Saturday, July 27, 2002

Reality 101

This morning, the National Post reported that McGill University, the institution where I study, rejected a much needed donation from a man who offered to chair a new philosophy department dedicated to the study of Ayn Rand. Why the hell am I not surprised? For those of you who know what university is all about, you'll vouch for the fact that anything other than Liberal philosophy is frowned upon. We study Locke, Burke, and Marx until we vomit....literally. Conversely, Ayn Rand pioneered the revolutionary and oft despised objectivism and individualism. Agreed, her work is extremely right wing and very extreme. If taken literally, most of Rand's writings are anything but practical for our society...but then again, how realistic are Marx and Locke? The part that doesn't surprise me about the whole thing is that Rand was also a vehement defender of Israel, and so studying her work is completely impossible on campus. We must not deviate from our studies about love and multi-culturalism and unconditional acceptance of all that is wrong with Islam. Anyone farmiliar with the Ayn Rand Institute's work will undoubtedly have come across some of the Institute's most recent publications such as:

"Israel Has a Moral Right to Its Life"

"Allowing Israel to Destroy the PLO Helps Defend the U.S."

"Radical Islam's Assault on Human Life"

"Why Israel Must Not Withdraw"

"We Are Either With Israel, or We Are With the Terrorists"

"We Are All Israelis Now".

All the above articles can be found here. So, does it surprise any of you that McGill will allow me to study Hitler's Mein Kampf, but will not allow me to read anything that might question the Palestinian cause?

Friday, July 26, 2002

Orphans...


Two sons of Rabbi Elimelech Shapira, 43, weep as their father is buried at the cemetery in the town of Petah Tiqwa Thursday, July 25, 2002. The rabbi was killed and another Israeli seriously wounded in a roadside ambush in the West Bank when, according to Israeli Army sources, Palestinian militants opened fire on their car near the Jewish settlement of Alei Zahav, south of the Palestinian town of Qalqiliya.
Doesn't get much funnier than this....

U.S. Embassies Alerted to Threats

WASHINGTON –– A flurry of telephone calls threatening the destruction of all U.S. embassies in Islamic nations within a week has prompted the State Department to alert all overseas diplomatic posts.

The caller identified himself as the spokesman or interpreter for Osama bin Laden, the head of an international terror organization believed responsible for the Sept. 11 bombings in New York and Washington and other attacks.


But here's the hilarious part.....

The caller to the AP said he was with bin Laden on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Asked if he really was speaking for the Saudi expatriate, the caller replied, "Muslims don't lie."

Case in point:


Blech.....

Suicide bombers may spread disease

Israeli doctors have discovered a gruesome new way to catch hepatitis and possibly other blood-borne diseases - from the flying bone fragments of suicide bombers.

Itzhak Braverman and emergency staff at the Hillel Yaffe Medical Center in Hadera treated 32 victims of one blast. They used CT scans to check for metal fragments in the survivors. In one 31-year-old woman, the scan revealed dense fragments in her neck, breast and groin.

But they were not metal. They were bits of bone from the suicide bomber. On a hunch, Braverman sent a fragment to the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv to be tested.

It came back positive for hepatitis B. Braverman's team say they think this is "the first report of human bone fragments acting as foreign bodies in a blast injury".
So sad, too bad...

Want to know why the IDF had to kill the military leader of Hamas, Sheik Salah Shehadeh? This should give you enough reasons.

Here's a quick glimpse...

The military leader of Hamas Sheik Salah Shehadeh was responsible for murdering more than 150 innocent men, women and children only over the last 22 months - plus thousands wounded, many maimed for life with lost limbs, bodies full of nails and shrapnel. He, himself was killed for these evil acts. On Tuesday morning, July 23, 2002 an Israeli aircraft fired a heavy missile into the apartment where Shehadeh lived, killing him instantly.

SHEHADA'S VICTIMS

June 1, 2001: At a seaside disco [the Dolphinariam] in Tel Aviv, 21 dead.

Aug. 9, 2001: At the Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem, 15 dead.

Dec. 1, 2001: In a pedestrian mall [Ben Yehuda Mall] in Jerusalem, 11 dead.

Dec. 2, 2001: On a bus in the coastal city of Haifa, 15 dead.

March 9, 2002: At the Moment cafe in Jerusalem, 11 dead.

March 27, 2002: At the Park Hotel Seder in Netanya, 29 dead.

March 31, 2002: At a restaurant in Haifa, 15 dead.

May 7, 2002: At a pool hall in Rishon Letzion, south of Tel Aviv, 15 dead.

June 18, 2002: On a bus in Jerusalem, 19 dead.

Killer Cowards

On July 24, the New York Times ran a horrific picture of a dead two-month-old child wrapped in the Palestine flag on its front page. The death was a result of the Israeli bombing attack that killed Hamas leader Salah Shehada in Gaza City, which also took the lives of 14 civilians. It was an explicit and distressing image, revealing the deplorable realties of war and the repercussions suffered by innocent bystanders; in this case, civilians who were utilized as shields by the leader of one of the world’s most merciless terrorist organizations. Unfortunately, the New York Times’ Middle East agenda is such that we will never see a similar shot of dead Israeli children — who, unlike Palestinian children, are deliberately targeted...

...Shehada hid like a true coward among his own family, in a densely populated apartment building in Gaza, banking on Israeli restraint...

...Nine of Hamas’ recent attacks under Shehada, including the Dolphinarium nightclub, the Park Hotel and Sbarros massacres, killed a total of 151 Israelis, including numerous children. The intended targets of these operations were civilians — not one of the murdered was "collateral damage." Shehada’s pending campaign included a plan to rig a truck with 600 kilograms of explosives to blow up the recently constructed Gush Katif bridge, the sole route used by hundreds of Israelis daily to travel to and from their communities.

Where was the repellent UN human rights chief Mary Robinson, who denounced the bombing as the "reckless killing of civilians," when Israelis were mourning their dead children? Her commission was busy voting to condone suicide bombings as a legitimate means to establish Palestinian statehood. While president of Ireland, she pressed for European Union aid to the Palestinian Authority, despite evidence that the money was being siphoned to terror groups. Eventually, at least $9 million of that money ended up helping finance terror attacks...


Believe it or not....it gets worse than that. Click here to read the article.
Don't apologize for civilian casualties

Thanks a million to our faithful reader Al (and of course his wonderful son, who helps us keep in touch) for sending along this article. I think most readers will agree that while civilian deaths of any kind aren't pleasant, the deaths of Salah Shehada's family members certainly aren't the travesty the world is making them out to be. Not convinced? Read on!

Earlier this week, Israel succeeded in killing Salah Shehada, a savage Hamas mastermind, and one of his top aides. A dozen Palestinian civilians died in the attack, including members of Shehada's family. The civilian deaths may be lamentable, but they also were justifiable. A terrorist leader used his relatives and neighbours as shields, and they died with him. Their deaths were Shehada's fault, not Israel's.

Once again, much of the world has applied a double standard, accusing Israel of barbarity for inflicting civilian casualties as part of a legitimate military operation, while overlooking the hundreds of Israeli civilians killed intentionally by Shehada and his subordinates. For Europeans, especially, Jewish lives count no more today than they did in 1944.

Why are Palestinian terrorists allowed to target civilians without exciting an international outcry, while every accidental civilian death inflicted by Israel is a crime against humanity?

Europe's reflexive anti-Semitism doesn't really matter much, since today's Europeans lack the power, will and courage to act upon their bigotry. But the Bush administration needs to stop pandering to corrupt Arab regimes and to recognize that Israel is fighting for its life; that Israel is fighting with great restraint; and that Israel's pursuit of terrorists is every bit as legitimate as America's. Instead of criticizing Israeli policy, we should be studying it.

The war against terrorism must be prosecuted judiciously, but the terrorists themselves must be pursued without remorse.

When terrorists attempt to hide amid the civilian population, we must pursue them without hesitation. They cannot be allowed a single safe haven. If they use their neighbours as shields, it is the terrorists who are to blame should civilians die. If they attempt to use their families as cover, they will be responsible for the deaths of their own loved ones. The world must learn that, when civilians allow terrorists to use them, the civilians become legitimate military targets.

This is not about diplomatic table manners. It is a fight to exterminate human monsters.

Earlier this month, the Israelis were attacked for a plan to deport the families of terrorists from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip. Of course, the Europeans and the tattered left began comparing the plan to death trains bound for Auschwitz. While Europe's incurable nostalgia for the Wannsee Conference makes their hatred of Israel understandable on some level, the enthusiasm North American leftists show for equating the Holocaust's survivors with the Holocaust's perpetrators is as dishonest as it is tasteless.

The fact is that the Israelis have begun to make a crucial link in dealing with terrorists: their families. In the Middle East, Arab armies fight ineptly because the soldiers feel no deep loyalty to their states. In the Arab world and in related cultures, earthly loyalties are, above all, to family. If left with no useful alternative, the Israelis -- and Americans --must be willing to pursue the terrorists through their relatives.

Of course, our outdated conventions make this proposition anathema to us. Thus, when dealing with a culture in which only faith and family matter to our enemies, we insist on making war on governments and negotiating with political organizations that are no more than mobs with diplomatic representation. We are punching thin air.

Meanwhile, few of Israel's critics complain when Palestinian mothers and fathers praise the gruesome suicides of their children or accept blood money from Riyadh and Baghdad. If you want a stark indicator of the power of family in the Middle East, consider that of the many suicide bombers to date, none has been a close relative of a Hamas leader or of the leadership of any other Palestinian faction. Suicide bombers employed to inflict mass murder on Israel are always drawn from marginal families. The terrorist leaders would no more send their own sons and daughters out as suicide bombers than they would go themselves.

If you cannot kill your enemy, threaten what he holds dear. Force him to come out and confront you in desperation. Today, we do not have the stomach for this. Tomorrow, we may find it a necessity.

In the meantime, as the United States slowly learns the real meaning of a war on terror, the Israelis continue to struggle against the Arab vision of Jewish annihilation. Israel will do what must be done, as humanely as possible. And Israel must accept that no matter what it does or fails to do, no matter how much success it achieves and how few civilian casualties it inflicts among its enemies, it will be hated by those who cheer on the enemies of mankind from the safety of Strasbourg, Stockholm or Harvard Yard.

Critics persist in claiming that attacks upon terrorists do not work, since results are not instantaneous. But the war against terror is a war of attrition and can only be won over decades. We may not know the real effects of Israel's current efforts for several years. But there is no course worse than cowardice and inaction.

The same critics will tell you that by killing civilians in their attacks, the Israelis -- or the Americans -- simply turn other civilians against them. This is nonsense. Civilians who shield the enemies of Israel or the U.S. are already anti-Israel or anti-American. But if strikes against the masters of terror come to seem inevitable, those same civilians will turn against terrorists who try to use them as living shields -- as villagers in Afghanistan already have done.

Terrorists and their supporters must learn that they will be allowed no hiding places. Not in their homes, not in churches or mosques, and not in foreign countries to which they might flee. This is a war that must be fought without compromise. It is, above all, a contest of wills. Every apology is a surrender.
Obscuring justice for political correctness....disgusting!

So now we know the facts, straight from the Supreme Court, that a group of Lebanese Muslim gang rapists from south-western Sydney hunted their victims on the basis of their ethnicity and subjected them to hours of degrading, dehumanising torture. The young women, and girls as young as 14, were "sluts" and "Aussie pigs", the rapists said. So now that some of the perpetrators are in jail, will those people who cried racism and media "sensationalism" hang their heads in shame? Hardly.

This newspaper was the first to report the story, which had been common knowledge in police and media circles, and it has never censored the race element.

Even last week, with the conviction of two brothers for their part in the gang rape of Miss D, who was 16 when she was held at gunpoint in a Greenacre park, there were media outlets that downplayed the story and air-brushed race from it.

In August, when Judge Megan Latham handed out laughably lenient sentences to three men in one gang rape case, which were later more than doubled on appeal, she made a special point of debunking the race link: "There is no evidence before me of any racial element in the commission of these offences," she said. "There is nothing said or done by the offenders which provides the slightest basis for imputing to them some discrimination in terms of the nationality of their victims."

Except that later one of the victims complained her victim impact statement had been "censored" of any "ethnic" references by prosecutors intent on a plea bargain. She was convinced she was raped because of her ethnicity. "You deserve it because you're an Australian," the rapists told her during the five-hour attack.

It's just so inconvenient of the victims to insist on telling the truth.

"I looked in his eyes. I had never seen such indifference," one 18-year-old victim, codenamed Miss C, told the court, remembering one of the 14 men who called her "Aussie pig", gang raped her 25 times over a six-hour period in Bankstown and Chullora, and then turned a hose on her. "I'm going to f*** you Leb style," he said.

Fourteen gang rapists have been convicted, or pleaded guilty, thanks to the courage of seven victims who testified for days in court as their tormentors smirked nearby, the men's families threatened them and defence lawyers suggested they had enjoyed the rapes.

These were racist crimes. They were hate crimes. The rapists chose their victims on the basis of race. That fact is crucial to this story. If the perpetrators had been Anglo-Celtic Australians, the furore would have been enormous. No newspaper would have left out that fact and you can bet the guilt and shame would have been spread far and wide.

Thursday, July 25, 2002

Left-wing lunacy 101

Sura Reading
The University of North Carolina makes the Koran required reading for incoming freshmen.

This summer, incoming freshman at UNC must read "Approaching the Qur'an: The Early Revelations," edited and translated by Haverford College religion professor Michael Sells. The book includes selected suras from the Koran and is accompanied by a CD with recitations from the book. Students must write a one-page "response" to "Approaching the Qur'an," guided by a set of study questions. Students who find the work offensive for religious reasons may submit a one-page paper on why they chose not to read the book.

Representing three freshmen, one Jewish and two Christian, as well as a UNC alum and a North Carolina citizen, the American Family Association's Center for Law and Policy has sued the school, seeking an injunction to halt this required reading. The suit claims the program advances Islam and misrepresents the Koran, attempting to "impose a uniform favorable opinion of the religion of Islam" among students.

"[The school has] required the students to read a strongly pro-Islam interpretation of the Koran, which includes only about one-third of the suras," Crampton continues.

The lawsuit contends that the book omits suras that command the execution of non-believers, such as sura 9:5, which includes the words, "Fight and slay the pagan wherever you find them." A press release from the Center for Law and Policy earlier this week called Sells, the author, an "Islamist" and criticized UNC for picking a book on Islam that excludes passages like sura 4:89, which states that "those who reject Islam must be killed."



Top Ten Perks of Being Saddam Hussein's Stepson

10. For your birthday, you get the head of an infidel.

9. People never refer to you as "The crazy one in the family"

8. On weekends, you get to bring home weapons of mass destruction

7. Don't want to clean your room? Threaten to tell the United States
dad's exact location

6. Play your cards right and in 10 years you'll be torturing the Iraqi
people

5. Unique chance to observe a tyrannical madman up close

4. Big inheritance when U.S. troops finally kill your stepfather

3. Father-son bonding over 3am prank calls to U.N. weapons inspectors

2. You can get first pick of the police auction's seized and repossessed
camels

1. Get to call Bin Laden "Uncle Osama"

Wednesday, July 24, 2002

Israelis criticize and rationalize the bombing of Hamas terrorist's house and deaths of his family

ANALYSIS: Did military leaders really think no innocent civilians would be hit?

The IDF insists that it did not intend to kill any innocent people in its deadly strike by an F-16 bomber in Gaza City yesterday that targeted the Hamas military commander, Salah Shehadeh.

"The IDF is sorry for any harm that befalls innocent people. Regretfully, this is what can happen when a terrorists uses civilians as human shields and their homes as places of refuge," the army said.

It added laconically that there was "no intention of hurting his family."

Top generals said that had they known innocent people would likely be hurt they never would have approved the strike.

Come on! Really!?

This is the same IDF that has been praised for excellent intelligence involved in dozens of targeted interceptions of terrorists over the past two years.

These claims are dubious. And besides, what was the military thinking? That it could send in a fighter bomber and blow up a man's house and only he would be killed?

The strike on Shehadeh which killed his wife and children and other apparent innocent civilians is a turning point in Israel's war on terror.

This marks a definite change in policy and the question remains whether this change will boomerang and lead to the deaths of more Israelis in revenge attacks by Hamas.

Or was the blow so crucial that Hamas will wriggle like a headless snake but have no direction?
Even if it wasn't a deliberate change in policy, it will be difficult for the IDF and Israeli leadership to deny it.

Perhaps it was more than just a decision to take out a top terrorists regardless of "collateral damage."


The rationale...

Perhaps the IAF was ordered to deliberately target the family of the Hamas leader as a warning to others. And this is something that has to be taken into account.

And why not? The government has finally started thinking that it had to do something to deter terrorism and is taking actions against family members of terrorists.

It demolished the homes of those who were involved in the Emmanuel bus ambush, and it has declared its intention to deport family members of terrorists.

The problem is that with its troops already reoccupying the Palestinian cities, another rung has been set, another notch invented so that it too can be crossed by the defense establishment in its quest to protect Israelis from terrorism.

The electronic fence around the Gaza Strip keeps the terrorists out, but it also gives them a sense of immunity from Israeli retaliation.

The army is trying to shatter that sense. But in doing so, it must be on extra high alert for retaliatory strikes.

That is the price of changing the IDF policy on combatting terror.


Tuesday, July 23, 2002

It's a bit of a CLM.....career limiting move....

She resigned.....



...because she doesn't think her government is working hard enough to make peace with these people...



Dalia Rabin-Pelosoff, daughter of assassinated Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin who began a peace process with Palestinians, resigned her cabinet post July 23, 2002 in protest at the army's reoccupation of Palestinian towns in the West Bank.

Monday, July 22, 2002

Let the truth be told...



Will an al Qaeda Homeland Be Next?

John Perazzo of Front Page Magazine (my newest fave website!) wrote this fantastic article about the lunacy of George Bush's speech on the Middle East.

The article begins:

"For too long," President Bush said Monday in his landmark speech, "the citizens of the Middle East have lived in the midst of death and fear. The hatred of a few holds the hopes of many hostage. The forces of extremism and terror are attempting to kill progress and peace by killing the innocent." After this unambiguous reference to the Palestinian barbarism that has spiraled out of control during the past two years, Mr. Bush proposed his remarkable solution. "My vision is two states," he explained, "living side by side in peace and security. There is simply no way to achieve that peace until all parties fight terror."...

...Imagine the outcry we would have heard if, in response to the September 11 attacks on America, Mr. Bush had proposed the formation of an independent al Qaeda state wherein - and in the vicinity of which - people could live "in peace and security."


Towards the end of the editorial, comes my favorite paragraph...

"I have a hope for the people of Muslim countries," said President Bush on Monday. "Your commitments to morality and learning and tolerance led to great historical achievements. And those values are alive in the Islamic world today."

Oh barf!

Those are nice words indeed, but they are pure fiction. The Islamic world today is rife with racism, xenophobia, and bitter hatred of all that is unlike itself. The raging, murderous extremism flooding from the bowels of contemporary Islam wants no part of peaceful coexistence or tolerance. It is not wise to reward, or cave in to, the demands of people who have not demonstrated the barest inclination to respect the lives, customs, or beliefs of others. Until we are courageous enough to see our adversaries for what they are, we run the potentially disastrous risk of ascribing benign intentions even to ruthless butchers of men.

Indeed! It doesn't get much better than that.

Nope....this ain't no joke....this is your government!

Visas for Suspected Terrorists?
State defends the indefensible.

The State Department is fighting a terrorism task force's recommendation that suspected terrorists be denied visas — this is the same department that wants to hold onto the visa-issuance power in a time of war when our enemies want nothing more than entry into the United States.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage responded to the recommendation by writing to the Justice Department that "[believing that] an applicant may pose a threat to national security... is insufficient [grounds] for a consular officer to deny a visa." No, this letter wasn't written before last year's tragedy; it was written on June 10, 2002, one day shy of the nine-month anniversary of 9/11.


Ok. I'm sorry....I don't think I understand what they're saying. What exactly must a person do to be denied a visa into the US? I mean, I don't think my family would be able to get visas all that easily. But of course who would want an upper-middle class family of 5 with two professionals as parents and three educated children on their way to getting university degrees? Ewww....God forbid! No no. Let's take in some nice little Saudis who are "only" suspected terrorists. They're so much more politically correct.
We love him too...

Good old Charles Krauthammer has hit the nail on the head...again. He gets it. In his latest column entitled Parsley and Pride, Charles highlights the obvious points that so many people seem to miss. Doesn't it seem strange to anyone (and so obvious to all others) that...

...much of the conflict in the world today -- the Philippines, Kashmir, Chechnya, the West Bank, Sudan, Nigeria and now on this ridiculous little rock in the Mediterranean -- represents the Islamic world, once expanding, long contracting, pushing out once again to reclaim its place in the sun. As Samuel Huntington has written, the borders of Islam are bloody.
Well...it's a start...

American-Muslim law professor Khaled Abou El Fadl wrote this article in the Houston Chronicle, detailing his disappointment in the reaction of other American-Muslims to the 9/11 attacks. He then goes on to cite several ways in which American-Muslims can, if they actually want to, show their condemnation of the attacks and support of America. It's not much, but it's a start.

In the pain-filled atmosphere after Sept. 11, I was one of the Muslims who took a public and critical stand regarding the way both my co-religionists and our government were handling the crisis. As a result, I started to receive death threats from Muslim and non-Muslim fanatics alike. The stress my family endured became unbearable when police noticed that my home was being "staked out" by "unknown and suspicious parties."

A friend of mine, an Orthodox rabbi, urged my family and me to stay with him, saying, "My friend, whatever befalls you let it befall me -- we are one!"

I have lectured with this rabbi, and we disagree on practically everything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But in his offer of sanctuary, at great personal risk to himself and his family, he represented the best of the Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions. He represented what, in my view, is the true soul of our country, the United States of America.

Today, that soul is endangered. I fear that in the aftermath of Sept. 11 the terrorists will succeed in placing the American tradition of tolerance and sanctuary under siege. The social barrier against intolerance that traditionally acts to muffle religious bigots in our country has been ruptured. In one year, more than 20 hate-filled books, with titles such as Islamic Invasion, The Truth About Islam and The Enemies Among Us, have been published. Some voices that gained a public platform went as far as urging the United States to rid itself of all Muslims through deportation or other means.

One thing fueling this rise in public bigotry is the anger expressed by some Americans about the Muslim reaction to Sept. 11. On this matter, I think that American Muslims should take a hard look at the Muslim organizations that claim to represent them or speak on their behalf.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the leadership of these organizations has failed to establish its credibility and to convince the American public of the outrage felt by most Muslims over the tragedy of Sept. 11. Various individuals and particular organizations have issued isolated condemnations, but to date there has not been something unified and overwhelming. Muslim leadership has failed, and it has blamed everyone but itself for this failure.

American Muslims must demand that either this leadership reform itself or be changed. There are three concrete steps that already should have been taken but would still be healing and powerful.

·All major Muslim organizations should agree on a unified statement unequivocally condemning terrorism and the Sept. 11 attacks in the harshest language possible. All major American Muslim organizations and intellectuals should sign this statement.

·Muslim organizations should establish a unified task force that provides information and assistance to the federal government with the purpose of preventing further terrorist attacks against the United States and apprehending anyone involved in facilitating or carrying out such attacks. The point is that Muslims themselves should dedicate a considerable amount of money and effort to assisting the government in the war against terrorism committed on American land. They should also invest significant funds in independent investigation and inquiries for the purpose of combating terrorism.

·These organizations should organize a massive march to Ground Zero in New York to express the unequivocal opposition of American Muslims to the terrorism of Osama bin Laden and his like. As an expression of solidarity with the victims of the terrorist attacks, the marchers should each deposit a flower or card at the site of the murders. We Muslims must send a clear message to terrorists that they do not speak for us and that they are not welcome in our midst. I even wonder why this leadership has failed to undertake such simple steps as printing and distributing bumper stickers saying, "Muslims Against Terrorism!"

Most important, whatever we do must be united, compelling and convincing, not because we fear retaliation or harm by bigots or Islam-haters but because this is what Islamic morality teaches us. And because this is our country, and we must be at the forefront of the war against those who wish to terrorize it into abandoning its traditions of tolerance and sanctuary.