Thursday, September 28, 2006

One of the MOST vomit-inducing interviews one has ever seen.

The interview I am about to show you is one between Jon Stewart and Pervez Musharraf, el presidente of Pakistan. Ironically, it is a Huffington Post article which rightly decries the particular horrors of this man's regime. The man is a dictator who has a low regard for human rights, women's rights, and is extremely corrupt. And yet he was praised up and down on the Daily Show. Moreover, he was praised as a better leader than Bush. Jon Stewart asked if Bush was 'sleeping' or 'watching TV' when he met with Musharraf. Stewart asked condescending questions about the idiocy of Bush. Stewart then praised him as a wonderful leader, shook his hand, and smiled. What a total and complete joke. Jon Stewart has jumped the shark. I feel dirty that I have seen him in person on several occasions and shook his hand. words. Go see the vomit-inducing bit of moral equivalence for yourself!

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

The pope's choice of context

Below is a video that wonderfully sums up the pope's choice of quotation, in its original context. I think all of you Culture for All readers will find it quite fascinating. Thanks to The People's Cube!

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

That 'crazy Clinton moment'

I am sure you all know by now of Clinton's outburst on Fox News, with Chris Wallace. I believe that Jonah Goldberg perfectly analyzed the underlying issue - namely, whether Clinton was 'soft on terror' during his presidency. Go read what he has to say!

63% of Palestinians support Hizballah, according to JPost poll...

Yes, it is true. About 80% of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip support Hizballah. But these people so deserve their own state! Remember what Dershowitz said - the Lebanese as a people are not victims when they support Hizballah in such overwhelming numbers. Clearly, neither are the Palestinians. Oh, right, but things are cool now, because we have UNIFIL to secure the area, right? WRONG. UNIFIL, as Big Pharoah pointed out, has a mandate to do nothing. And meanwhile, Hizballah said they won't disarm, except by force, as Shlemazl pointed out. It's all one enemy. The enemy that blew up US marine baracks in 1983, that has sleeper cells in the US, attacks Israel, and that is funded by Iran (Hizballah) is also affiliated with an organization that has sleeper cells in the US, attacks Israel, and is funded by Iran. (Hamas) It's all one enemy, and the uniting philosophy is a belief in the imposition of an Islamic Caliphate upon the world. And they will not win.

Monday, September 25, 2006


What drives people to commit acts of masochism, be they physical or emotional, against their self interests? Why are some people just driven to repeat the same negative patterns over and over and over again? What is it about the human condition that refuses to learn from even personal history, let alone shared, collective, societal history? Why are some nations, like human beings, driven almost from a desire to engage in collective maschochism? And how does one purge masochistic memories from one's mind, be it personal mind or collective conscience of a society? How does one heal, move on, and start on a fresh path? Is there ever any real healing, or are we all just bound to repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again?

Sunday, September 24, 2006

The nature of Islam and religion in general

One of the most important questions of today is whether or not Islam is truly a religion of peace. I will certainly not dispute the fact that the jihadists who spread mayhem and terror around the world are a minority of Muslims. We would be in pretty bad shape if a majority of Muslims were terrorists, given there are between 1.2 and 1.8 billion Muslims in the world. However, we also would be in much better shape if Muslims spoke out in greater numbers against violence and extremism. Is Islam as a faith a violent faith? I say it is - but with the following qualification - that all of the major religions are NOT religions of peace. I do not think man is a peaceful animal. We are all, after all, animals. And it is up to us to reign in our animalistic instincts and choose reason. Religion is inherently unreasonable, and inherently anti-reason. There are therefore inherently violent aspects to all of the major religions of the world, and the only forms of religion that are peaceful (or at least do not breed hatred and division) are the secularized versions of the major faiths. There are seldom few truly religious people of ANY faith that actually are tolerant towards gays, minorities, women, other faiths, etc. This is just a sad fact. The difference between Islam and Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, is that there is a worldwide movement backwards in time, towards Islamic Fundamentalism, and away from secularism, backed in part by Iranian and Saudi oil dollars. Islamic Fundamentalism is inherently violent, intolerant, and hateful. There are many reasons why the Islamic Fundamentalists are gaining so much control, and there is also, in contrast to the other major faiths, a much larger (and documented) amount of antisemitism among Muslim populations. I have come to the conclusion that it is politically correct hogwash to say that Islam is a 'religion of peace.' However, it is also a dangerous lie to say that Islam is an inferior faith, that it has to be violent, that all Muslims are terrorists, or that they even think a certain way. I would never say that, nor would I think that. However, it is also a sad truth that trying to engage in a dialogue about the nature of Islam is a dangerous thing - it is easy to get labeled 'Islamophobic,' and even more than that, it is easy to get death threats. A free and easy exchange of ideas is hard to come by. Regardless, I want it to be known that I know that, regardless of what I think about Islam, Muslims can be some of the most peaceful and law abiding citizens of the world. Some of the most truly decent people in the world are Muslim. Furthermore, the Quran can be interpreted in modern and peaceful ways. There is no doubt about it. But none of this means that Islam is a 'religion of peace.' Finally, I do not call Judaism or Christianity or Hinduism religions of peace, so why should I call Islam a religion of peace? For me to call Islam a religion a religion of peace would then cause me to elevate my opinion of Islam above all other religions. I see no reason why Islam should get such a distinctive label as a 'religion of peace.' As a side note: an interesting discussion about the nature of Islam and Islamic history may be found in the comments to this post. EDIT: One last thing for clarity's sake...I am not saying that atheists are going to necessarily be peaceful people. I view humanity as constantly struggling against violent instincts. Stalin was an atheist, lest we forget. However, that form of atheism was akin to its own religion - forced atheism and forced NONTHOUGHT. I want it to be clear that while I believe atheism should be encouraged, I am wholly against forcing any doctrine on anyone. The need to force one's opinion on another is one of the most dangerous and violent tendencies in the human condition. It also has been the basis of incredible amounts of religious-based persecution.

The nature of being Jewish

Shlemazl and I have been emailing back and forth about the nature of what it means to be a Jew. He posted some of the emails on his site - you can see it right here. But, ultimately, there are some hard questions that I do not have the answer to, and I was hoping all you Culture for All readers would send in your imput about this... I grew up in a very secular Jewish home. My parents never kept the Sabbath, and from the age of 7 onwards, I was an avowed atheist. I remember sitting in the car with my dad, and he asked me, "Red Tulips, do you believe in God?" Being asked that question was something new to me. I never really thought of questioning the existence of God prior to this. So I said "Sure, yeah, I guess so!" And then my dad replied "Well, I wanted to know, because I don't." Those words had a seminal impact upon my life, and I started to question the existence of God. At age 7, I found I could not muster up feelings of a belief in God. When I went to Hebrew School, I took bible classes, and I remember that the bible teacher gave a plethora of secular, historical, and scientific explanations for miracles seen in the bible. And those explanations always just made sense. So I never believed that Moses really parted the Red Sea, or that he saw God in a burning bush. But I always did identify myself as 'Jewish,' since my parents, grandparents, and all my relatives were Jewish, and I was going to Hebrew School. (after school activity) During Hebrew School, I learned the bizarre dietary laws that make up the Kashrut, and I never understood the modern need for it all. I learned Israeli songs and history, and I of course rote memorized prayer and learned about all the Jewish holidays. I am happy that I learned all of this. I would not trade this knowledge for the world. And yet...this knowledge never really made me feel as strongly Jewish as I do today. Why do I feel so strongly Jewish today? In large part because of having discovered an antisemitic friend, the infamous friend who wanted to sue me for libel for calling her out on her bullshit, qrswave. Reading her rants about Israel and the 'Zionist conspiracy' certainly made me feel Jewish. Not only did I feel Jewish, but I felt a strong surge of protective instinct wash over me...a desire to DO SOMETHING about the hatred that I witnessed. And so now I am taking Hebrew classes, and I hope to eventually go to Israel. I also used to not think that I had to even raise my (faux) kids Jewish, because it never was something that important to me. I used to be convinced that I wanted to send my kids to Unitarian Universalism school (as an after school activity). And yet now, I am thinking that if I have kids, I would like to send them to Hebrew School (as an after school activity). In short, while I still am an atheist, the response to antisemitism is to FEEL more Jewish. I feel sad that the concept of Judaism has been reduced to a negative amongst secular Jews in the world. Namely, it takes antisemitism for Jews to feel Jewish. Ironically, it is antisemitism that appears to fuel the continuance of the Jewish people. And yet, if it is antisemitism that seems to be the largest factor in the intangible connection that secular and atheist Jews have to the Jewish culture and tradition something that I should concern myself with propogating? There are so many positive reasons to associate oneself with Judaism. Why is it that the associations that secular/atheist Jews have with Judaism seem to mostly come from a negative place? And in a world relatively without antisemitism, is there a place for secular/atheist Jews outside of Israel?

What does it mean to be a hero?

I have come to a realization that the world is inherently imperfect and flawed, and the best heroes are still ultimately HUMAN. The religious desire to canonize anyone, and to make humans into saints is hence very counterproductive. I think that my grandmother's friend, who saved 1200 Jews in the Holocaust, is a true hero - someone who unfortunately has not been lionized by the history books as he should have been, but a true hero nonetheless. His name (was, he died a decade ago) Zus Bielski, and he will forever live in the history books as a great man. (and I met him!) And yet he killed whole families of Polish Nazi collaborators, as a punishment for their having caused Jewish death. They wanted to make a statement that Jewish blood does not come cheap. The Allied troops also were not wholly innocent flowers, having carpet bombed Dresden, and of course used the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But ultimately, there is no real morality in war. We do what we can to survive. When monsters attack us, if we choose to live, we have to make choices: WHAT are we willing to do in order to live? What steps are we willing to take for our survival? And we have to inherently commit atrocities to stop atrocities. Stealing bread in order to live may seem rather justified to you and I, however, it still is violating someone's property right...

In the spectrum of good and evil, there are extremes on both sides, but ultimately, is anyone really truly good or truly evil?

The Polish government evidently does not think so. They are conducting an investigation into the Bielski Brothers, into their actions against Polish peasants. I think the evidence is in and the Bielski Brothers (who are all dead, save for Aron Bell, the youngest brother, who was 11 years old when this all happened), simply did what they had to do to survive and protect the hundreds of Jews they saved.

But, I ask you dear far should one go to save another's life? And are the truly great men the ones who can overcome their internal dissension, and do what is necessary to accomplish great things?

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Sometimes i wonder if Turkey is ready for the EU

Given this case. I am of the view that Turkey should not be allowed into the EU, until it deals with it's responablity's to the past. In this case, the genocide that took place in Armenia. Nationalist's deny it took place and that to say Turkish ancestors were killers etc is wrong and that while the West may take that line, Turkey should not. We in Europe have faced upto the Holocaust and have taken steps to prevent that sort of mass murder from happening again in Europe. The most obvious step from that process would be the EU itself. So i'm at odds with Turkey entering the EU, while some Turkish people want to ignore what happend. It may well have been nearly a century since that event took place, but the past has a way of biting you in the backside, unless it's dealt with. So the case against this artist/author collapsed. But i don't believe it merited a case in the first place. Art is there to challenge your ideas and perceptions of the world. It is sometimes uncomfortable, but i think an important part of any culture. If you repress the arts, you repress freedom of thought. And that leads to stagnation and decline.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Protestors were at the UN, protesting Iran

Earlier, I spoke of the disgust I felt at the protestors who protested Bush while Ahmedindinnerjacket was in town at the same UN Bush spoke at. Well, dear friends, taking the subway to work today, I read in a Metro Newspaper of a mass protest that went on against Dinnerjacket - right by the UN. The International Herald Tribune covered the fact that there were Iranian protestors as well as anti-Bush 'peacers.' This puts my mind more at ease. It seems that the Iranian American protestors are more pro-thought and pro-democracy than the deluded 'united for peace and justicers.' Good for them.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

INTERNATIONAL Talk Like a Pirate Day!

Today is International Talk Like a Pirate Day, and so I hope you all grab a pirate and neckify it, walk around as if you have a peg leg, and grunt "ahoy matey, ARG!" Thar be pirates! (P.S.: Thanks, kevin!)

Vatican to open secret files!

THIS I cannot wait for! The Vatican, perhaps in reaction to the Pope riots around the world, or perhaps in a coincidence of timing, announced they are opening up their secret files concerning what the Vatican did during and in the lead up to WWII. Supposedly there are MILLIONS of documents to go through. I have been wanting the Vatican to open its secret files for years now, and it is finally happening! I cannot wait to read what is uncovered about Pope Pius XII and all of the Vatican dealings.

UN Begins General Assembly; New Yorkers upset about traffic congestion

Today is the day of the UN General Assembly. Allegedly, on the table will be Iran's nuclear program, peace in the Mideast, and Darfur. What I find amusing is that the only thing most New Yorkers care about and what irks them is the corresponding traffic congestion that comes with the UN General Assembly. "Peace in the Mideast? Why should I care? I just want to get to work!" This truly makes me proud to be a New Yorker. What makes me UNproud (pun intended) to be American is how the "peacers" are out in full force, protesting Bush and NOT protesting Ahmedinadinnerjacket - both will be at the UN. This moral equivalence is stunning! It is why I no longer consider myself a member of the "progressive" movement. So, let's sum up the stance of the "peacers." Execution of homosexuals and raped women, uranium enrichment, Holocaust denial, and talks of wiping Israel off the map...why, that's just the talk of a benign and PEACEFUL leader! Besides, if Israel is wiped off the map, all the better! How can we as Americans be upset when Iran is out there, providing social services to its people? How can we judge another culture? The repression of Jews in can we blame them when the Palestinians are genocided! Meanwhile, Bush is there, and he started a war in Iraq! BushHitlerHalliburtonEvil!!! Riiiight... It is enough to induce vomit. Seriously. I am ashamed of my fellow countrymen and their total and complete ignorance. *wretches* I think I will feel better looking at a video of hot IDF boys (thanks, shlemazl!). Mmm...okay...I am feeling slightly better now!

Monday, September 18, 2006

Tomlinson vs MI6

This battle of wills has been rumbling on for years. Tomlinson has now taken to publishing chapters of a book onto his blog (the last blog he had was shutdown by the british government) that the British government will most likely say harm the national intrest and break any number of laws relating to the secret service act. Register article Tomlinson's blog First chapter of book My own take on national security is that while certain things have to be kept secret, it does not give a government a blank cheque to do what they like in regards to people who work for the secret services who try to speak out about the work they've done, that might be in the public intrest. I'll expect a knock on the door from special branch any day now then ;-)

Shlemazl gets it, man!

He has uncovered the truth! It appears that the rioting Muslims around the world are not actually mad at the pope, oh no! They have a raging case of blue balls! It all sooo makes sense now! And I totally get the fatwa that was issued last month in Iraq ordering goat diapering (so as to not expose the genitalia of goats), and the jihad against the grocers for indecent fruit and vegetable exposure. I sooooo get it, man. Shlemazl has uncovered the mystery! Good detective work, man! To the pained jihadists: may I suggest some viewing material to help rub one out? That is for the gay male and female jihadists! That is for the straight male and lesbian jihadists! I hope all you jihadists enjoy pictures of gorgeous IDF troops in your quest to rub one out! I am just doing my part to help out with your sad condition.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

Those Saudi Students

Victor Davis Hanson wrote a great article, explaining why we should not be so keen to accept the 15,000 Saudi students we will be accepting this year into our univerities. I have to say that he makes compelling arguments, and it is hard to dispute it!

For a variety of reasons, allowing 15,000 young (mostly male?) Saudi students into the United States is a bad idea — and these reasons have nothing to do with the hysterical and irrational fear present in the reaction to the Dubai port deal, when an internationalized company from a much more open society sought to oversee American ship facilities.

First, the verdict is out on whether experience with, and even long residence in, the United States (or for that matter, in Europe either) mitigates or enhances Islamic extremism. Considering the profile of the 9/11 hijackers and the Hamas suicide bombers, the number of Iranian mullahs and Hezbollah who have family members in the United States, and the recent public demonstrations in Michigan on behalf of Hezbollah, it is by no means clear that resentment is not the more common reaction for those who are relatively educated, not poor, and have some exposure to America.

That is, for many traditional Muslims, the openness, candor, and occasional randiness of American society create conflicting passions. Hand-in-glove with a visitor’s curiosity and desire to dress, talk, and read freely seems to arise a commensurate disdain for what is often termed “Western decadence.”

And even more disturbing, such conflicting passions of desire and shame at that desire, when coupled with an apologetic academic culture — steeped in multiculturalism and ready to offer America’s foreign critics ample ammunition for their displeasure — often result in a strange sort of irrational anger.

For some 20 years I taught a number of foreign students from the Middle East in the United States, and sometimes noticed a disturbing tendency. Over their four- or five-year tenure, many exhibited a predictable evolution in their thoughts about their newfound freedoms — especially as the time for graduation and for reckoning with a return home approached.

Initial exuberance at America’s openness often was followed with deep uncertainty whether our rejection of traditional repression was healthy — especially in the permissive campus landscape of risqué female fashion, open homosexuality, easy mixing of the races and religions, atheism, sexual promiscuity, and drug use.

We are not usually talking about the transition from a cosmopolitan Beirut to a somewhat comparable Salt Lake City, but from the most repressive conditions in the Arab world to the most liberal in the West — from the eighth-century code of behavior of Saudi Arabia to the 22nd or 23rd century postmodern world at a Berkeley or a Madison.

Often coupled with such abhorrence at our license is awe at America’s wealth and technology. From that volatile mixture a predictable confusion often emerges: Why is America so much richer and stronger than the Arab world, when it is clearly more decadent and godless?

This questioning is often answered by a variety of conspiratorial exegeses, laced with pop history and mythology that are the products of the media, mosques, and madrassas back home. Surely colonialism, or Israel, or the CIA, or American-backed dictators, or secret agreements, or oil companies best explain the current mess in Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, or Amman, those cities that were once the proud towers of the ancient caliphate.

But there is also a second reason to be concerned about these incoming students, one that likewise involves innate human nature, and especially the American sense of self. During the Cold War, we were not at war with the people of Eastern Europe, but we still did not readily admit into the United States very many students from Albania, Bulgaria, or Poland. It wasn’t just that we worried whether some were informants or worse, but also that, in such an ideological struggle, it was important to remind the masses in those countries of the wages of their repressive governments.

In the current war, such thinking would translate into something like the following: The popularity of bin Laden in the Arab Street, the continual hatred expressed for America and Jews in the state-controlled Middle East media, and the constant bombings and killings of Westerners by Muslims that are as often rationalized as condemned by Arab voices — all this surely must have consequences, if only to show that Americans sometimes are as unpredictably emotional as we are usually coldly rational.

Read the whole thing!

Friday, September 15, 2006

Pope speaks on Islam: Muslims riot around the world!

In what has become a typical scene, Muslims are rioting around the world after the Pope had the following to say about Islam: The pope quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor´s hostile view of Islam's founder. "The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the Pope said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'" Benedict added "I quote" twice to make it clear these were someone else's words. Nevertheless this reference was undoubtedly the most provocative moment of a provocative lecture. In a sense, explicitly including the Muslim prophet by name, and citing the concept of jihad, was a flashing neon signal to the world that the soft-spoken Pope intends to make himself heard clearly on this defining tension of our times. This caused eruptions around the world. Instead of responding to what were relatively benign (and truthful) comments with words and debate, the answer was to riot and pillage. This proves the words re: violence correct! Oh, the irony! By rioting as a response to a suggestion that Islam is a violent religion, Muslims prove that Islam is a violent religion! I would laugh if it wasn't so freaking predictable. As soon as I read what the pope said, I KNEW that there would be rioting around the world, because that is always the response to something like this. TYPICAL. Rationality and discussion, why that would be haraam. But it's perfectly acceptable to proclaim all nonMuslims infidels. The hypocrisy just knows no bounds. Truly mind boggling.

Hypocratic hypocrisy + a question of how far the first amendment should go

I refrained from discussing the Path to 9/11 bruhaha, because, simply put, I was disgusted by the sheer hypocrisy found on both sides of the debate. Let's sum up the situation: a docudrama aired on ABC on 9/10 and 9/11 about how 9/11 happened, and this docudrama featured allegations that Clinton could have done more to have stopped 9/11 from occurring. The docudrama supposedly let the audience infer that, given the USS Cole and other attacks, Clinton ignored the threat of Bin laden. There was one disputed scene wherein Defense Secretary Sandy Berger supposedly turned down getting Bin Laden. The Democrats went crazy from this. In fact, the Dems not only sent angry petitions flying about, there was a threat to pull ABC's broadcasting license for airing this. In response, ABC edited the film with regards to that particular scene in question. I want to add that Sandy Berger claims the scene never happened, but given this is clearly an issue of public concern and also dealls with a public official, it would be up to Berger, should he sue for libel, to prove not only that the event never happened, but also that ABC either knew it was false, or was negligent to include the scene. This is a VERY high bar to bass. Normally, I would be up in arms over this censorship - and I am always against censorship, but I cannot be particularly upset about this one, because, frankly, I am sick of the total hypocrisy surrounding docudramas. Three years ago, CBS filmed a docudrama called The Reagans. There was a similar bruhaha over that one, except this time, it was the Republicans who cried foul. Eventually, Viacom, parent company of CBS, aired the show on Showtime. In both instances, the networks gave into public pressure. In both instances, a form of censorship prevailed. In both instances, one political party was decrying the attempts to censor the public debate by the other political party. In other words, this is a case of completely hypocritical hypocrisy. Yes, the Republicans did not threaten to pull CBS's broadcasting license, but let's be real - there was little to no chance that the Dems would have succeeded in their threat, and furthermore, there is the special circumstance of this airing right on 9/11, and interrupted by Bush's speech. Still. The situations are rather similar, and to both the Dems and Repubs, I say what goes around, comes around! The situation is rather different, however, with regards to the TV docudrama that recently aired at the Toronto Film Festival - a docudrama involving assassination of Bush. James Brady, who suffers as a permanent cripple from the attempted assassination on Reagan's life, blasted the film. He said that it might inspire a real life copycat - and you know what, he's right. This is a question for all of us to ponder. How far should the first amendment go? Should it be accepted as part of our national dialogue that it's okay to assassinate the president? At what point does speech actually equal an open threat? Is this film something that should be allowed in America? I leave it to you, dear Culture for All readers, to ponder that one.

Thursday, September 14, 2006

Israeli Arab MKs in Lebanon for 'solidarity mission'

Yes, that's right. It is against Israeli law for any citizen to visit a hostile nation, unless there is special permission from the prime minister or the minister of the interior. Violating this law is punishable with up to four years in prison. Well, it seems that three Arab Israeli MKs visited Lebanon and Syria to express solidarity with the 'victims of the war.' They claimed they did not speak with Hizballah, but what they did is bad enough. This is repulsive and repugnant. It is repulsive for many reasons. 1) It flat out breaks Israeli law. They should be punished for that reason alone. 2) They are visiting a nation Israel just finished a war with, and expressed solidarity with the 'victims of war.' Imagine if German American Congressmen visited Germany after WWII and expressed solidarity with the victims of the war? Can you imagine the outcry? The justified outcry? 3) The 'victims of war' were in fact often Hizballah supporters. Alan Dershowitz wrote a great article explaining how the Lebanese as a people are not victims. It is disgraceful and disgusting that MKs would commit such a treasonous activity. The fact that they are Arab Israeli MKs only adds fuel to the fire of suspicion that Arab Israelis have to deal with in Israel. These MKs should be tried to the full extent of the law, and possibly even jailed. I also think that, at minimum, their status as legislators should be taken away, and they should be stripped of their MK status. This kind of activity cannot be tolerated. They are NOT representing the Arab Israeli population by engaging in these activities. Au contrare, they are hurting the very cause they seek to advance. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Israeli Arabs against Mubarak (Egyptian el presidente): Learn from Israel

Yes, really. Arab Israelis protested the way Egypt handled a bus accident and said they should have learned from Israel. Do you see this on Reuters, the AP, or AFP? Hellllz no! Relatives of Sinai accident casualties hold demonstration opposite Egyptian embassy in Tel Aviv, claim that Egypt authorities failed in treating injured, and protested a lenient sentence handed to bus driver. Egypt had forbidden the injured to be shipped to nearby Israel for treatment, which had resulted in at least one of the passengers dying. Meanwhile, Israelis, Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike, had lined up at blood centers to donate blood to help the Arab Israelis. Again, this got absolutely no mainstream media attention - but this also does not fit into the paradigm of Israel being an evil/racist regime.

Clooney, Wiesel to plead for UN action to protect Darfur people

Good for George Clooney. He and Eli Wiesel will lobby the UN to protect the Sudanese people, who are dying in a genocide. I am glad that a big time Hollywood actor is standing up for such a vital and important cause. The people of Darfur need advocates working for them. Meanwhile, there is a Save Darfur rally and concert this weekend in NYC, on Sunday, from 2-5 pm, at Sheep's Meadow in Central Park. Please attend and support this worthwhile cause. I know I will be there. Visit the Save Darfur website for more information about this horrible genocide, and what you can do to help.

'Innocent religion is now a message of hate'

WOW, on the heals of that powerful OpEd in the New York Post, I found this piece by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed. He is general manager of the Al-Arabiya News Channel. Go read it!
"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims... We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us, whatever the sufferings they claim to justify their criminal deeds. These are the people who have smeared Islam and stained its image. We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women."
Powerful stuff. I fear for his life, for having published it. Go read the rest! Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan. I am hust hoping this is the start of something big. Muslims owe it to themselves and the future of the world to TAKE BACK their religion.

Students sent home from Lincoln Park, MI school for violating the dress code

...And what exactly did these students wear? Devil worshipping shirts? A shirt with profanity? Nonono...they wore (the horror!) t-shirts that commemorated 9/11. Yes, really. Students were literally sent home for wearing t-shirt commemorating the important date of 9/11/06, five years after the most horrible terrorist attack in the history of this country. Earlier that week, students were sent home for wearing t-shirts with the words of the first amendment emblazoned on them. Thankfully, the ACLU is on the case. (no, I am not being facetitious, they really are) What sort of a nation are we when students are sent home for showing their patriotism? How have we devolved to this low level? And why isn't there the big outcry from leftist groups that there was when Cindy Sheehan was banned from the State of the Union address for wearing a t-shirt? I mean, good on the ACLU, but shouldn't this be news seen on the front page of Daily Kos, and all Democrat groups? When did this nation become so hypocritical?

Tuesday, September 12, 2006

The high level of discourse of 'antizionists'

I really feel so enlightened by the following exchange. I think you all will be amused by this, so I am copying and pasting what was said. I post regularly on gaymiddleeast blog. There was one post in particular which interested me, and so I wrote a reply. The post is right here, and details gay Jewish porn actor, Michael Lucas, and his intent to perform a live sex show "for the troops" of Israel. QArab wrote:
A porn star dancing in a private club that won't charge soldiers to get in is far from an "entertaining the troops" scenario... this is simply a bad PR story meant to exploit headlines to get some attention. that said, I would gladly go entertain Hezbollah bears... one at a time, or sometimes, two or even three...
My response was this:
qarab: Even as a joke, that was disgusting, and implies you support Hizballah. But whatever! I agree that certainly the war in Lebanon had nothing to do with gay rights in Lebanon, but I see no reason why it's wrong to highlight the extreme intolerance of Hizballah towards gay people. (in contradistinction towards Israel's policies)
This resulted in the following exchange, and brought Peter to write on this board where his 'thoughtful commentary' is right here. The exchange: a frustrated queer arab said... Regardless of Hizbullah's stance on gays, why bring up gay rights at all when it clearly has nothing to do with anything? There is a very clear point being made, one that is not innocent, is loaded with ideology, and that Israel uses consistently. Unfortunately, human rights and democracy have become vaccuous tools in the hands of the powerful. Israel, which sells itself as a haven of tolerance amidst a sea of backwardness, uses its more enlightened treatment of (Israeli) gays as proof that it is more civilized than the Arabs and hence more deserving of international support. In effect, what it is doing is it is claiming that some rights are more important than others (they want points for being gay friendly, but that comes at the expense of their brutal oppression of the Palestinians, which to them is unimportant. That same strategy is being used by saying Hizbullah's war is against Israeli gays). The increasingly superficial and silly and self-absorbed gay citizenry of the world that can't see beyond its own gayness is unfortunately but unsurprisingly falling for it hook, line and sinker. With an attention span of about 5 seconds for anything non-gay related, these strategies of deflection from the real issues work like a charm. September 09, 2006 3:50 PM Red Tulips said... Puh-lease. "Oppressed" Palestinians my tuchus. I have very little sympathy for a people who claim to be "oppressed" and yet brutally oppress minorities within their own community, while the world community is silent. I am sick to death of these double standards. And let's not even mention the fact that the Israelis are restrained as all hell in their treatment of the Palestinians, and no other country in the world is held to the standards of the Israelis. The Palestinians get tons of sympathy for an illegitimate cause. On the other hand, the plight of gay Muslims is a very real and substantial cause that does need to get the attention it deserves. September 11, 2006 8:26 PM Peter said... I'm amused to see that Red Tulips relies on the anti-Palestinian (and anti-gay) WorldNetDaily as a reliable authority. Never mind that that Christian Palestinians have repeatedly debunked the claim of persecution. September 11, 2006 11:01 PM Peter said... I should add that I also find it incredibly cynical for Red Tulips to use Israel's record on LGBT issues to justify Israel's denial of basic human and political rights to Palestinians. As if civil rights for lgbt people in one place excuses oppression and war crimes in another place. Palestinians gays and lesbians not only suffer from the Israeli occupation just like all other Palestinians,they also suffer from Israel's blackmailing of gay Palestinians into becoming colloborators. And there is no doubt that the intolerable conditions Palestinians live under have strengthened reactionary groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. September 11, 2006 11:29 PM Red Tulips said... Peter: You are funny when you speak of how "oppressed" the Palestinians are. Please. Don't make me laugh. The leader of the 'Palestinians' (most of whom really are not even natives, but in fact recently moved to Israel at the same time the Jews moved to Israel) brought upon the 'degradation' of the Palestinians themselves. Look at the $3 billion that Arafat (himself a native of Egypt) left his French wifey, Suha. This was money meant for the Palestinian people. Look at how his uncle, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, led the slaughter of tens of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust. The Palestinians never had to pay for their part in the Holocaust, not really. Their media perpetuates a genocidal death cult, and the Palestinians treat their women and gays rather poorly. (to put it mildly) Hamas, in its charter, quotes from the Protocols of Zion (a document upon which Mein Kampf was based), and is dedicated to Israel's destruction. This is the government that leads the Palestinians. Are some Palestinians decent? Sure. I feel some sympathy for them. But as a whole, the Palestinians are false victims. They destablized Lebanon and Jordan, and have been kicked out of most nations in the world, because no one wants them for two reasons: a) they are destabilizers of governments; b) it's better to use the Palestinian issue as a "wedge issue." I am sick of it. The Palestinian cause is a phony cause and a false effort to be concerned about. On the other hand, gay rights in general, and specifically for Muslims, is a very real issue that deserves attention. People like Al-Fil are to be treasured and praised for bringing attention to issues that otherwise would be ignored. I will have sympathy for the Palestinian people when they earn my sympathy. They have yet to do so. Meanwhile, there is a genocide in Darfur and no one gives even half a crap. Why? It's black people killing black people. If this involved Americans or Israelis, and a mere .5% of those who died in Darfur were killed, the world would be singing a different tune. I am sick of this hypocrisy. Far from deserving attention, the Palestinian 'cause' deflects attention from far more pressing matters. September 12, 2006 12:58 AM Anonymous said... I hope you choke on Andrew Sullivan's dick, you lying right-wing Zionist fuckface. September 13, 2006 2:30 AM ------------------- WOW! I feel so enlightened now! That anonymous guy, he really got me! That's it, now I am changing my tune! I am a Jihadist now! You know, the powers of his reasoning are just too strong for me! I give up! I concede! Sorry, bloggers, but I have Patty Hearsted myself! Anon's powers of persuasion were just too strong for my weak intellect. (I am a woman, after all) He's a man and hence too smart for me. Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! //Riiiiiiiiight...

One Arab's Apology

Found via LGF, this apology is gripping and also a relief! THIS is an unequivocal apology published in the mainstream press. Today is a good day. (No, CAIR and the MCB do not count) Go read it!
September 12, 2006 -- WELL, here it is, five years late, but here just the same: an apology from an Arab-American for 9/11. No, I didn't help organize the killers or contribute in any way to their terrible cause. However, I was one of millions of Arab-Americans who did the unspeakable on 9/11: nothing. The only time I raised my voice in protest against these men who killed thousands of innocents in the name of Allah was behind closed doors, among the safety of friends and family. I did at one point write a very vitriolic essay condemning their actions, but fear of becoming another Salman Rushdie kept me from ever trying to publish it. Well, I'm sick of saying the truth only in private - that Arabs around the world, including Arab-Americans like myself, need to start holding our own culture accountable for the insane, violent actions that our extremists have perpetrated on the world at large. Yes, our extremists and our culture. Every single 9/11 hijacker was Arab and a Muslim. The apologists (including President Bush) tried to reassure us that 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam, but was a twisting of a great and noble religion. With all due respect, read the Koran, Mr. President. There's enough there for someone of extreme tendencies to find their way to a global jihad. There's also enough there for someone of a different mindset to find a path to enlightenment and peace. Still, Rushdie had it right back in 2001: This does have to do with Islam. A Christian who bombs an abortion clinic in the name of God is still a Christian, at least in his interpretation, and saying otherwise doesn't negate the fact that he has spent a goodly amount of time figuring out his version of the one true and right thing to do. The men who killed 3,000 of our citizens on 9/11 in all likelihood died saying prayers to Allah, and that by itself is one of the most horrific things to me about that day.
(Non) existent god bless this man. He said what needed to be said. THIS is a true "moderate Muslim." I hope he and his family remains safe! EDIT: I want to also give love to other Muslims who have expressed unequivocal contempt for jihadists and their ilk. Let me give a shout out to Sandmonkey, Big Pharoah, Zeyad, Charles Malik, Leilouta, Vox, Iraq the Model, Mechanical Crowds, Ammar, and others. You are small in number at the moment, but I am hoping for a brighter tomorrow.

Monday, September 11, 2006

Palestinians torch YMCA

I find it so funny that far leftists support the Palestinians in their 'cause,' saying how oppressed they are, when they ignore the oppression that the Palestinian Muslims wreck upon the Bedouins, Druse, and Christian Palestinians. This recent news story is just one example of this double standard. Palestinians torched a Qalqilya YMCA in the West Bank, and warned Christian Palestinians to LEAVE or face the repurcussions. Imagine if the torching was done by a Jewish group. Imagine the worldwide condemnation and outcry. Imagine the flags being waved and the slogans being chanted. Double standard? Nooooo!!! Of course not! //sarcasm over On this anniversay of 9/11, let us take a moment to reflect upon the prejudices seen across the world, and the hate being spread in the name of religion and/or nationalism. There will be more 9/11's until the hate fires die down. There will be more 9/11's as long as we coddle and reward those who hate. It's time to stand up and be counted. It's time to proclaim, as Howard Beale proclaimed, I'm mad as hell, and not gonna take it anymore! I am sick of mourning. I am sick of reacting. It's time to act definitively and take back this country in the name of truth, justice, reason, and progress. Spread the word, engage your friends. Get them thinking. Spread that seed of rationality, and maybe it can grow into more. It can happen. Though maybe I am just a silly optimist.

9/11: five years later

Let us take a moment to reflect upon 9/11 - five years later. It is very painful for me to think about this, especially since I am writing from Manhattan - specifically lower Manhattan. On 9/11, I was not in NYC, rather, I was in upstate NY, watching The Today Show before a Film Analysis class. I was also chatting with some friends online in Australia. Suddenly, out of the corner of my eye, I saw on TV some report about the WTC being attacked. I thought it was a retrospective on 1993, I didn't think it possible. It took me some time to absorb the fact that it actually happened. Then, just as I was absorbing the fact of the first attack, I saw, live on TV, the second plane hit the WTC. My mouth dropped open - I thought it was a toy plane or something! I thought it was a model! I just couldn't believe it actually happened - I was in a state of utter shock. Dazed anc confused, I walked over to my Film Analysis class, where I met a friend of mine who worked in an internship over the summer at the World Financial Center - right near the WTC. He had no idea if his coworkers were okay. I also learned the Pentagon was under attack, and there was an attempted attack on the White House. I was beset by this sudden fear that the nation was under attack. I remember thinking "ohmigod, this feels like an alien invasion, like the movie Independence Day! That movie kept on running through my mind, because the whole thing felt so unreal to me. Then, during the Film Analysis class, the professor started showing an anti-American propoganda film - probably at the same time as Flight 93 was crashing. I felt sick to my stomach watching this. He eventually shut the film off, said it was not appropriate for this day (well, duh!), and dismissed the class. I left to wander around the small upstate NY town I was living in, dazed...until I remembered that I had (and still have) family that lived in Battery Park City - right near the WTC! I remember going home, crying, feeling so sick about the state of the world, and frantically calling my aunt, only all the phones were engaged. It turned out later that my aunt was at the WTC subway station stop at the time the Towers were struck. She is okay, but ironically, her husband, my uncle (who was also at the site), died 18 months after 9/11, of cancer. The day or two after 9/11, a massive vigil at my college was held to mourn the loss of all those who had just died. It was a tremendous atmosphere. Almost the entire school was there to pay respects to the dead - we are talking maybe 18,000 or 20,000 people, jammed together, crying. We all knew people who lived or worked by the Towers and/or Pentagon. And the thousands of us all held candles and listened to speeches, attempting to cleanse our souls. I remember the feeling of genuine fear at the time of 9/11 - a fear that the attacks were going to continue until our cities were wiped out. I remember being in that upstate NY town, and being unable to bring a backpack with me to a movie theater - out of fear there might be a bomb in it! No one knew how to deal with this threat. Four months after 9/11, I ended up moving to NYC. I moved when the fires of the rubble was still burning. I remember being so afraid to ride the subways, but doing it anyway. Being so afraid to walk through Times Square, but doing it anyway. And that's how the nation has generally reacted - we have moved past our fear. Yes, we are still afraid, as we should be, but we do not live every waking moment in fear, because if we did, we would go crazy. We have gone on with our lives. NYC has gone on. It is a booming city - after 9/11, save for that hole in the ground, the city has bounced back and is better than it ever was before. Sadly, the same cannot be said of New Orleans. I do not think New Orleans will ever be the city it once was. And I do think that Katrina proved that the disaster relief system in place, post-9/11, is simply not at the level it needs to be. More has to be done. But on this fifth anniversary of 9/11, I would like to take this time to mourn the loss of those who died, but to celebrate the spirit of those who have survived. We are alive, and we are forging through, and will not give up. It will take more than a plane or four to quell that American spirit. We will never give up. I will never give up. And I would like to take this time to say how proud I am to be an American, and a New Yorker.

Sunday, September 10, 2006

Manuel Chea from the 'Lessons Forgotten' event at the NY Tolerance Center replies to my post!

As you all read, I wrote a post about attending the Lessons Forgotten event at the NY Tolerance Center. I criticized one of the attendees of the event, Manuel Chea. Incredibly, he responded to the post. I am very surprised he happened to even find this blog, but he did! The post was so moving, that I think it deserves its own thread. I also think there may have been a misunderstanding between Mr. Chea and I, and so I owe it to him to clear up this misunderstanding. Please read this post:
Hi Red Tulips, This is Manuel Chea. Funny how I find your blog and comments on the panel discussion that I was part of. You mentioned that my morality tale on Jews not helping as bordering anti-semite. Yet you failed to mention that I only paraphrased the well known parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus on that tale (and he was teaching a Jewish crowd) did say that a Priest and a teacher of the law did not stop and help a man who was robbed and left for dead. Subsequently a Samaritan did come and help and save the man's life. The point of that tale was that someone of a different ethnic and religious tradition displayed what Jesus was teaching about "loving your neighbor as yourself" and wasn't a criticism of Jews. What he was teaching here was that we must consider the concept of "neighbor" that our neighbhors are not only people of our own ethnicity, or our own faiths, or nationalities. The concept of "neighbor" as Jesus taught meant that we must love people of all kinds of ethnicities, faiths, nationalities, gender, etc. If my paraphrasing of the parable gave you the impression of "borderline anti-semitism" then I must apologize. Don't forget that I tried to extrapolate the concept to the present time by pointing out in general that I heard of cases of individual Israelis helping an injured Palestinian and vice-versa. That is as I explained were real life examples of loving your neighbor as yourself. As for my comments about Muslims Americans, I did not say I felt sorry for them but that I felt sorry for any backlash against them as a result of 9/11. I have no qualms with you saying that they should also speak out against extremism and hatred. Yes they should. Your question was a very good one and I'm not going to top Fred Margulies's answer which was superb. But I will say that to me tolerance does not extend to those who commit acts of hate and so Mr. Margulies is correct in saying that he does not tolerate intolerance. We cannot change them and I agree with Mr. Margulies in saying that we should work to stop the spread of hatred. I talked about forgiveness but that also is in the context of letting go of my own sense of anger, bitterness, and desire for retribution. Unfortunately, the time given to the panel to speak was short and so I wasn't able to elaborate further. I did also say that forgiveness of someone like Bin Laden does not mean that I do not seek justice. Forgiving Bin Laden does not mean that I absolve him for what he's done. He must answer for his crimes and suffer the consequences. I would certainly agree with you that "those bastards must be brought to justice." Once again, the time alloted just wasn't enough for all of us to elaborate and I have to pick and choose what to focus on. So I chose to focus on loving and accepting one another regardless of our differences, and to spread this concept one person and one heart at a time. As a Christian, certainly I used Jesus to highlight this concept and nothing more. Thanks for your comments in this blog. For me it is feedback and I do wish we talked afterwards. I think you would have realized that our views are really not as dissimilar as you might think.
Thank you, Mr. Chea. I appreciate beyond words your post, and I am honored you stopped by. Regards, Red Tulips

Friday, September 8, 2006

Antizionism is antisemitism

As Steven has previously written, 'antizionism' is nothing more than antisemitism repackaged as being PC-acceptable. Well, finally MPs in the UK have published a report showing an upswing in antisemitism, tied to the actions of radical Islamists (such as my old 'friend' over at wakefromyourslumber) who cloak their hatred in "antizionism." Read the article yourself - and you will see how finally some people are waking up to this obvious reality. 'Antizionism' is a farce, concocted by Islamists, and eaten up like candy by PC multi-culti bullshiteers. It is so sad, tragic even, that I actually know Jews who buy into this nonsense. They are buying into their own destruction, and they don't even realize it. Has Israel committed some wrongs? Sure. But it is not even a fraction of the wrongs committed by the monsters that populate the leaders of the Palestinians - who have direct connections to Hitler and were part of the greatest genocide of the 20th century, and possibly the history of the world, the Holocaust. They never had to pay for their crimes against humanity, and the media of the Palestinians perpetuates a genocidal death cult. Disgusting. I am sick of it. I am sick of pussy footing around obvious realities. Antizionism is antisemitism simply under a different label. Period.

Orthodox Jewish man forced off Air Canada Jazz for praying!

Yes, it's true. So, so sad. I have known about the antisemitism in Quebec (the plane was from Montreal) for years, but this is incredible. There has not been a single instance of a Jew taking down an airplane, sorry. Not one instance. If we really hope to combat terrorism, this certainly is not the way to do it! Because, riiiiiight, we really have to fear orthodox Jewish rabbis. I really worry they will be blowing up planes. //sarcasm over I am glad I have never flown Air Canada, and despite my love of Toronto, I will try and avoid Air Canada in the future. Next time I go to Canada, I will endeavor to fly via Westjet or American Airlines.

I am not giving a penny to an organization that opposes Israel.

I decided that my new strategy shall be that I will only give charity to organizations that support Israel (or at least don't oppose Israel). This does not mean that the organizations have to be about the Middle East. But the following organizations will never receive a single penny from me, because they actively are against Israel and/or are affiliated with organizations that are against Israel: I suggest you all do the same! Maybe if we cut off their monetary support, it will affect the world in some tiny way. If any of you know of other major charities that should be boycotted, feel free to post them here in this thread! Thanks!

Thursday, September 7, 2006

Lessons Forgotten: Survivors Bear Witness

Yesterday, I went to the following extraordinary event at the New York Tolerance Center: Lessons Forgotten: Survivors Bear Witness. This event paired together survivors from the Holocaust (Fred Margulies), Oklahoma City (Richard E. Williams), Rwanda (Eugenie Mukeshimana), Darfur (Yahya Osman), and 9/11 (Manuel Chea) to discuss their shared experiences, how they healed, and how to combat hatred. I was crying when three of the survivors spoke: the survivors of the Holocaust, Rwanda, and Darfur. I did not like the man from 9/11 (Chea), who kept on speaking of Jesus, and then bordered on antisemite when he spoke of a morality tale where Jews did not help their fellow man. I also did not like how he immediately said he felt sorry for Muslim Americans - a people who have power to change their circumstance if they spoke out against extremism and hatred, but are, for the most part, silent. So I asked a question, mostly aimed at him, but which was answered by the Holocaust survivor (Margulies) and the Rwanda survivor (Mukeshimana). My question was..."You speak of love and tolerance, but how can one be tolerant of intolerance? Namely, radical Islam uses the cover of religion to justify their actions, and calling them on their atrocities is often politically incorrect. So how does one combat such hatred with love, when they seek to destroy us?" Margulies wisely said that he is not tolerant of intolerance, and never implied it. However, the goal is to teach love and tolerance to those who can be reached. The goal is to stop the spread of hatred, rather than to convert the unconvertable. That made a great deal of sense to me. Mukeshimana said that the bottom line answer is not to be tolerant of intolerance, but rather, to not let hatred overcome any of us, because then they win. If we fight fire with fire, then we are all burned inside. She said that in Rwanda, the monsters who slaughtered so many innocents are now living again in that country - often side by side with those who they terrorized. She said that while she may feel anger inside her, to go over there and, say, slaughter those who slaughtered so many, would mean that in some way hatred wins, and it never stops the violence. She said the best way to combat this all is to lead a good life. I take some issue with what Mukeshimana said. It means that the bastards are never brought to justice. It means that there is no justice. It means that the monsters live another day, possibly to slaughter more. It means they never learn their lesson, and THAT means they would feel free to slaughter again. I think that the only way to combat the monsters is to involve some military force - because they only understanbd military force. But at the same time, we cannot become like them, and use torture in our force, or deingrate to their barbarism. I have to say, that the event also brought into focus the atrocities currently going unabated - for a variety of reasons - in Darfur. I have highlighted some of the Sudanese president's utterly insane statements. This man is a mass murderer, yet he is offended that his autonomy might be taken away...autonomy to kill more! And no one cares about the atrocities in Darfur, because, hey, it's black people killing black people. If white people were killing Sudanese - if say they killed 1/10 the number who have died (400,000+ have already been killed, so that would be 40,000 people), there would be protests around the world. You would see angry mobs waving flags around, burning flags, and creating a general mayhem. Hell, if even 1% of the number of those who were killed in Sudan were killed by white people, regardless of the reason, you would see the same result! See: Lebanon. It's sad, it's depressing, and I think it also is all tied into the soft bigotry of low expectations. But anyway. I do care about Darfur, and I am horrified at what is happening, unabated, for a variety of reasons - mostly because of the efforts by China, Russia, and Qatar to block UN Security Council resolutions) So I urge you all to visit the website of Osman's organization - Darfur Rehabilition. Please, get involved, spread the word. There is a genocide perpetuated by Islamic fundamentalist monsters in Sudan, and this has to stop. Lastly, I met this fabulous female Holocaust survivor at the event. She is one of the strongest willed people I have seen - she reminds me of my grandmother, who is also a survivor. She spoke up during the event, saying that the Bosnians were not victims, because they killed so many hundreds of thousands of Jews during the Holocaust, and never had to pay for this. She is right, of course. And we shouldn't forget who led these Bosnians to slaughter the Jews - none other than the original Palestinian monster, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. We cannot forget the links between Islamofascist hatred and Naziism. At the conclusion of the event, the five panelists were asked if they were able to foresee a time when there will be no more genocide. They all uniformly said no, but that we have to teach people love and tolerance, one person at a time. Sadly, I agree. if the vastness of history has proven anything, it's that mankind is inherently drawn to war, and that lasting peace in the world is impossible. All we can do is change hearts and minds one at a time. And that's largely why I started this blog.

Wednesday, September 6, 2006

"We're not a threat...but, oh yeah..follow 'God's Path' OR ELSE!"

In yet another of Ahmedinajad's delusional, anti-west and anti-rational thought rants, he proclaimed that "Those who do not respond to the invitation (to follow God's will), as we said, will have no good fate." Oh really? God's will? That's nice to know. So, essentially Ahmedinadinnerjacket (thanks, Carl in Jerusalem for that nickname!) told the west "convert or die." He earlier spoke of wiping Israel off the map, and said that the Holocaust did not happen. He also is openly getting nuclear technology, without ANYONE STOPPING HIM! Oh yeah, and Iran's regime has supported terrorists the world over for years, including even the IRA, as I noted. This is a man that is a hero of the Arab world. This is a man who is seeking nukes. This is a man who the far leftists of the world will appologize for. This is a man who is actually taken seriously by journalists, including MIKE WALLACE! Just disgusting. It's truly astonishing what passes for world leaders nowadays. It's also truly astonishing the complete blindness that much of the world has to the threats facing the world today. As far as I go...when I see a world leader threatening genocide...I tend to sit up and take notice. I tend to think there is at least some meaning behind those words. But, oh right, action would mean that China and Russia would have to get off its tuchus in the UN and pass a resolution! As gayconservativeliberal pointed out, we can't have that, can we? The whole situation is tricky. I am not sure what the right approach is to Ahmedinadinnerjacket, but I am sure that 'people' such as himself only understand force, and I fail to see how negotiations are going to lead to anything. (that doesn't mean that open warfare is needed, either)

Tuesday, September 5, 2006

IRA Terror supporter meets with Hamas terrorists and is APPALLED that the Israeli government won't meet with him!

That's right, Gerry Adams, head of the Sinn Fein party of Northern Ireland - the IRA-linked party - met with Hamas, not even Abbas, in the Palestinian territories, in order to "encourage peace." He was then discouraged when the Israeli government would not meet with this terror supporter who met with an openly terrorist organization. His claim was "It is our view that all conflict should be brought to an end though negotiations. That goes for everyone," he said. "If we're asked our view, we shall give our view, which is that all conflict should end." Someone should tell him that no one with a clue is interested in his opinion, the opinion of an individual affiliated organization that gets funding from Iran. Yes, Adams did preside over a peace process, but the peace in Northern Ireland was never contingent upon the death of all English. It is blind (to put it mildly) to pretend anything else. And it is hypocritical of Adams to claim that he's so high and mighty, when in fact his organization is linked with the same terror support that Hamas gets. It's all one enemy, folks. If nothing else, Gerry Adams's trip to "encourage peace" in Israel (har, har - the peace in Northern Ireland is tenuous and only after a massive demographic shift in Northern Ireland) shows yet again how the IRA is to be despised, just as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and PRC are despised. Of course, many Americans hypocritically disagree, and funding for the IRA has also come from Irish Americans for years. It was only after 9/11 that there was any crackdown on this. So I guess, in conclusion, we are all hypocrites. But Adams is that special sort of hypocrite who feels the need to pretend he is peaceful while he is up to his same old tricks of supporting terrorists.


I have noticed that, across the internet, many Muslims are outraged, outraged that there is talk of profiling at airports. Well, um, gee, it was not 19 Irish American hijackers on 9/11. No, the profile was 19 Arab-American single men, in their early 20s. And that is not the first, nor last, incident like that. The fact remains that the vast, vast majority of terrorists fit a certain profile. This in no way means that all Arab Americans are terrorists, yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge this clear and obvious FACT. So, what should be done about this? Well, we are not going to be "safe" by merely screening these people, because the bastards will find a way to commit terror, regardless of the best screening mechanism out there. However, the chance of terror on a plane, subway, or bus (etc), is greatly lessoned by screening procedures. The current (American) method of screening is sort of a combo of profiling and randomness. It combines random checks with 'suspicion' based checks for people who are out of sequence of the randomness. This does, de facto, result in disproportionate numbers of young Arab Americans being screened, but it is not actual racial profiling. I have a mixed opinions about racial profiling. I worry about the civil liberties, but more than that, I worry that if only a certain group is screened, then the terrorists will recruit those who look different in order to carry out their dastardly plots. So that is why I think the American system is generally a good one. However, any argument about how traumatizing or horrible it is to be screened at airports that Muslim Americans or British Muslims make are generally hypocritical to say the least. If there is such a general upsetness over being screened at airports, then why not actually DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?? Namely, why not organize rallies for peace? Why not show that Islam does not equal terror? Why not protest against the suicide bomb bastards? One post I read on a blog was particularly ironic. This dude over at "" goes by the name shahid, and then has the nerve to be offended by being screened at airports!!! Well, uh, gee, I would think that a guy like him is EXACTLY THE SORT OF PERSON WHO SHOULD BE SCREENED!!! The bottom line is that if Muslim Americans and British Muslims spent half the time they do being offended at the supposed "civil rights violations" they have on protesting terror and showing they are NOT like the terrorists, then there would be absolutely no blurring of the line between Islam and terror. If you are so upset about the state of the world, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! This is a free society. There is the right to protest and right to assemble - so why not assemble and protest for something positive? And this of course does not even begin to scratch the surface of how poorly nonMuslims are treated in Muslim countries - something that Muslim Americans and British Muslims never speak of or seem to care about. Or, for that matter, how Sunni Muslims are treated in Shia nations, and vice versa. That's a different story altogether. It's easy to be offended. It's harder to take a critical look at why the world is the way it is. And I am just rather sick of this.