reality itself, in order to push an agenda.

But Aristotle, and the American people, are pushing back. Becuase knowing what a thing is, is basic to human survival. Reality cannot be undone; survival instincts cannot be surpressed...and this may lead to the flashback that the Anchoress seems to be predicting.

In Ayn Rand's epic novel Atlas Shrugged (a thousand-page philosophical treaty which sets out to prove Aristotle's theorem), the denial of reality by the world's leadership causes an eventual mass breakdown of society, as those whom argue that "A" is actually "B" are rendered helpless when the reality of moral choices and economic imperatives can no longer be ignored. Does the media face a similar fate? Is it destined to be undone, to be broken into little shrieking pieces, when the truths they are so desperately hiding finally, undeniably, break lose from their cage?

Rand would shrug...

Monday, August 28, 2006

Liberal Hypocrisy On Display!

The Democratic Party's obsession with bringing down Wal-Mart has always reeked of electoral vote-counting and donation-gathering, with nary a principle in sight. Why in the world would these champions of the downtrodden (more on that later) try to bring down a chain that employs hundreds of thousands, and provides goods and services at a deep discount rate?

First, a few facts from Sebastian Mallory in today's Washington Post:

The nation's most successful retailer, which has seized the opportunities created by globalization to boost the buying power of ordinary Americans, is now seen as too toxic to touch...

...the idea that Wal-Mart pays below-market wages is false. Otherwise nobody would work there...

Hillary Clinton and Sen. John Kerry have attacked Wal-Mart for offering health coverage to too few workers. But Kerry's former economic adviser, Jason Furman of New York University, concluded in a paper last year that Wal-Mart's health benefits are about as generous as those of comparable employers...

...According to a paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research by Jerry Hausman and Ephraim Leibtag, neither of whom received funding from Wal-Mart, big-box stores led by Wal-Mart reduce families' food bills by one-fourth. Because Wal-Mart's price-cutting also has a big impact on the non-food stuff it peddles, it saves U.S. consumers upward of $200 billion a year, making it a larger booster of family welfare than the federal government's $33 billion food-stamp program.

How can centrist Democrats respond to that? By beating up Wal-Mart and forcing it to focus on public relations rather than opening new stores, Democrats are harming the poor Americans they claim to speak for.

So why beat up on Wal-Mart?

- The Democrats are in favor of maintaining and increasing the government's public assistance programs. With Wal-Mart's pricing policies making government hand-outs less necessary, the left loses a key rallying point. So re-create it by destroying the private institutions that are aiding the poor by demonizing them as (gasp!) "capitalists"!
-The more folk that are employed, the less that are in need of unemployment and welfare benefits. So convince folks that working for minimum wage is more embarrassing than not working at all, and tell them to just sit there and wait, while collecting welfare, because eventually that six-figure corporate job is going to fall right off of a tree. Ignore the fact that nothing helps you get a better job than having...a first job to begin with. Roll out Al Sharpton to impress the media and distract from the facts.
-Elitism - it's OK for you and I to have a DVD player in every room, but give the poor an opportunity to buy one for $39.95? No, the Democrats know better, you need that money for the "basics", and besides, they're made in China!
-Simple head-counting - if the poor move up the ladder, they might start to vote Republican! So shut down Wal-Mart, put thousands of gainfully employed citizens on the public dole, and keep them voting for the Democratic programs that they will need to survive...and God forbid we lose the (primarily white) Union vote! They represent 15% of the country, you know! Better for them to stay in the fold, and if the poor must remain so,
- Straw Man Theorem - The Democrats know they have zero credibility on the key issue to the American voter, the War on Terror. So they take on a foe they believe they can knock down - Wal-Mart! - and try to convince the rest of us dupes that a discount retailer is of more danger to the American way of life than Islamofascist terrorists.

Am I being cynical? No more than the big shots in the Democratic party who line up to destroy the dreams of the innocent so that they may survive in office a few more years...

And speaking of liberal hypocrites, I cannot help but present E.J. Dionne's twisting of history:

At its best, liberalism is about the defense of the underdog, of minority rights, of social justice, of active but restrained government, of civil liberties, of openness and tolerance.

In their own defense, those who still admit to being liberals would argue that the very fact that they have stood up for minority rights -- including, heroically, for civil rights in the 1960s -- made them unpopular, sometimes with a majority of the country.

I'll let Random Observations take 'ol EJ apart:

Liberalism, in my experience, is simply the claim to these positions.

Defending the underdog? Israel is a lone democracy, surrounded by a vast sea of people who want to destroy her. Where is the defense of that 'underdog' now? For thirty or more years, the black community has embraced 'liberal' ideas and faithfully elected Democratic leaders. How have they been helped? (The black family continues to dissolve.) And what about women in Islamic countries? Or Christians in China? Or Bahaiis in Iran? Or democratic activists in Cuba? Where is the concern?

Attempts at an in-depth examination of whether 'liberal' policies help or hurt underdogs, in my experience, generally provoke at best indifference, and at worst, anger.

When will EJ admit that being a liberal is never having to say "I've been mistaken"?

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Islam, At Gunpoint...

A note to all whom decry a "clash of civilizations", or claim that we are fighting "terrorists", but NOT Muslims...what do you call it when civilians are kidnapped, abused, and forced to convert to Islam under penalty of death?

Two Fox News journalists held for 13 days in the Gaza Strip were released Sunday after they were shown on a videotape saying they converted to Islam.
The two journalists, American Steve Centanni, 60, and New Zealand cameraman Olaf Wiig, 36, "have liberated themselves" by converting to Islam, according to the statement accompanying a videotape from a group calling itself the Holy Jihad Brigades.

It gets

Centanni recounted how he and Wiig were pulled out of their car on August 14 and taken at gunpoint into another car. The kidnappers blindfolded them and handcuffed their hands behind their backs with plastic ties. They were then transferred to another car and driven to a building that they later learned was a garage.
"We were pushed down onto the dirt-covered concrete floor and we were forced to life face down with our handcuffs on," Centanni said.
"Olaf was in the same room with me. Our shoulders were wrenched back, very painful."
Both of the men were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint, Centanni said.
"We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," Centanni told FOX News. "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on."

Hot Air has some video, incidentally..

Now I'm not going to jump on Mr. Centanni, who has obviously been through a horrific ordeal. But as one of his first statements was -

“Don’t get me wrong, I have the highest respect for Islam..."

- well, I hope he was not of sound mind when that statement was made; otherwise the impression left is that one can be held hostages by ahderants to a religious belief, forced to convert to said belief, and then willfully embrace that belief afterward.

Hmmm, perhaps what the entire West needs is two weeks face down in the dirt to discover our love of the Koran....and don't think that little tidbit will escape the adherants of Allah. From View to the Right:

The kidnappers did not force Centanni and Wiig to convert to Islam because the kidnappers are “fascists” who “hate our freedoms.” They forced them to convert to Islam because they are Muslims who believe in Islam. Yes, Islam tells them to hate our freedoms. But the primary thing is the belief in Islam, not the hate of our freedoms. How can we successfully fight an enemy whose existence we don’t even recognize?

Moreover, such forced conversions are exactly what Muslims have been imposing on non-Muslims for the last 1,400 years, through jihad war, razzias (raids), kidnapping, slavery, conquest, and dhimmitude. In reply, the Muslims insist that they don’t force people to convert. Rather, as Sayyid Qutb
argues, jihad war is waged to bring people under (divinely led) Islamic rule, thereby freeing them (freeing them from their false human will, that is) to choose Islam freely. What Muslims call “freedom” is what we call compulsion. In fear of being killed, and in hopes of being released, Steve Centanni agreed to convert to Islam. The choice was not what we would call a free one. But now, having become a Muslim and so transformed himself, he can’t take it back, even though the gun is no longer pointed at his head. And so he loves Big Brother—I mean, he has the “highest respect” for Islam.

Again, I'll wait until Centanni sees a psychiatrist before I bash him personally...but the post above brings another fear to the forefront - are we fighting against Islamic Fascists, or the Muslim religion as a whole? We have often spoke of the myth of the moderate Muslim; one that every politician and leader claims exists yet cannot ever be seen/heard decrying the terrorism, kidnappings, murder and general mayhem that is carried out in their name. If the moderate Muslim does not exists, then we are faced not only with armed Islamists that are attempting to bring the world under a 7th century Caliphate, but a Muslim civilian population worldwide that supports this turn of events.

Perhaps this is why Islamic terror plots grow so freely in England, Canada, and all over the Middle East - because the average Muslim believes these murderers are actually acting within the dictates of their religion. Or perhaps terrorists are simply the "armed wing" of the Muslim religion, if I may borrow the MSM lexicon applied to the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah.

But it is thought like these, I guess, that qualify me as a wing-nut...from one of View's comments:

...if someone said that Muslims are violent because they are followers of a religion that commands violence as a sacred obligation, he would be certified, not as an expert, but as an extremist.

Will the wall of political correctness blind us to what awaits us as Muslim militancy grows stronger, emboldened by its small victories, all under the watchful eye of future world leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ?

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Immigration Debate Hits Europe

In the United States, it is taken as matter-of-fact that anyone who is against open-borders immigration is a racist, hate-filled, wing-nut whom doesn't respect the liberal values that allowed him/her to become an American in the first place. Is the left going to tar Europeans with the same brush? From the Brussels Journal:

The key findings on the public’s view of immigration were as follows:

1. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement?‘Immigration is generally good for Britain’
Agree: 43%
Disagree: 45%
Neither: 10%
Don’t know: 2%

2. Should laws on immigration be relaxed, kept same, made tougher, or don’t know?
Relaxed: 6%
Kept same: 17%
Made tougher: 75%
Don’t know: 2%

3. Should the government set a strict limit on the number of immigrants allowed into Britain each year?
Yes: 77%
No: 21%
Don’t know: 2%

Granted, the U.S. debate is centered on illegal immigration by (primarily) Mexicans and the hardships thus imposed on taxpayer-provided services. In England, it it mostly about Muslim immigrants, and their inability (or lack of desire) to take on British norms and values. The British political class points a finger at Whitey while grudgingly admitting that this whole multiculturalism theology can now be discussed without charges being filed:

"There are white Britons who do not feel comfortable with change. They see the shops and restaurants in their town centres changing. They see their neighbourhoods becoming more diverse. Detached from the benefits of those changes, they begin to believe the stories about ethnic minorities getting special treatment, and to develop a resentment, a sense of grievance," she [Ruth Kelly, the communities secretary] said.
"We have moved from a period of uniform consensus on the value of multiculturalism to one where we can encourage that debate by questioning whether it is encouraging separateness."

Italy is facing some of the same problems - the New York Times reports, although finding facts between their bias is getting more and more difficult:

BRESCIA, Italy, Aug. 23 — A series of unrelated killings here this month has pushed this elegant city to the center of a national debate on the challenges of immigration and cultural integration.
The trigger was the gruesome killing on Aug. 11 of Hina Saleem, a 20-year-old woman whose family moved here from Pakistan and who was found buried, with her throat slit, in the garden of her family home in a small town about 12 miles north of Brescia.
A few days after Ms. Saleem’s body was found, a young Italian woman was found dead in a Brescia church. A Sri Lankan immigrant who assisted the priest has been arrested in the case.
On Aug. 21, an immigrant from Morocco was arrested and charged with killing a notable painter here, and this week a Pakistani man was knifed to death during what appears to have been a robbery.

The result has been a round of anti-immigrant talk....

Of course, the Times points to class elitism and racism, since multiculturalism is next to Godliness in their hallowed halls:

Some residents of this wealthy provincial capital east of Milan, in one of Italy’s most industrialized areas, have been venting their anger to the news media.
The mayor tells us we have to live with them, but the immigrants don’t reciprocate, and this isn’t their city,” said Gloria Gatta, the owner of a cafe on the Via San Faustino, a street lined with shops catering to the neighborhood’s growing African and Asian population.
Things in Brescia have gotten so bad, she said, that “people are afraid to go out after dark.”

“People used to be more tolerant; they used to be less allergic to seeing someone from a different race,” said Sajid Shah, the founder of the Muhammadiah association, which is building in Brescia what will be the second-biggest mosque in Italy.

Well, while in America we still stick to doctrine (at least for the time being - note here how over 1/3 of American Hispanics believe in denying services to illegals - God bless the melting pot!), it seems as if in Europe this misguided liberal social experiment is finally about to be examined. I wish those in the forefront luck, as the multicultural elite are getting out their tar brushes ready to smear those who dare challenge the faith...

A One-Two Punch into the Face of World Peace

First, a left from Iran:

An Iranian plant that produces heavy water officially went into operation on Saturday, despite U.N. demands that Tehran stop the activity because it can be used to develop a nuclear bomb.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad inaugurated the plant....

The announcement comes days before Thursday's U.N. deadline for Iran to stop uranium enrichment - which also can be used to create nuclear weapons - or face economic and political sanctions. Tehran has called the U.N. Security Council resolution "illegal" and said it won't stop enrichment as a precondition to negotiations...

Is there anyone not clear on exactly what Iran is intending to do here? Nuclear-armed Mullahs, here we come! What a comforting thought!

And here's the right, a low blow from our "multilateral allies", whom I guess were pretending to work with us while in actuality were simply cock-blocking us from doing anything to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear arsenal:

The Thursday deadline set by world leaders for Iran to halt its nuclear program suffered a major blow yesterday when Russia rejected the idea of sanctions against the rogue nation.
"Russia stands for further political and diplomatic efforts to settle the issue," Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said.

France also called for caution, saying a confrontation with Iran must be avoided.
"That would be the clash of civilizations that France today is practically alone in trying to avoid," Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said.

France will avoid a clash, all right, even if it means surrendering Paris to the Mullahs and rounding up all the Jews for deportation - hey, they've done it before...

And sometimes the truth slips out accidentally:

But Ivanov, who is also Russia's deputy prime minister, said, "I know of no instances in world practice and previous experience in which sanctions have achieved their aim and proved effective."

No disagreement why are we bothering? What is the purpose of using the UN Security Council at all if its strongest weapon, sanctions, (the thought of a concerted military response is laughable in the 21st century) are off the table? Is the UN simply acting as a slowing mechanism so that the US cannot stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power? Is this the way the UN can at last reach its long-awaited final solution for Israel?

And where does the rest of the West stand?

European leaders said the Iranian response - which didn't even mention the deadline - justified yet another round of talks.
French President Jacques Chirac termed Iran's answer a "little ambiguous."
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he expected new talks in days.

And how does the New York Times and its diverse group of readers respond to Iran's threat of a new holocaust and a worldwide caliphate? Why, by blaming the Jews, of course...

Given the above, why should Iran stop working on their nuclear ambitions? After all, who's going to stop them? The U.S is their only threat, and if the Iranians buy some time, allow the Americans to get tied up in more EU-style appeasement diplomacy, and hopefully see a few more Democrats elected in the next two elections, they are home free and on their way to regional (and possibly global?) domination...

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Iraq - The Arab World's Last Hope

Ralph Peters has a brilliantly straightforward op-ed in today's New York Post on the realities of the the Arab world:

Iraqi democracy hasn't yet failed entirely. But it looks as if it might. President Bush needs to face that possibility. Managing the regional and global consequences will be his responsibility. We will have to fight on elsewhere - with more realism and, regrettably, less idealism....

....Arabs in the United States are as capable of functioning within a democratic system as anyone else. They're just as American as any other citizens - because their families escaped the Middle East.
Arab states are another story: Their social, political, economic and cultural structures leave them catastrophically uncompetitive with the developed world. Societies divided down the middle by religion, inhibited by tribal loyalties and conditioned to accept corruption can't build healthy democracies.
Above all, societies and cultures that refuse to accept responsibility for their own failures can't build democracies....

A culture of blame prevents moral, social and political progress. This is a self-help universe. The nonsensical Arab insistence that all Arab problems are the fault of America and Israel (or the Crusades) ignores the fact that Arab civilization has been in decline for 700 years - and has been in utter disarray for the last 200.
This is a homemade failure. Through their own choices, cherished beliefs, values and norms, Arabs have condemned themselves to strategic incompetence.
No society that oppresses women, denies advancement on merit even to men, indulges in fantastic hypocrisy, wallows in corruption, undervalues secular learning, reduces its god to a nasty disciplinarian and comforts itself with conspiracy theories will ever compete with us.
The question has been asked before: Despite the massive influx of petrodollars over a half-century, where are the great Arab universities, the research institutes, the cutting-edge industries, the efficient, humane governments, the enlightened societies?

Arab terrorism isn't about redressing wrongs. It's about revenge on a successful civilization that left the dungeon-cultures of the Middle East in the dust.

It's now up to the Iraqis to succeed - or become yet another pathetic Arab failure. If Iraqis are unwilling to grasp the opportunity our soldiers and Marines bought them with American blood, it's their tragedy, not ours....

Read it all.

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

The Dixie Chicks Will Rise Again !

In the "Arts" section of the New York Times:

The Dixie Chicks may play a role in the November elections. A documentary film by Barbara Kopple and Cecilia Peck about the aftermath of a comment by the singer Natalie Maines in 2003 — “We’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas” — has been acquired for distribution by the Weinstein Company, Reuters reported. Release of the film, “Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing,” is tentatively scheduled for the fall. It relates the death threats, political attacks and radio boycotts directed at the country music trio and could become a political lightning rod if Harvey Weinstein, a Democratic supporter, injects it into the impending campaign. The film is to have its premiere next month at the Toronto International Film Festival.

A lightning rod? Mayhaps, but why do I think this apparently self-serving pseudo-documentary will draw few to their cause, save for the strident second-rate editorial columnists of B-list northeastern newspapers? Most likely their teary victimhood will only add additional torch-holders to the angry mob that is braying for their overpaid, overexposed scalps.

Seems like they are simply preaching to the choir anyway - via Tim Blair:

On previous tours, the Dixie Chicks consistently sold out venues throughout North America. That changed on the band’s current tour, when planned shows in several Southern and Midwestern cities were canceled due to soft ticket sales. The group reshuffled its schedule to focus on areas where sales were still strong, including Canada and the Northeastern US.

Is the New York Times implying that the Dixie Chicks will help the Democrats in the fall elections?
You know, the way parading around with Michael Moore helped them secure the vote in 2004?

Some pre-election tea leaves here...

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Duck! It's a "Multifaceted Response"!

So the long awaited day arrives for Iran to deliver its "mulitfaceted response" to enticements to end its nuclear weapons programs...and we are still alive, and alas, nothing has changed:

Iranian officials offered no details of the response, but it appeared geared at enticing those countries into further negotiations by offering a broad set of proposals vague enough to hold out hope of progress in resolving the standoff.

Well, at least the AP is being honest, albiet unintentionally, I'm sure. Meanwhile we can produce at least one person who is disappointed that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was unable to unleash the apocalypse:

Annan Rejects Sanctions, Offers Talks with 12th Imam

(2006-08-22) — As Iran’s president prepared today to reject international efforts to halt his nation’s uranium enrichment program, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan rejected calls for sanctions against the Islamic Republic and offered direct negotiations with the long-awaited 12th Imam.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has spoken of the prophesied 12th or ‘Hidden’ Imam, who is to usher in the end of the world. Many believe he would return on
August 22, the alleged anniversary of the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to Jerusalem, then to heaven and back (Koran XVII.1).
Mr. Annan said he believes that “direct negotiations with the Hidden Imam can defuse all of this
talk of the end of the world, which I’m confident is nothing more than a bargaining chip.”

Indeed, Kofi, indeed....and now let's put our fears of an new Holocaust to bed (until next month) with this witty tale:
So one day, a UN envoy meets up with Israeli leadership in Jerusalem:

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan views the Israel Defense Forces’ commando operation near Baalbek over the weekend as a violation of the cease-fire agreement, UN envoy Terje Roed-Larsen told Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni during their meeting in Jerusalem Monday.

“If you discovered arms smuggling, you could have complained through diplomatic channels,” Larsen told Livni.

“We will consider that route as well,” Livni replied with a smile


A Primer - "How To Negotiate With Terrorists"

I don't often cut and paste someone else's entire post - it seems too much like hanging a reproduction in a gallery - but this is one that I'm proud to have here...from HH Blowhard, a brief history of negotiations with terrorists over time:

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of a line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker introduces himself. The terrorist kills him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker asks, "why did you kill my friend?" The terrorist kills him and rapes his wife.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker says, "Stop that!" The terrorist kills him, rapes his daughter and kills his wife.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker says, "I'll pay you $1000 if you stop attacking us." The terrorist agrees to the deal, takes the $1000, and kills him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker appeals to the United Nations. The United Nations says the peacemaker is at fault. The terrorist kills him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker now has a gun, and threatens to use it. Other peacemakers start chanting the old 60's whine, "Can't we all just get along?" The peacemaker hesitates. The terrorist kills him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker tries to convince his peacemaker friends that the terrorists aren't going to respond to negotiations, but they insist that if he kills the terrorist it'll just make the other terrorists mad. The peacemaker reluctantly agrees to try negotiating again. The terrorist kills him., his entire family, and his neighbor's family.

A heated debate now ensues between the peacemakers who want to be nice to the terrorists and the peacemakers who believe that there can never be peace until the terrorists are all dead. While they are debating, the terrorists kill 15 more peacemakers.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker asks himself, "Which is more important: being liked by everyone, or protecting my family?" The terrorist pulls a knife to kill the peacemaker, but the peacemaker pulls a gun and kills the terrorist first. The United Nations condemns the peacemaker's use of unproportional force. Many of his peacemaker friends turn against him.

A peacemaker walks up to the left side of the line. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line. The peacemaker apologizes for what his friend did to the other terrorist. The terrorist kills him, his entire family and his neighbors, and threatens to destroy the city as soon as they develop a bigger weapon.

A peacemaker refuses to meet at the line because every time a peacemaker goes to the line the terrorist kills him. A terrorist walks up to the right side of the line and fires rockets into the peacemaker's town. The United Nations condemns the way the peacemaker provoked the terrorist by refusing to come to the line and meet with him.

Generations pass and not much changes until one day when the son of a peacemaker decides that the old strategy simply won't work. He walks up to the left side of the line a little early. As the terrorist approaches the right side of the line the peacemaker shoots him. Another terrorist approaches to replace the first, and the peacemaker shoots him too. This scene plays out several more times. Then a terrorist approaches carrying a white flag, but he also has weapons. The peacemaker shoots him. A terrorist next approaches with a ceasefire resolution from the U.N. The peacemaker shoots him also . A large group of terrorists approach and the peacemaker shoots them all and drops a nuclear bomb on the city they came from. The peacemaker continues killing the terrorists until the terrorists are all dead.

There is finally peace on earth and the United Nations takes the credit.

Monday, August 21, 2006

BBC Hits Bottom; Continues to Dig Furiously

Hezbollah forces children to pose with unexploded ordanance, the BBC snaps away with glee...busted by the USS Neverdock:

You can't get any clearer than this admission by the BBC that they engage in staging photos:

When Um Ali Mihdi returned to her home in the southern Lebanese city of Bint Jbeil two days ago, she found a 1,000lb (450kg) Israeli bomb lying unexploded in her living room. The shell is huge, bigger than the young boy pushed forward to stand reluctantly next to it while we get our cameras out and record the scene for posterity.

...Probably would have done the same thing in 1942 had the Nazis brought the BBC to Buchenwald...

Consider Ourselves Warned

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lays it out nice and clear, just like 'ol Adolf, only this time we are supposed to have the benefit of foresight...right?

If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.

With video, at Little Green Footballs

And a thought:

"Who says I am not under the special protection of God?"
- Adolph Hitler

D-Day for Iran

And the news does not look promising:

Iran has turned away U.N. inspectors wanting to examine its underground nuclear site in an apparent violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty, diplomats and U.N. officials said Monday.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidentiality of the information, told The Associated Press that Iran's unprecedented refusal to allow access to the facility at Natanz could seriously hamper international efforts to ensure that Tehran is not trying to make nuclear weapons.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its own decision and in the nuclear case, God willing, with patience and power, will continue its path," said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to state television.
His declaration came on the eve of Iran's self-imposed Tuesday deadline to respond to a Western incentives package for it to roll back its nuclear program.

Meanwhile, the UN works frantically to see if they can come up with just the right combination of pleading, groveling, and self-debasement that will please the Iranians and make them think about deferring their ambition to form a global caliphate under the bomb:

Ahead of the latest flurry of statements from Tehran, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he was to open "further contacts" with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
"We both agreed on our openness, under the right circumstances, to further contacts with the aim of re-establishing confidence in the purely civilian nature of the Iranian nuclear program," he said after a phone call with Larijani.

President Bush, at least, understands... from today's press conference:

QUESTION: Mr. President, as you mentioned, we're just 10 days from the U.N. Security Council deadline on Iran. Judging by the public comments from the Iranians, it appears, at least, highly unlikely that they're going to stop or suspend their enrichment program.
Are you confident that the U.N. Security Council will move quickly on sanctions if Iran thumbs its nose at the world again?

BUSH: Certainly hope so. In order for the U.N. to be effective, there must be consequences if people thumb their nose at the United Nations Security Council. And we will work with people on the Security Council to achieve that objective. And the objective is that there's got to be a consequence basically ignoring what the Security Council has suggested through resolution.

Let's see what develops; I fear it can be nothing good...

Sunday, August 20, 2006

The Perfidity of France

From Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald:

The heady moment of peace brokering having passed, upon sober reflection, the French now say they already have a general and some staff in south Lebanon ordering about UNIFIL, the U.N. monitoring entity there. That’s plenty of leadership, the French suggested: All France needs to contribute now is another 200 combat engineers...
...The United Nations, which is trying to salvage what is left of its own self-respect after the utter failure of UNIFIL in Lebanon, is now publicly begging European nations to contribute troops.

To find the last plain-speaking French leader, it is necessary to go back to Napoleon Bonaparte. He said he was going to take over Europe, and proceeded to do so.

...More recently, we’ve seen the naked hypocrisy of Dominic de Villepin in the United Nations, braying about his humanitarian concerns for the Iraqi people, while trying to ensure mass murderer Saddam Hussein remained in power to honor his French contracts.

...The shamelessness of France knows no bounds. They have a domestic Arabic population and business interests in the Mideast to satisfy. They desperately want to be taken seriously as a major power. So they sat down with the United States and hammered out a peace plan. Then, before the ink was dry, they shrugged a Gallic shrug...

France may indeed be desperate to be seen as a world power; yet they act like any other third-world country. Compare its efforts with the rest of Europe:

Italy's cabinet and two chambers of parliament agreed Friday to send an unspecified number of troops to south Lebanon...
...Finland announced Friday that it will send 250 troops by November to help the Lebanese army police a demilitarized zone reaching from Lebanon's border with Israel to the Litani River.
....U.N. officials had anticipated that France would lead a mostly European advance force, but Malloch Brown said Italy is the only major European power to make a "firm commitment" to provide "frontline troops" in the vital first phase of the deployment. "It's clear they will be part of the first wave of troops," he said.
Malloch Brown said the United Nations is now looking to poorer countries -- including Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Nepal -- that have pledged nearly 4,000 troops but are unable to get their forces to southern Lebanon.

Shame on France, whose economic resources outweigh most of the countries listed above. Too bad the great poverty of France lies within her people's hearts and soul; a people whom cannot look one meter past their own self-interest.

What to do? Well, Jim Hoagland in today's Washington Post doesn't come out and say it, but he is on the right track:

Japanese membership on the Security Council is a necessary first step toward serious reform of the world body. Tokyo should help clear the way for that step by removing the inscriptions that honor war criminals at Yasukuni.
Germany's case for Security Council membership is complicated by the fact that Europe already has seats held by France and Britain. Chancellor Angela Merkel has prudently deferred the once-insistent push by Germany for its own seat. But Germany and Japan both deserve to be heard and treated as the responsible international partners they have become across six decades.

It is time to diminish the international stature of France, who would have lost WWI if not for America, had to be rescued by America in WWII after their shameful refusal to fight the Nazis in 1939, and have done little else since except run interference for tin-pot dictators and terrorists, while always keeping a sharp eye out for a way to make a few francs on the side.

Japan especially has done its penance, and has turned into a responsible "Western" nation. And while Germany has its flaws, I would have more faith in their army to protect Israel in Southern Lebanon than the French, who can be assured to turn tail at the first sign of a fight.

Time to put the old French poodle to sleep....

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Kofi Annan's Peace of the Grave...

That 'ol Jew-baiter Koffi Annan makes no bones about whose side he's on; and jumps at the opportunity to toss a few grenades of his own:

Helicopter-borne Israeli commandos raided a Hezbollah stronghold in the Bekaa Valley early Saturday, setting off a fierce gun battle....
...The Israeli military, confirming the raid, said its commandos carried out the operation to interdict shipments of weapons and munitions to Hezbollah from Syria and Iran...
...The Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, said the raid was not a violation of the cease-fire because it was in response to a violation by Hezbollah.

A statement issued by Annan's spokesman later Saturday said that the U.N. chief spoke with both Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Olmert about the fighting. "The secretary-general is deeply concerned about a violation by the Israeli side of the cessation of hostilities," it said.

So Annan's reflexive anti-Semitism surfaces again - of course, the Israeli shelling of a UN outpost in the early days of the war was "deliberate", despite the fact that Hezbollah was using the UN forces as human shields. And of course, the fact that Hezbollah was re-arming in complete defiance of the cease-fire accords has nothing to do with the "violation by the Israeli side".

Koffi's got it down - when Israel is involved, it is always Israel's fault! Israel is always guilty of whatever fantasy crimes the Arabs conjur up against them - no investigations or evidence needed!

Surely, Koffi would have been the first in line condemning Isreal for the Six Day War back in '67 - remember, Israel attacked first! Sure, they were surrounded on all sides by Arab armies only holding their fire until an agreement on how to divvy up the lands could be reached, but what does that matter when a vicious aggressor state like Israel is involved? The Jews should have held their fire until...

...when, Koffi? Until they were defeated by their enemies in '67? Until the Palestinians manage to drive every last Jew from the land via instruments of terror (and boy does Koffi hate that wall!)? Until Hezbollah re-arms itself with even more advanced weapons from Syria and Iran, and can really knock Israel for a loop? Until the sicko leader of Iran drops a nuclear device on Tel Aviv? When are the Jews allowed to fight?

According to Koffi, never. That says a lot about him, his ultimate aim, and the filthy organization of hate that he so ably represents...

Annan and the UN (arm-in-arm with France, naturally) are trying to impose their own final solution to the "Israeli problem", by forcing upon them the peace of the dead. And not surprisingly, they are meeting with quite a measure of success...

Update: Gateway Pundit breaks down Koffi's two-faced duble dealing diplomacy in much greater depth...

Multicultural Mayhem !

Mark Steyn makes his point (via Gates of Vienna):

Pan-Islamism is the profound challenge to conventional ideas of citizenship and nationhood. Of course, if you say that at the average Ivy League college, you'll get a big shrug: Modern multicultural man disdains to be bound by the nation state, too; he prides himself on being un citoyen du monde. The difference is that, for Western do-gooders, it's mostly a pose: They may occasionally swing by some Third World basket-case and condescend to the natives, but for the most part the multiculti set have no wish to live anywhere but an advanced Western democracy. It's a quintessential piece of leftie humbug. They may think globally, but they don't act on it.
The pan-Islamists do act...

And The Brussels Journal confirms it:

The jihadists are clearly winning their battle over the British people. In the UK, the Labour government has shown that it is more than willing to jeopardise national security in favour of its oppressive multicultural agenda. Violent Muslims – a hotchpotch of infantile soul-searching converts, theocratic barbarians and permanently incensed and uneducated nobodies – who are supposed to be living as British citizens are intending to kill the people they live among. Clearly, the European multicultural project is failing to such a degree that citizens not only possess a visceral hatred of one another but they are now at war with one another.

This seems to be the "Anarchy" that Gates of Vienna refers to in the post linked to on top; seems like the Middle East is not the only place where the Islamists are wreaking havoc upon society...

I wrote a whole post on the failure of British multiculuralism back in early June; let me bring back a quote from Melanie Phillips:

Unlike America, which still believes that its values are a beacon to the rest of the world, Britain has been consumed by a loss of cultural nerve that has all but destroyed its belief in itself as a nation with values of which it can be proud.

The doctrine of multiculturalism holds that all groups have equal status. Except they are not in fact equal, because the majority is said to be inherently racist and illegitimate - so there can be no majority culture into which immigrants are encouraged to integrate...
Multiculturalism plus radical Islam is an explosive cocktail...

Yup, Miss called it....

Update 8/20 448A: LGF has a story of how the British are trying to throw off the shackles of multiculturalism, and how their leaders are forcibly re-cuffing them to this philosophy of cultural suicide, here - in a story entitled Mutiny on Flight 613.

Friday, August 18, 2006

August 22nd - The End of the World?

August 22nd, specifically, is the date Iranian President Ahmadinejad promises to reply to the demands of the West that he cease and desist his nuclear weapons programs. Fat chance; he's already watch the world back down from Hezbollah, he knows they wouldn't dare take him on. But why specifically 8/22, and what kind of reply is the mystic Ahmadinejad preparing to deliver? Some thoughts, first from Planck's Constant:

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

Alan Sullivan gets a bit more specific:

I believe the August 16 atrocity [the thwarted British airliner attack - ed.]
was intended to be part of the ramp-up to even larger events — possibly an Iranian nuclear EMP attack on Israel, set for August 22, to make a great light over Jerusalem, in accord with prophecy. Iran has hosted Al Qaeda leaders, and it seems plausible to me that some top Iranians were briefed on this latest Al Qaeda project. They may even have coordinated plans. As a result, the British bust may have interrupted the schedule of the jihadist war. But it will only be a short reprieve at best.

The Right Truth recalls the Iranian leader's insane letters to Bush and other Western leaders:

Villagers With Torches reminds us, "If one understands the meanings in the first mind blowing letter to Bush, by Ahmadi-nejad, making the call to Islam, then this kind of thing, among the Hojatieh is not exactly a shock." Ahmadinejad sent a letter to George W. Bush which was made public. He also sent a letter to France's Jacques Chirac and Germany's Angela Merkle.(via Regime Change Iran and Monsters and Critics)
If Ahmadinejad's message was the same in all three letters, he has issued his invitation to at least three Western nations to 'accept Islam or else'. Or else what? Perhaps we will find out on the night of August 21 and into the day of August 22.

Another point from

Also of note is that August 22 of this year corresponds with the Islamic date of Rajab 28, the day Saladin conquered and entered Jerusalem.
Taken in conjunction with Ahmadinejad’s stated desire to see Israel destroyed, it hardly seems a coincidence.

Will the coming months see Ahmadinejad attempt to bring about Imam Mahdi’s return by attacking Israel

Finally, from In the Bullpen - is Ahmadinejad already making his move?

AKI reports that Teheran is to begin, on Saturday, a series of missile launch tests … The missiles being launched from border provinces is designed to maxmize the range...
Iran seems to have two missiles ready, the Shahab - 3, 1,200 mile range and the Shahab-4 of approximately 2,000 miles, though I have no idea of how many of each...

The manoeuvres will involve the army’s ground and air forces, the general added. “ ‘We should show Iran’s military capability to the enemies,” he said. “No army in the world can confront Iran’s army, the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, and Basij (voluntary) forces,” he noted.’

Is all this just for show, for public relations? Is it just a coincidence these maneuvers are taking place the weekend before August 21 and August 22? Is this just Ahmadinejad displaying his military feathers like a peacock displays his feathers for all to see and admire?

Let's keep a sharp eye out...and me, I'll be bringing a little extra bottled water to work that day....

UPDATE: Little Green Footballs posted at virtually the same time as I on the August 22nd topic (cue creepy music); he channels Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis here

UPDATE 8/20: Assorted Babble tosses out the following terrifying thought from Joel Rosenberg:

Some experts even speculate that Iran may already have several atomic bombs and the means to deliver them. When I interviewed President Reagan's Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in February of this year (just a few weeks, as it turned out, before he passed away), he told me on the record that he believed Iran had already gone nuclear and this was why Ahmadinejad was speaking so boldly and provocatively...

More Babble here on 8/22....

Sleep tight, kiddies....

Thursday, August 17, 2006

The Final Betrayal

Which is more difficult to believe - that Ehud Olmert actually thought the U.N. was going to come in force to defend Israel and disarm Hezbollah, or that France would fulfill its pledge to lead this risky expedition? It doesn't matter, as this is one soap bubble that popped fairly quickly:

...there was still no firm date for a deployment of an enhanced international force that is supposed to expand to 15,000 troops and join an equal number of Lebanese soldiers. France announced it would provide only 400, and Germany — uneasy given its Nazi past of any possible military confrontation with Israeli soldiers — said it wouldn't send any.
France was expected to lead the U.N. force,
and its announcement of such a small number focused attention on its demands for a more explicit mandate, including when to use firepower, and could affect contributions by other countries.
Even though the Israel withdrawal and handover to U.N. forces has gone well thus far, some potential contributors are believed to be concerned about avoiding confrontation with Hezbollah...

Confrontation with Hezbollah is supposed to be the point, no? To disarm a terrorist militia currently launching attacks on a neighboring country? Europe has just announced that they do not have the stomach to fight terror, or the radical Islamist movement. They promised Israel security if they would just sign on the dotted line - only to turn tail and run before the battle has even been joined. Led by France, naturally....

The Islamists
have noticed:

Those looking for gloomy signs would not have been disappointed yesterday. Hezbollah, the radical Shiite militia and political party, was violating U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 in numerous ways, including by failing to disarm and by failing to free the Israeli soldiers with whose kidnapping it precipitated the war last month. Neither Iran nor Syria, Hezbollah's financial backers and arms suppliers, had accepted the terms of the resolution, which the Security Council adopted on a 15-to-0 vote with the support of Lebanon's government. In fact, on Tuesday Syrian President Bashar al-Assad delivered a speech of such venomous intransigence ("The fact that Israel should know is that each new generation will hate Israel more than the generation which preceded it.") that Germany's foreign minister, a leading advocate within the West for engaging Mr. Assad, canceled a trip to Damascus for which he had already boarded his jet.

This particular battle in the war on terror has been lost. Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran have progressed by their aggression over the last month, while Israel and the West shrink back, trying to paper their losses with meaningless resolutions blithly ignored by their adversaries.

We must learn from this loss, regroup, and continue to press forward. Iran has emerged from this crisis more powerful, more dangerous, and less afraid. If the West cringes at some collateral damage, doctored photographs, and the scolding of the feckless Kofi Annan, we will be no match for the unrelenting fury of the radical Islamists now marching upon us...

UPDATE: At The Dignified Rant, France's exhibition of cowardice is examined:

Shocking! Especially when you consider that that "international test" was written in French and has to be translated into English for us to take it. And France refuses to enforce a UN Security Council resolution? How can this be? Quickly, nurse! Five CCs of nuance, stat!

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Our Implacable Foe

Richard Cohen is not a columnist I would usually excerpt, but that whole thing about a broken clock being right twice a day....from the Washington Post, regarding Hezbollah and the war on terror:

This zealotry, this ideology, this religious fervor is not something we in the West -- and that includes Israel -- know how to deal with.

This seemingly abrupt shift to the ideological, to the religious, is the most noteworthy and ominous development of recent times. The fight is no longer over territory -- the West Bank, Gaza -- but over the very existence of Israel. The people who seem to hate Israel most, who will kill to kill it and die for it to die, are not reclaiming ancestral land -- no Iranian pines for his lost orange grove near Jaffa -- but instead cannot abide the very idea of Israel.

Democracies are in a fix. If your enemy will gladly die for his cause while you wouldn't think of dying for yours (not that you even know what it is: freedom? liberty?) then clearly the fight is not to the swift but to the suicidal.

These are the realities of the new warfare, and if they are the "birth pangs of the new Middle East," then what is being produced is not some cute, babbling democracies but a hideous monster.

Just wait until he reaches for a nuclear weapon.

Valid points made by Cohen, whether he knows it or not:

1- "land for peace" is no longer a rational policy. As Cohen states, the jihadis cannot even coexist with the idea of a Jewish state in their midst. Retreating from Gaza and Lebanon has simply allowed Israel's enemies to move their terror weapons within range of major population centers. Does this mean that retreating again from Lebanon without a true victory will only result in more bloodshed from an emboldened, psychotic enemy? Better count on it....

2-Democracies are in a fix - that's right on the mark as well. We have allowed our ruling elites to poison the body politic against itself; calling our armies "occupation forces" and assigning blame for the insane violence of the Islamists upon our policies, past and present. They have created a "we have it coming" mentality; and have frozen public opinion and momentum like the proverbial deer in the headlights - anything the government does in terms of fighting terror is "wrong", "counterproductive", "creates more terrorists", "causes more hate", et al. Damned if we do and damned if we don't means...we're damned.

3- There's a hideous monster, all right, reaching for a nuclear weapon - his name is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and like Hitler in Mein Kampf, he has made clear his plan to dominate the Middle East and destroy the Jews. And like Hitler in the 1930's, he has been true to his word, dragging out negotiations while his proxy armies wage war on both sides of Israel's border, giving him time to build his caches of death...

But of course, Cohen doesn't name the monster or take a position on how to reign him in. See, that would involve taking a postion, most likely involving military force. Cohen knows what the right thing to do is, but cannot state it, because it runs afoul of his philosophy that "everything/anything America does is wrong".

So he sits frozen like a deer in the headlights, knowing what is bearing down upon him, but unable to move - he's paralyzed by a philosophy that has condemned him either way. So Cohen sits, head bowed, waiting for the jihadis sword.

Fine for him, but it does not have to be this way...

Monday, August 14, 2006

Palestinian Savagery, Part 63

Now why is this Palestinian woman (a mother, incidentally) grinding her heels into the neck of an already-dead 22 year old?

And why are hundreds of Palestinians taking photos of him with their cellphones?

The man is Bassem Malah, summarily executed by Islamic Jihad after accusations of collaberation with Israel. The women on his neck is the mother of a jihadi killed some four-plus years back, with no ties to Malah whatsoever.

The loose ends of this sick story are tied together at the Riehl World View .

Incidentally, there is no explanation given for the leering Palis with their cellphone cameras. Even the civilian German populace during WWII took very few pictures of the Jews being victimized in public; deep in their hearts perhaps even they knew an unspeakable evil was afoot.

The Palestinians, of course, lack even that basest of moral centers....

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Election Projection !

{click to enlarge}

And from the Washington Post:

...But mistaking anger for political wisdom is a dangerous luxury in democracies. It can become an all-consuming fire that destroys rather than builds. For the power-hungry and opportunistic, anger is an especially attractive instrument of manipulation in the political toolbox.
The especially angry year of 1968 ended with the election of tricky Dick Nixon, not poet-philosopher Gene McCarthy....

As we discussed here , it seems as if the extremist wing of the party is about to crash the entire Democratic plane, the close to 40 years since '68, America has only seen two Democrats be elected to the nation's highest office; are they about to go four-wheelin' into the political wilderness again?

Somewhere, Karl Rove is grinning so widely that he'd make a Cheshire Cat jealous...

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Olmert's Folly

We discussed yesterday the grave damage that Ehud Olmert has done to Israel's security, as well as that of the Western world...more, from Daimnation! :

According to Israel Insider:
1. The IDF had a plan to destroy Hezbollah in two weeks.
2. Olmert ruined it by vetoing the second half
3. The US gave Israel the green light to attack Syria which has a defence pact with Iran.
4. If Iran deserted Syria it would look weak. If missiles are launched the rest become vulnerable.
5. The loss: 500 Israeli civilian casualties.
6. The gain: end of the Iranian nuclear threat.
7. The actual result: IDF, stalemated, looks weak.

7a should be: Iran, by default, grows stronger.

Great job, Ehud...and speaking of Iran, let's go back to Daimination, who brings us a new night terror from Bernard Lewis:

In Islam.... there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time... ending in the final victory of the forces of good over evil.... Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now.... It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22.

This year, Aug. 22 is the anniversary of Mohammed's night ride to heaven.

Root Causes Indeed !

Well, I guess another misguided liberal theory about the root causes of terrorism has been smashed (remember land for peace?) we can throw the "poverty" excuse out the window as well - from Western Resistance:

More details have emerged about the raids which happened overnight at addresses in Birmingham, High Wycombe and east London, connected with a
plot to blow up transatlantic planes. The Times states that 13 raids took place in all, and 24 people were apprehended.

At least four people were arrested in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire a commuter town to the west of London, though the number may now be five. One of those detained was a son of a former worker for the Tory party.
Half a mile away in Micklefield Road, two more houses were raided, and friends said of one of the men taken away that he had become interested in radical Islam following a trip to Pakistan two years ago. In his late 20s, this individual was thought to have been an international dealer in sports cars.
The Guardian states that one of the men arrested at High Wycombe had been a convert to Islam, whose name is Don Stewart-Whyte.

In Birmingham, states the
Telegraph, a business property in Belcher's Lane, Bordersley Green, was raided. A semi-detached house in St Margaret's road, was simultaneously searched. This house has a small Islamic school in its back garden.

Mostly middle class, by anyone's reckoning. No oppressed youths here, no victims of discrimination or poverty. Just a lot of pure, unadulterated hatred from a religion that seems to feel that blinding violence is the way to bring about a change in the policy of a democratically elected government - via
Gateway Pundit:

In a bold and shocking move, Islamic leaders in Great Britain wrote the Prime Minister blaming the the Blair government for putting British lives at increased risk!

letter says:
"As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens. It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the U.K. and abroad."

To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.

Labor member of Parliament (representing Tooting)
Sadiq Khan added:
"Current policy on the Middle East is seen by almost everyone I speak to as unfair and unjust. Such a sense of injustice plays into the hands of extremists."

So it seems as if the Muslims of Great Britian are issuing a not-so-veiled threat: Change your Middle East policies, or you'll see more terrorism at home. Well, at least they are being somewhat honest, and not claiming that the poverty of Muslims worldwide is the root cause of terrorism. Instead, they jump upon the civilian casualities bandwagon, not mentioning of course that the smashed plot to blow up a dozen passanger airliners (full of civilians, of course) was hatched well before the current Middle Eastern hostilities erupted.

So let's recoup what we have learned: Poverty is not a root cause of terror, nor is Israeli "occupation" of Arab lands. It is a tool used by radical Islam to force democratic Western governments in policy changes that suit their agenda.

I'll go further, and infer that multiculturalism is also a failure (and more than partially to blame), as its "all cultures are equal" meme allows immigrant communities to remain isolated and unable to obtain a stake in their new home country's social and economic fabric. This liberal-enforced segregation allows conspiracies and plots to grow, and flourish...

But I'll give the final word to an op-ed piece in today's
Washington Post, from Harvard lecturer Juliette Kayyem, who proves that Ivy League intellectuals are surpassed by no one in sticking their heads into the sand in the face of truth and factual evidence that does not fit their theories:

While many Americans may have an inferiority complex about things British -- the refinement, the style and, of course, those accents -- it would be a mistake to carry it over to the area of counterterrorism.

Americans with an inferiority complex??? British counterterrorism efforts, which just saved almost four thousand lives, a mistake? Maybe on Planet Harvard...

This week, soon after authorities in London announced the arrests of a group of people allegedly plotting to bomb a number of airliners, commentators and experts were marveling at how the British disrupted the attack and asking whether we needed to be more like them, with their less restrictive surveillance laws, a domestic intelligence agency, almost no rules against watching and tracking Muslims in mosques or community centers, and no First Amendment. But those would be the very lessons we ought not to learn from this week's events...

Miss Kayyem would be more pleased, no doubt, if the airline attack had succeeded...she could have written instead about poverty and social injustices as the root causes, and such. Well, she'll fight the war her way, writing op-ed pieces telling us our successes are somehow failures...

Problem for her is, there are fewer and fewer that are falling for this tourtured line of thinking...