Holding on to Delusions Despite Contrary Evidence
Creating Delusion
We are either in
denial or hope nothing will happen and neither is a strategy
This is an existential threat and appeasement like WWII will only get us
200 million killed versus the 60 million in WWII. Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney
about the Iranian Nuclear Threat.
Satan
then said: How do I overcome This besieged one? He has courage And talent, And implements of war And resourcefulness. Only this I shall do, I'll dull his mind And cause him to forget The justice of his cause Then Satan Said, By Natan Alterman
The besiegers fully understand that through extreme
stress they can get the delusion to set in.
They realize that eventually
the appeasers amongst the populace will rise to
the forefront and try to convince the
people that if they just give the barbarians at their gates
what they want then they'll go
away. History shows us that people under siege
will eventually start saying and doing crazy stuff to make it go away.
History also clearly
shows that appeasing people hell-bent on your destruction never produces a
favorable outcome...
As the flames of hope burn down to a flicker, the mind plays
tricks and starts seeing shadows
of hope which aren't there. The
beleaguered mind clings to any solution no matter how small,
no matter how absurd, no matter how likely to fail, no matter how dangerous the
outcome, just so
that the siege will end and 'they' will
go away.
People Will Hang on To Illusion as Eagerly as to
Life Itself Ben Hecht
It is always a losing battle, this trying to out
shout authority. Those who have been in one are left
with the conviction that it is easier to waken the dead than the living. But what a hopeless world it would be
without this record of lost battles. Ben Hecht
All must be made to know that the result of choosing
fantasy over reality is the murder of thousands of
real people. Speech
of Carolyn Glick upon Receiving Ben Hecht Award, 12/11/05
Political
language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give
the appearance of solidity to pure wind. George Orwell
Hallucinating
moderation in a ruthless enemy is like hallucinating an
oasis in a desert: you end up choking to death on sand ?
The
course of history in recent years suggests that the ultimate victims may be
those who delude themselves Marjorie Housepian Dobkin's final sentence
in her book, The Smyrna Affair
The
struggle of man against power, is the struggle of memory against forgetting.
The Czech writer, Milan Kundera,
Civilizations
die from suicide, not by murder
The historian Arnold Toynbee
What
wrath of gods, or wicked influence Of tears, conspiring wretched men t' afflict, Hath pour'd on earth this noyous pestilence That mortal minds doth inwardly infect With love of blindness and of ignorance?
Spenser's Tears of the Muses
How
many times must a man turn his head, and pretend that he just doesn't see?"
Bob Dylan, Blowin in the Wind
Men
occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.
Winston Churchill
You cannot avoid
the consequences of avoiding reality.
Pamela Geller
You can deny reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of denying reality.
You can try to avoid
reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. The shootings in Garland, Paris, and Copenhagen
targeting defenders of free speech, and the raging jihad across
the Middle East, Africa, and Europe, are the disastrous
consequences of avoiding reality.
Every
man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day.
Bertrand Russell, Skeptical Essays p28, 1938
We hanker after instant
solutions, dismiss bitter truths and prefer the sweet comfort of delusion. Sarah
Honig, Another Tack: Horse Sense or Horse Trade, Jpost 11/17/2006
Whom
the Gods Would Destroy They First Make Mad
Euripides
"When falls on man the anger of the gods, first
from his mind they banish understanding."
Lycurgus
"When divine power plans evil for a man, it first
injures his mind."
Sophocles
"Whom God wishes to destroy he first makes
mad."
Seneca
The
ultimate tragedy of the fool is the inability to recognize the continuance of ones own folly. Proust
Two things are infinite: the universe and human
stupidity; and I am not sure about the universe Albert Einstein
It's an absurd
situation we're in where nothing anyone does while being a Muslim is any
responsibility of Islam yet anything anyone does while being a Christian or Jew
is the responsibility of all Christians or all Jews.
Douglas Murray
Much more valuable
than rural recruits for our Cuban guerrilla force were American media recruits
to export our propaganda. Ernesto
Che Guevara.
Propaganda is
vital propaganda is the heart of our struggle. Fidel
Castro
Half the work that is done in the world is to make things appear what they
are not.
This
web page mostly deals with non-paranoid delusions.Another web page on this site deals with paranoid delusions.The opposite of a paranoid delusions is choosing to believe that
there is no threat when there is one.There can be pathological situations where delusion of one group is in a
vicious cycle with paranoia with another group.An example of this is shown in the cycle diagram below.
Paranoia/Delusion Cycle
Paranoia
Slander and Muslim scripture convinces Muslims that infidel is evil.
Aggression
Muslims aggressive toward infidel
Aggression
Muslim see they
are rewarded with appeasement if they are aggressive so they become more
aggressive.Slander infidels in order
to motivate other Muslims to be more aggressive.Slander infidels so that infidel believes Muslims are being
unfairly victimized and avoids taking action against them.Slander infidels so other infidels will
silence or punish them.
Fear
Non-Muslims dont want to face
the threat.Hope that if they dont
make accusations against Muslims, Muslims wont get mad at them. Pass
anti-incitement laws to prevent accusations of violence against Muslims that
might get them mad. Hope if they show hostility to Israel and defend Muslims
as peaceful they will get Muslim sympathy.Hope that if they make increase welfare payments to Muslims and donate
money to Palestinians the Muslims will be less aggressive.Appease Muslims.
Delusion
Populace
believes Muslims peaceful and Israel to blame.
This is a living web page about
creating delusion. By living web page I mean it is not a finished product
and I periodically add items I come across that are relevant. For this
reason it is not written as well as an article would be. I have written
an article about this subject called Creation
of Delusion which was published by the International Bulletin of Political
Psychology and which I encourage the reader to read before reading this web
page. Creation of Delusion can consist of simply attempting to silence
those who wish to tell the truth, and so examples of this are given on this web
page.Much of this web page is devoted
to delusion in American Foreign Policy. Much of this delusion exists in regard
to the Middle East so this web page includes many examples from the Middle
East. Delusional aspects of the Islamic world regarding the Middle East
are discussed in on the paranoia web page
of this web site.
Is delusion a fair way to
describe the erroneous beliefs of people who otherwise function normally in
society? Can the beliefs of normally functioning people accurately be
described as madness or simply as diversity of opinion. My article Creation
of Delusion discusses the answer to this question. Writers about
politics sometimes describe what they perceive to be madness among otherwise
sane people. Ariel Natan Pasko in an article titled The Peace Madness
Syndrome in Israel Again (freeman center broadcast 2/16/05), wrote:
The
"peace at any price" bug has returned to Israel. .. Once infected, messianic hallucinations of "peace" begin to confound
the victim's moral compass, leading to confusion, lack of moral clarity, and a suicidal death wish for the "Peace of the Grave." It also weakens
the patient's resistance to falsehood, distorting the infected person's ability
to distinguish right from wrong, good from bad, and enemy from brother. This moral-AIDS disease is sweeping through Israel again, on a scale not seen since the "peace drug" induced false euphoria of the
Oslo days.
We know what that led to, death and destruction.
Here is a video put together by some of the victims of Oslo.
Sweden has
proposed banning the public use of legal document search engine Lexbase,
which is used to identify the ethnic origins of Swedish criminal suspects.
According to the Swedish government, the data released by the website is too
sensitive for the public. For many years, the Swedish government has stopped the
collection of statistics relating to the ethnic or religious background of
criminals, making it difficult for researchers to track the correct rate of
migrant crime, as opposed to crimes committed by native Swedes. Is this because
the government doesn't want Swedes to hate Muslims? Is it because the government
doesn't want to be blamed for it's policies of letting in these Muslims?
Sweden doesn't just try and hide statistics it also
threatens those to expose the statistics with hate crime charges. Note
that hate crime charges against someone creates hate toward that person.
Why isn't the Swedish government worried about that?
This dramatic interview with Colin Flaherty has live recordings that
demonstration the creation of delusion by the media regarding Islamic and black
violence. I can only speculate as to why the media does this. In the
case of blacks it may be to prevent white retaliation escalating into a race
war. In the case of Islam it may be in order to prevent retaliation
leading to a Muslim/infidel war. Here is the interview.
Will creating these delusions prevent race war or will it show those who
provoke the war that they can get away with murder?
A recent Los Angeles Times investigative
report (7/31/2002) by Benedict Carey, surveying psychologists worldwide who
have studied terrorists, concludes that the notion that suicide bombers are
deranged fanatics is obvious myth. The evidence is the opposite, he
states. They tend to be free of obvious mental illness. Many are
competent, successful, even loving and loved. Clark McCauley, a psychologist
at the University of Pennsylvania who studies terrorism states Suicide
terrorists are anything but isolated. Often, they have connected with others
deeply, and it's this affiliation that helps prepare them to take their own
lives. It's the group that's abnormal and extreme. The individual
terrorist is psychologically as normal as you or I.
Much of the press hides Islamic information
about perpetrators of violence. In one example Muslims shot police while
reciting the Koran. If you look at
this New York Times/Associated Press article you wouldn't know that.
You would need to read
jihadwatch or
Delaware 105.9 FM.
The press often omits information that
doesn't fit the message it wants you to believe. A Busload of girls in
Israel were firebombed in a well planned attack yet the press
reported nothing. This was shortly after girls were kidnapped in
Nigeria. In that case the press reported it.
The press also omits information if
reporting such information would endanger their reporters or interfere with
their getting access to politicians. The following was
reported by Daniel Greenfield on Dec 1, 2014
When Hamass leaders surveyed their assets before this
summers round of fighting, they knew that among those assets was the
international press. The AP staff in Gaza City would witness a rocket launch
right beside their office, endangering reporters and other civilians
nearbyand the AP wouldnt report it, not even in AP articles about Israeli
claims that Hamas was launching rockets from residential areas...
Hamas fighters would burst into the APs Gaza bureau and threaten the
staffand the AP wouldnt report it... Cameramen waiting outside Shifa
Hospital in Gaza City would film the arrival of civilian casualties and
then, at a signal from an official, turn off their cameras when wounded and
dead fighters came in, helping Hamas maintain the illusion that only
civilians were dying.
In my article Creation
of Delusion I discuss the Anointed and their resistance to evidence.
When evidence points to one conclusion they will argue that it points to the
opposite.
Heather McDonald wrote about an example of this:
Its a lonely job, working the phones at a college rape
crisis center. Day after day, you wait for the casualties to show up from
the alleged campus rape epidemicbut no one calls. Could this mean that the
crisis is overblown? No: it means, according to the campus sexual-assault
industry, that the abuse of coeds is worse than anyone had ever imagined. It
means that consultants and counselors need more funding to persuade student
rape victims to break the silence of their suffering.
When actions fail instead of concluding that the reasoning behind the actions
is flawed the Anointed conclude that not enough has been done. Steve Plaut wrote
a parody called The Disengagement of the Wisest Men of
Chelm, in which he shows this kind of reasoning being used.
After the Gaza
disengagement terrorism increased. Instead of concluding that the
disengagement was a mistake Meretz party leader Yossi Beilin concluded that it
wasn't enough (Fendel, H., Funerals of Three Young Terror Victims, Israel National News,
10/17/05). After three young people were shot at a hitchhiking post in
Gush Etzion following the Gaza withdrawal Israel enacted temporary security
measures. Yossi Beilin then said:
"Hamas is now
rubbing its hands in glee, as these tough new measures are exactly what it
wanted. We have said all along that if the diplomatic process does not continue
in Judea and Samaria, the disengagement from Gaza will have been [a
waste]."
Beilin instead
of coming to the realization that disengagement leads to terror concludes
that more disengagement is necessary.
After Hamas won the PA elections, it should have become clear to anyone that
the Palestinians support violence against Israel, yet the the Los
Angeles Times opined (2/2006),
"Most Palestinians, like most Israelis, want
peace."
Columnist Uzi Benziman,
(Ha'aretz 9/30/01) wrote about how Shimon Peres of Israel resists evidence as
follows:
He
[Peres] has been suspected of being primarily concerned with saving his honor,
and the honor of the Nobel Peace Prize he received; and this is the light in
which his actions should be understood... The decisive fact is that the
IDF, and Military Intelligence in particular, correctly predicted the
developments in the Palestinian Authority and its intentions, and then
translated its diagnosis into a reasonable operational language. This fact is
lost on the initiator of the Oslo idea: he repeatedly argues that process that
began in September 1993 is threatening to drown not because of an inherent flaw,
but due to the mistakes made in its implementation - particularly during the
periods of the Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak governments...
There are those who argue that Ariel Sharon when he
embraced the policies advocated by Peres became delusional as well as one of
the anointed in his thinking. Shmuel Katz in an article titled Sharon,
the 'ex-messiah' (Jerusalem Post 12/9/04) wrote:
Having
embraced the beliefs of the Labor Party and the wishful thinking on which they
are based, he treats those who have remained faithful to the ideas they had in
common with him as though they were ignorant peasants.
These
pygmies dare to defy the suddenly great all-knowing, all-seeing panjandrum. At
best, they are treated as rebels, and he talks of taking revenge. But even the
people whose hurt he is now planning the Gush Katif victims of his
"painful concessions" are subjected to his scorn.
See
how swiftly, in his recent speeches, he has assimilated even the semantics of
the Left (and of the Arabs, and the international opponents of Jewish
settlements in Judea and Samaria). He now talks of "occupation"
which is a lie by any reading of the Fourth Geneva Convention on which
(mendaciously or ignorantly) the term is based.
And
now he has accused the people whom he personally helped to settle in Judea and
Samaria and Gaza of being Messianic. If they are Messianic, what then must he
himself be? An ex-messiah?
Although
generous financial aid to the Palestinians has not made them less violent,
after Arafat's deathNigel Roberts, the World Banks director for the
West Bank and Gaza, said to donors, Maybe your $1 billion a year hasnt
produced much, but we think theres a case for doing even more in the next
three or four years.
Roberts is saying, in effect: Yes, your money
enabled Arafats corruption, jihad ideology, and suicide factories, but those
are yesterdays problems; now, lets hope the new leadership uses donations for
better purposes. Please lavish more funds on it to enhance its prestige and
power, then hope for the best.
This la-la-land thinking ignores two wee problems.
One concerns the Palestinians widespread intent to destroy Israel, as shown by
the outpouring of grief for arch-terrorist Arafat at his funeral, the
consistent results of opinion research, and the steady supply of would-be
jihadists. The Palestinians discovery of their inner moderation, to put it
mildly, has yet to commence.
The other problem is blaming the past decades
violence and tyranny exclusively on Arafat, and erroneously assuming that, now
freed of him, the Palestinians are eager to reform. Mahmoud Abbas, the new leader,
has indeed called for ending terrorism against Israel, but he did so for transparently
tactical reasons (it is the wrong thing to do now), not for strategic
reasons (it is permanently to be given up), much less for moral ones (it is
inherently evil)...
To give additional money to the Palestinians now,
ahead of their undergoing a change of heart and accepting the permanent
existence of the Jewish state of Israel, is a terrible mistake, one that
numbingly replicates the errors of the 1990s Oslo diplomacy. Prematurely
rewarding the Palestinians will again delay the timetable of conciliation.
As I have argued for years, money,
arms, diplomacy, and recognition for the Palestinians should follow on their
having accepted Israel. One sign that this will have happened: when Jews living
in Hebron (on the West Bank) need no more security than Arabs living in Nazareth
(within Israel).
One
reason for resisting evidence that one is wrong is if one's career or prestige
is threatened if one admits one was wrong. Daniel Pipes in an article
titled Business
as Usual in the Palestinian Authority (frontpagemag.com 5/17/05)
wrote:
It is hard to argue with Caroline Glicks conclusion
that the Sharongovernment and the Bush administration were
both horribly wrong in betting on Abbas. And yet, neither of them concedes
this error because, having stressed Abbass good intentions, both now find
themselves deeply invested in the success of his political career.
Kenneth Levin in an
article titled
Peace Now a 30 year Fraud wrote how evidence was ignored if it did not fit
Peace Now's desired world view.
In their eagerness to interpret evidence
in conformity with their desires, they could see these events as only
meaning that the PLO had indeed decided to pursue genuine peace and now all
that was required was a reciprocal Israeli response. As the organization
declared shortly after the PNC's Algiers conference: "In Algiers the PLO
abandoned the path of rejection and the Palestinian Charter and adopted the
path of political compromise..."
Counter-evidence included statements by PLO leaders, in communications with
their constituents, of the organization's continued dedication to the PLO
covenant and its focus on Israel's annihilation. But this was disregarded.
An example of such statements was the declaration by senior PLO member Ahmad
Sidqi Dajani on November 22, 1988 that, "We in the PLO make a clear
distinction between covenants and political programs, whereby the former
determine the permanent strategic line while the latter are tactical by
nature. We would like some of our brothers to take note of this difference,
that is, of our continued adherence to the Palestinian National Covenant."
Another example was the comments of Arafat's second in command, Abu Iyad,
some days later: "The borders of our state noted [by the PNC Algiers
declaration] represent only a part of our national aspirations. We will
strive to expand them so as to realize our ambition for the entire territory
of Palestine."
Similarly ignored by the true believers were Arafat's own assurances to his
people of his steadfast allegiance to the "plan of phases," and evidence of
continuing PLO involvement in terrorist attacks on Israel.
Bar-On, in his 470-page history of the Peace Movement, much of it devoted to
the peregrinations of the PLO, never even mentions Arafat's "plan of
phases." Bar-On apparently did not want it to exist and so he simply ignored
it.
Yet, since 9/11, I've seen and heard no
end of my fellow citizens' arguing from blind passion and utterly refusing
to ingest facts that didn't match their prejudices (left or right). Since
the turnabout in Iraq began a year and a half ago, the rejection of reality
has become an outright pathology for the quit-Iraq-and-free-the-terrorists
set.
I've watched millions of my countrymen and countrywomen insist that
fantasies are real. In a classic through-the-looking-glass reversal last
year, Sen. Hillary Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus, the man who turned Iraq
around, that his reports of progress were fairy tales. It was the world
turned upside down.
If a fact leads a conclusion that
people don't want to make they often find a rationalization for rejecting it.
In order to hold on to delusions one needs to find
ways to discount contradictory evidence and those who disagree with one's
convictions. If one views those who disagree as evil then all their
evidence can be construed as false evidence created for devious motives.
Thomas Sowell in his book The
Vision of the Anointed : Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy
describes the paranoia of the anointed.
The
contemporary anointed and those who follow them make much of their
"compassion" for the less fortunate, their "concern" for
the environment, and their being "anti-war" for example--as if these
were characteristics which distinguish them from people with opposite views on
public policy. The very idea that such an opponent of the prevailing
vision as Milton Friedman, for example, has just as much compassion for the poor
and the disadvantaged, that he is just as much appalled by pollution, or as
horrified by the sufferings and slaughter imposed by war on millions of
innocent men, women, and children--such an idea would be a very discordant note
in the vision of the anointed. If such an idea were fully accepted, this
would mean that opposing arguments on social policy were arguments about
methods, probabilities, and empirical evidence--with compassion, caring, and
the like being common features on both sides, thus cancelling out and
disappearing from the debate. That clearly is not the vision of the
annointed.
Why do the annointed develop this paranoid mentality?
Perhaps they are defending their self esteem against those who would
expose that they are wrong with opposing arguments.Perhaps they also are holding on to beliefs they want to believe
in this way.
Can Hiding the Truth be Good?
The vast majority of terrorist
attacks that are committed against civilians are created by Muslims. Won't
people become hostile to non-terrorist Muslims if they here this fact?
Isn't it better to keep quiet about the religion of terrorist perpetrators?
Here is what Mark Durie wrote:
Attempting to persuade
non-Muslim Westerners that Islam is not the problem actually makes it much
harder to formulate an effective strategy for countering jihadi insurgencies.
The aversion of the US State Department to acknowledge that Boko Haram was an
Islamic religious movement they only classified it as a banned terrorist
organization in late 2013 has had a crippling effect on America's ability to
make a difference in Nigeria (see
Nina Shea's analysis).
Boko Haram will not be contained by sending in hostage negotiation experts, or
making public statements about poverty, disadvantage and 'poor government
service delivery'. These are not the cause of all this hatred. Acknowledging the
potent religious roots of the insurgency movement is the basic first step in
shaping a credible response.
One of the ugly sides of
delusional thinking is that those who embrace delusions may turn against those
who reject them. This was mentioned by Sowell who talked about
demonization of the opposition by the deluded. This has been the case for
both Islam and Christianity
in regard to non-believers throughout history.
Jamie Glazov started a Frontpage Magazine
symposium, The
Radical Lies of Aids (6/3/05) with the following introduction:
Back
in the early 1980s, when the AIDS epidemic was just starting to break out in
the three gay communities (San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York), David
Horowitz was one of the few individuals who stood up and publicly opposed gay
leaders' efforts to subvert the public health system and conceal the nature of
the epidemic. Specifically, in the name of "gay liberation," gay
leaders denied that sexually transmitted AIDS was almost exclusively caused by
promiscuous anal sex, refused to close sexual "bathhouses" which were
the breeding grounds of AIDS, opposed testing and contact tracing which were
the traditional and proven public health methods for containing epidemics, and
promoted the false idea that AIDS was an "equal opportunity virus"
when in fact it was a virus threatening very specific communities -- gays and
intravenous drug users. For speaking truth to gay power, he was widely
condemned by radical activists who demonized him and caricatured his warnings
as, among other things, homophobic prejudice. As Horowitz has written in these
pages, the success of the gay radicals resulted in a ballooning
epidemic that has killed some 300,000 Americans, the majority of them young gay
men. The AIDS catastrophe, as he wrote in A Radical Holocaust, a chapter in The Politics
of Bad Faith, is a metaphor for all
the catastrophes that utopians have created.
Why did the AIDs activists do
this? One reason is they wanted to have sexual bathhouses. Another
is that they wanted heterosexuals to be motivated to fight AIDS and thought
that if it was considered a gay disease, heterosexuals would not make as much
as an effort to eradicate it. Also gays did not want to be seen as the
spreaders of disease.
Worldnetdaily posted an
article about Lesbian gang rapes of girls and how homosexual groups attempt to
keep this information from the public.The following is an excerpt from Payback for expos
on 'dyke' gang rapes 7/9/07:
"The
Eyewitness News Everywhere" report in Memphis documented incidents of
gangs known as GTOs, or "Gays" Taking Over, attacking
schoolgirlsOn the Memphis report,
Deputy Beverly Cobb of the Shelby County Gang Unit said lesbian gang members
"will sodomize [with sex toys] and will force [young schoolgirls] to do
all sexual acts. They are forcing themselves on our young girls in all our
schools."
The report included a long list of Memphis-area
schools where such incidents were documented.
The gang members, Cobb said,
"carry weapons they will use them quicker than any male that I've ever
come upon to try and fight them you'll get hurt."
Reports also said in some of the locations the
organizations called themselves DTOs, or Dykes Taking Over.
But the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation,
which had tried to suppress the Memphis report before it aired, issued a
statement charging the reporting was "without one solid statistic or
credible source."
Rashad Robinson, GLAAD's senior director of media
programs, called the reporting "inaccurate tabloid journalism" and
said it "perpetuates dangerous stereotypes about lesbians and feeds a
climate of homophobia, anti-gay discrimination and violence." ..
"All they wanted to do was shut down the
story," LaBarbera told WND. "This epitomizes the selfishness of the
gay activists." ..
GLAAD contacted the station managers and after a
private preview concluded it was "shockingly defamatory."
"They are taking the line that there's no other
side," LaBarbera said. "If you read that GLAAD release about
perpetuating negative stereotypes, you can't write anything negative about any
homosexuals..It's a stunning bit of
crude bullying. Here you have girls being raped by other girls, and somehow
GLAAD manages to turn the homosexual lobby into the victims."
Kermit
Gosnell is a doctor who, since 1979, has run an abortion clinic called the
Womens Medical Society in West Philadelphia.
Gosnell performed multiple abortions at 24.5 weeks, and the grand
jury report found that many of those procedures underestimated the period of
gestation. One Gosnell employee estimated that about 40 percent of the clinics
abortions occurred after 24 weeks. Gosnell, the grand jury found, killed the
babies born alive in his clinic. Gosnell had a simple solution for the
unwanted babies he delivered: he killed them, the report said. He didnt call
it that. He called it ensuring fetal demise. The way he ensured fetal demise
was by sticking scissors into the back of the babys neck and cutting the spinal
cord.
I say we didnt write
more because the only abortion story most outlets ever cover in the news pages
is every single threat or perceived threat to abortion rights,...
Political pressure by pro-choice groups may be why Gosnell continued as long as
he did. Many believe the trial had not been covered because of the medias
inherent political bias. Tim Graham of the Media Research Center. said that We
believe the media want to prevent public-relations damage to the abortion
industry, in the same way we believe the media want to inflict public-relations
damage on other institutions say, the Catholic Church.
The psychiatrist Kenneth
Levin wrote a book titled The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege
in which he discusses the self destructive delusions of Israeli society.
He wrote about the Israeli belief that if they blame themselves and make
concessions they can get the Arabs to like them. Dr. Levine wrote:
the
delusion - based on exhaustion with the siege and a desperate and overwhelming
desire for its end - that the right self-abnegations by Israel, the right mix
of territorial and spiritual retreat, can win Israel the peace it desires no
matter how much the objective evidence of words and deeds by the other side
indicates otherwise.
Dr. Levine also wrote about the delusion that
Israeli aid to the Arabs could stop Arab hate. He wrote:
delusional
grandiosity was also apparent, as in arguments that Arab quiescence could be
won by Israel's proffering benefits to Arab partners in economic,
environmental, medical, and other endeavors... Such arguments ignore, of
course, the relative inconsequentiality of the economic strength of Israel,
however impressive for a country of six million, and the relative
insignificance of opportunities potentially provided by cooperation with
Israel, in the context of the vast Arab world of over a quarter billion
souls. They ignore the obvious consideration that hostility to Israel may
have a utility in the domestic and inter-Arab politics of Arab governments that
far outweighs in those governments' calculations the benefits any rapprochement
with Israel might provide. They ignore the fact that the fundamentalist
threat to so-called moderate regimes is another reason for those regimes to
keep Israel at arm's length. They ignore the example of Egypt, which has
reneged on virtually all of the numerous accords touching on economic cooperation
that were part of the 1978 Camp David treaty.
Both the self-deprecating and the grandiose
distortions of reality have a common source: A wish to believe Israel to be in
control of profoundly stressful circumstances over which it, unfortunately, has
no real control...
Dr. Levin also wrote an article about how
the delusions of Peace Now in Israel stemmed from a desire that they could
control and change the situation with the Arabs.
He wrote:
The Peace Now conviction that Israels Arab adversaries
were now receptive to peace and Israel need only make sufficient concessions
was not prompted by the recent opening of talks with Egypt. In fact, Egypt
was vehemently condemned and ostracized by all other Arab states for its
negotiations with Israel. The rest of the Arab League continued to adhere to
the principles embraced in Khartoum in the wake of the 1967 war: "no
negotiations, no recognition, no peace."
The impetus to the Peace Now stance was essentially exhaustion with the
ongoing Arab war against Israel and wishful thinking. Those attracted to the
organization were people unwilling to reconcile themselves to the reality
that Israels Arab adversaries were in control of deciding whether there
would be peace, and that, with few exceptions, their decision, as
demonstrated in words and deeds, was against Israels existence. The members
of Peace Now instead embraced the delusion, and promoted to the wider
Israeli and global public the fraud, that control of the situation was
really in Israel's hands and that sufficient concessions would inexorably
win peace.
Peace Now's inverting of reality is dramatically illustrated by Bar-On in
his introduction to his history of the Peace Movement. He declares that it
is "a moral obligation - for Israel to resolve the hundred-year conflict
with its Arab neighbors." The statement is remarkable for its lack of
qualification. It does not say that it is Israel's moral obligation to be
alert and responsive to changes of sentiment on the other side and possible
opportunities for diminishing or resolving the conflict, or even that Israel
must not only react to such potential opportunities but must actively
explore for them and seek to promote them. Rather, it implies that Israel is
capable by its own actions of bringing about peace and that if the conflict
remains unresolved it is because Israel has failed to meet its moral
obligation.
The belief that appeasement can bring
peace is one that has been proven wrong by history over and over again but is a
belief that guides much of American and Israeli foreign policy. This is
discussed further on the appeasement web page of
this web site. The United States appeases the Saudis in an effort to keep
the oil flowing and to avoid a solid block of Arab countries joining with Iraq.
If you are a woman unfortunate enough
to have had children with a Saudi Muslim and he decides to leave with the kids
to Saudi Arabia, don't expect any help from the U.S. State Department in
getting them back. Pat Roush wrote a book about her experiences trying to
bring her children back to America called At Any Price.
A Saudi told Pat Roush:
Mrs.
Roush, your government doesnt want you, and your State Department will not
help you. You will see your children if and when we decide.
Roush told WorldNetDaily (3/31/03) that:
The
U.S. State Department has worked hand-in-glove with the Saudi Arabian
government to keep my innocent daughters captive inside Saudi Arabia,
They have deliberately thwarted all my efforts to have my daughters, who were
illegally stolen from me, brought back to America where they were born. The
State Department not only destroyed all my deals that were arranged with the
Saudis to return my girls, but they have participated in cover-ups, lied to
Congress, and taken sides with the Saudis.
and that
There
are hundreds, maybe thousands, of American woman and children inside Saudi
Arabia who cannot leave. They are terrified of being killed or beaten by
either their Saudi husbands or the Saudi government. They told this to
Congressman Burton last year. One woman told Burtons aide, 'My husband told me
he would bury me alive and let my children watch me die.' Another begged,
'Please, just put me and my children in the belly of the military plane and get
us out of here.'
Roush has asserted for years that the State
Department has an alternative agenda in protecting its relationship with the
oil-rich kingdom which has military bases critical for the coalition's
operation in Iraq and deliberately works to suppress all "bad news"
concerning the Saudis.
Roush wrote a brief to the UN Human Rights
Commission about this situation. The brief notes a male family member who
so wishes can keep a girl or woman within the confines of her home virtually
under "house arrest" for her entire life. Out of fear that their
abducted daughters and wives will escape or that foreign officials or others
will try to "recapture" them, Saudi fathers and husbands typically
prevent them from using the telephone. And in the rare case that visitation
rights are allowed, they're under strict rules and usually supervised by male
relatives.
The brief concludes the abductions and the
aftermath constitute a contemporary form of slavery, which cries for
implementation of international human rights law.
Yara (not her real name), an American businesswoman, was
arrested by Saudi Arabia's religious police for sitting with a male
colleague at Starbucks. (Foxnews
2/7/08)
Bush, President George W. Bush's younger brother and CEO of the education
software company Ignite!, was in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, speaking at an
economic forum hosted by King Abdullah for hundreds of influential business
leaders.
Yara, who does not want her last name revealed because of safety concerns,
is a managing partner at a Saudi financial company. She went to hear Bush
speak, and she said she invited him later to tour her company's offices, to
give him a sense of what life was really like for women living in the
capital.
"I was boasting about Riyadh, telling him it doesn't deserve its bad
reputation," she said. "I told him I never experienced any harassment. I'd
had no trouble as a woman. It was business as usual."
But on Monday, Yara learned that she had been wrong. She was thrown in jail,
strip-searched, threatened and forced to sign false confessions by the
kingdom's "Mutaween" police.
"When I was arrested, it was like going through an avalanche," she said.
"All of my beliefs were completely destroyed." ... Her family is
furious that the American Embassy hasn't done more to support her.
An embassy official said her case was being treated as "an internal Saudi
matter" and would not offer further comment.
According to Worldnetdaily (posted 6/18/03)
Sarah
Saga, 23, was kidnapped by her father as a child in 1985 and taken to the
kingdom (of Saudi Arabia). She has been prohibited from leaving there ever
since. As has happened with other Americans, Saga was married off to a Saudi
and bore her own children. Now the woman, who claims to have been abused by her
father, stepmother and husband, has sought refuge in the U.S. Consulate. She is
pleading with U.S. officials to help her and her children, age 3 and 5, travel
to America. According to her mother, Debra Dornier, however, Saga has been told
if she leaves, her Saudi-born children must stay in the kingdom.
Her
mother, Debra Dornier says while Saga was living with her father, "he beat
her; he threatened to kill her; he cut off her hair; he threw her up against a
wall ... because she talked to someone she shouldn't have."
She
had a cruel stepmother, Dornier asserted, who "locked her up for three
months."
"To
be able to get out of her room, she would have to kneel down and kiss her
stepmother's feet and beg her forgiveness so that she could eat," Dornier
said.
"I
was told I can't take my children out," Saga said. "I don't want to
leave them. They don't need to live the life I've lived. I am fighting all
the time to have them go with me."
Saying
she fears her father, Saga said she could not leave the consulate...
Dornier
spoke a message to her embattled daughter: "Sarah, I'm so proud of
Quoting
her daughter after reaching the consulate, Dornier said Saga told her:
"Mama, I can go for a walk. My kids played in a playground for the first
time. Mama, I'm free."
Pat
Roush, said that:
"The
State Department is doing everything it can to intimidate Sarah Saga inside the
consulate," Roush said, adding that U.S. officials told the woman
"that if she goes on American television, all her chances will be dashed
to get out of Saudi Arabia."
Roush
compared Saga to her own children's plight: "She did not ask to go to
Saudi Arabia. She did not ask to be married off and have children. And she
should not be forced to trade her freedom for her children."
Rep.
Dan Burton, R-Ind., also appeared on the program. Burton has been working to
help free American kidnap victims in the kingdom.
"There
are hundreds, probably thousands, of women over there who are kept not only as
hostages but literally as chattel. They are owned by their husbands,"
Burton said.
Saga did return to the U.S. but
was forced to leave her two young children behind in Saudi Arabia.
WorldnetDaily 7/10/03 quotes her as saying that
The
people at the consulate were acting as if they worked for the Saudis.
Saga noted her mother, Debra Dornier, was
told the U.S. could not risk relations with Saudi Arabia for one child. Also,
Saga said she was instructed to avoid the media because it might embarrass the
consulate.
Another example of the
perfidious behavior of the State Department was its coverup of the financing of
terror by the Saudis. After the news that Princess Haifa al-Faisal, wife
of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, had given many thousands
of dollars to a person connected to two of the 9/11 suicide hijackers, the
spokesman for the State Department Richard Boucher praised Saudi efforts to
prevent the financing of terrorism as "very strong" though he did
concede that "there is always more to be done." Daniel Pipes
wrote that after the News Colin Powell said (New York Post 12/3/02):
I
think it's unlikely that Prince Bandar or her Royal Highness would do anything
that would support terrorist activity.
and that:
The
president's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, promoted the self-serving Saudi
line that Osama bin Laden specifically recruited Saudi hijackers for the 9/11
attacks to "drive a wedge" between the United States and Saudi
Arabia. (This idea is palpably false: That 15 out of the 19 hijackers
were Saudi was not a political ploy but the results of the fact, as Stephen
Schwartz explains, that "Saudis are the largest national contingent by far
in al Qaeda.")
Robert Baer in his book Sleeping
with the Devil, wrote that when the Defense Policy Board, issued a report that
Saudi Arabia was "central to the self-destruction of the Arab world and
the chief vector of the Arab crisis and its outwardly directed aggression."
Powell was on the phone within hours assuring Bandar that such apostasy was not
the official stance of the Bush II administration. Baer writes:
To
reinforce the message, Bush II invited Bandar down to the family ranch at
Crawford, Texas, an honor usually reserved for the heads of state.
Baer wrote (Sleeping with the
Devil p166):
Washington
fiddles and pretends Riyadh won't burn, watching passively as wealthy Saudis
channel hundreds of millions of dollars to radical groups in hopes of buying
protection. Washington pretends that all the loudspeakers in all the
mosques throughout all the kingdom that are blaring out their messages of hate
against the West haven't been paid for with contributions from the royal family
that America so readily declares to be its best friend and ally in the Middle
East. ... Ex-presidents, former prime ministers, onetime senators and
members of Congress and Cabinet members walk around with their hands out,
rarely slowing down because most of them know that this charade can go on only so
long. The trick is to get on that last plane loaded with gold before the
SAM launchers are set up around Riyadh International.
FBI Agent Robert Wright
uncovered a wide network of Hamas and al Qaeda financiers across the United
States. In August 1999 his investigation was shut down. Debbie
Schlussel the author of an expose about this in the New York Post (FBI Takes a
Dive on Terror 7/14/04) was told by FBI personnel that the reason given to Mr.
Wright was that his work was too embarrassing for the Saudis. The fact
that his investigation was shut down just as he was uncovering evidence that
Saudi banker Al Qadi was a banker for Al Qaeda confirms that the FBI is
appeasing the Saudis. Months before 9/11, Wright complained on several
occasions to FBI officials that Americans would die because of the closing of
his investigation and the incompetence of the FBI's International Terrorism
Unit. He was told to "let sleeping dogs lie." Debbie
Schlussel writes "Those "sleeping dogs" after all, were known terrorists
walking free. John Roberts then the chief of the FBI's Office of
Professional Responsibility said that FBI Assistant Director Robert Jordan and
Deputy Assistant Director Jody Weis told him to "deceive,
misrepresent and hide" from Justice Department investigators "the
facts of this matter".
According to WorldnetDaily (Saudi Al Qaeda Ties
Excised From Congressional Report 7/24/03) an 800-page report on the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks, that had been completed on December 2002 and a companion
report by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, was delayed for months
because of the information it had regarding Saudi support of Al Qaeda.
According to WorldnetDaily:
The
administration kept the report quiet for six months and the commission said the
White House withheld documents required for the investigation.
In addition 28 pages on Saudi
complicity in the attacks of 9/11 were blacked out. The top Republican
senator involved in creating the congressional report, Richard Shelby, said
Sunday on NBC that 95 percent of the classified pages could be released without
jeopardizing national security (Associated Press 7/29/03).
THE
blacking out of 28 pages on Saudi complicity in the 9/11 attacks isn't the only
hole in Congress' report on the terrorist atrocity: The rest of the report
skirts issues and evidence that point directly to the desert oil kingdom.
Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar were two
of the 9/11 hijackers. Steve Schwartz writes:
Some
time before 9/11, the National Security Agency had information linking al-Hazmi
to Osama bin Laden but failed to hand the CIA what it knew about him and
al-Mihdhar.
The
CIA learned that al-Hazmi, whom it had identified as a "terrorist,"
had come to the United States but did not inform the FBI.
According to the congressional report Omar al
Bayoumi a Saudi known to have terrorist connections, befriended al-Mihdhar and
al-Hazmi while they were in San Diego. Steve Schwartz points out that
Omar al Bayoumi was named by the U.S. media as the conduit for the charitable
donations of Princess Haifa of Saudi Arabia and he asks:
Why
no mention whatever of Princess Haifa in the report's narrative on
al-Bayoumi...
The
same claim of "national security" that justified blacking out the
Saudi chapter?
The
report simply fails to follow up on another shocking disclosure: Al-Bayoumi was
an employee of the Saudi Civil Aviation Authority, and his immediate superior
in that body had a bin Laden connection.
The
Saudi Civil Aviation Authority would be the ideal center for a hijacking
conspiracy: Its employees would know everything, from Saudi attendance at
specific U.S. flight schools, to the regulations for carrying sharp objects
aboard airliners, to the fuel capacities of long-range flights.
So
why hasn't our government focused a bright light on this agency? Is it not
possible that the agency was tasked with the 9/11 atrocity from higher up in
the Saudi regime?
In August 2001, customs agent
Jose Melendez-Perez turned away a Saudi national named Mohammed al-Qahtani at
Orlando International Airport despite being warned by coworkers that he risked
his job because of guidelines to treat Saudi citizens with kid gloves.
Officials now believe al-Qahtani was the intended 20th hijacker. (New
York Post 1/27/04). This kid glove policy toward the Saudis may be the
reason that several of the hijackers, including ringleader Mohamed Atta,
entered the country despite having fraudulent visas and suspicious
stories.
The State Department ignores Saudi violations
of religious freedom and in fact acquiesces to Saudi demands regarding religion
. The U.S. Commission on Religious Freedom an organization
independent of the State Department issued a report in 2003 on the status of
religious liberties worldwide. Julia Duin, in an article in the
Washington Times wrote (Saudis Top Religious Violators, 5/2003):
Commissioners
...criticized the kingdom for "harassment, detention, arrest,
torture" and deportation of foreign Christians employed in the
country. The country's "mutawaa" religious police metes out
similar treatment to Shi'ite Muslim clergy and scholars, they added. The
commission also took the country to task for "offensive and discriminatory
language" disparaging Jews, Christians and non-Wahhabi Muslims found in
government-sponsored school textbooks, in Friday sermons preached in prominent
mosques, and in state-controlled Saudi newspapers.
One
theme in the report was American acquiescence to Saudi demands, such as a
recent U.S. Postal Service prohibition against mailing materials "contrary
to the Islamic faith" to U.S. troops in the Middle East. As recently as
March, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell failed to designate Saudi Arabia as a
"country of particular concern (CPC)," the diplomatic term for the
most severe violators of human rights. "We don't understand how one
could not name Saudi Arabia as a CPC," Mr. Young said. "Saudi Arabia
has been explicitly left out of any [State Department] citations."
Daniel Pipes writes that this
undue solicitation for Saudi feelings may be the result of bribes. He
writes that the tie to Saudi Arabia is premised on:
accommodating
the kingdom's wishes and in return, being plied with substantial sums of
money...A culture of corruption...pervades the upper reaches of the White House
and several departments.
John Loftus, a former attorney
of the Dept of Justice was quoted as saying (Have the United States and Britain
willfully Betrayed Israel? 11/27/1998, D. Maimon) :
"State
Department disease"greed and self-interest have since the beginning of
Mideast conflict between Jews and Arabs, infected powerful bureaucrats,
perverting their sense of right and wrong. The ever present temptation to
enrich oneself and one's family through Arab oil-related favors and industry,
has turned the political sympathies of countless officials in the State
Department and CIA away from Israel.
Robert Baer, in his book,
Sleeping With the Devil wrote about the history of Saudi money in
Washington. He wrote that Nixon Treasury Secretary William Simon went to
Riyadh hoping to sell T-bills and bonds.
The
idea was to get the Saudis to underwrite the U.S. budget deficit. Eager
to become America's lender of last resort, with all the leverage that implied,
the Saudis took the bait and happily swallowed it. Washington knows fast
money when it sees it, but it had never seen anything like this. The
cookie jar was bottomless. It wasn't long before the Saudis were
spreading money everywhere, like manure on a winter's field. The White
House put out its hand to fund pet projects that Congress wouldn't fund or
couldn't afford, from a war in Afghanistan to one in Nicaragua. Every
Washington think tank, from the supposedly nonpartisan Middle East Institute to
the Meridian International Center, took Saudi money. Washington's boiler
room - the K street lobbyists, PR firms and lawyers - lived off the
stuff. So did its bluestocking charities, like the John F. Kennedy Center
for the Performing Arts, the Children's National Medical Center, and every
presidential library of the last thirty years... There's hardly a living
former assistant secretary of state for the Near East; CIA director; White
House staffer; or member of Congress who hasn't ended up on the Saudi payroll
in one way or another, or so it sometimes seems.
The United States has sold the
Saudis a powerful airforce with the condition that the Saudis keep their
aircraft away from the Israeli border. The Saudis have placed F15s near
the Israeli border and on October 2003, launched a major air and naval exercise
in the northwestern part of the kingdom near the Israeli border with their F15s
and AWACs. The United States promised Israel that should the Saudis
deploy their aircraft near Israel, it would withhold spare parts from the
Saudis. That has not happened.
In addition to the U.S.
not facing the danger they are creating to Israel by arming the Saudis, members
of the Israeli government refuse to face it as well. A member of
Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA)
wrote that (Freeman Broadcast 10/22/03):
It
should be noted that government elements outside the IDF have consistently
followed a policy of underrating/ignoring security risks associated with Saudi
Arabia and Egypt. Adding the Saudis with their considerable quantities of
advanced American weapons disturbs Arab-Israeli balance of power estimates used
to promote various withdrawal schemes. Highlighting Egypt - with their
gross violation of their treaty obligations to stop weapons smuggling along
with massive arms acquisitions, serves to weaken the value of the "land
for peace" precedent of the Egyptian-Israeli treaty. It is feared by
critics that a dangerous combination of wishful thinking combined with an
ideologically driven desire to avoid hurting the prospects of various
withdrawal schemes has seriously interfered with the decision making process of
these government elements.]
According to Adam Ciralsky, the
CIA lie detector test stereotypes Jews as security risks. Ciralsky
charges the CIA with carrying out a purge of its Jewish employees by using an
extraordinarily antisemitic security profile which won't allow clearance for
employees who speak Hebrew well, give money to Zionist organizations, attend an
Orthodox synagogue or visit Israel frequently, on the grounds that they pose a
security risk.
When the author of Terrorist
Hunter worked together with Green Quest, an agency of U.S. Customs to
uncover the SAAR network with which the Saudis financed terrorist in the United
States, the FBI and the CIA put them all under surveillance. The author
writes:
It's
a terrible sensation to know that you have no privacy... and no security.
That strange clicking of the phones that wasn't there before...the
oh-so-crudely opened mail at home and in the office...and the same man I spied
in my neighborhood supermarket, who was also on the train I took to Washington
a week ago...Life can be miserable when you know that someone's always
breathing down your neck...
I
don't know for certain what's the deal with the CIA investigating the SAAR
investigators, but it sure feels as if someone up in that agency doesn't like
the idea that the Saudi Arabian boat is rocked... investigating and giving the
people behind the raids a hard time is a most efficient way of making sure the
SAAR investigation stops there... Which, come to think of it, may be the reason
the government looks so unfavorably on the lawsuit filed by 9-11 victims'
families against several Saudi entities and individuals, accusing them of funding
terrorism and seeking damages.
According to Worldnetdaily
(Wahabi Lobby Polarizing FBI 7/13/03)
Sources
say the FBI has silenced a senior counterterrorism agent, Robert Wright of the
Chicago field office, for exposing how senior figures in the bureau blocked
investigations of al-Qaida terror networks inside the United States prior to
Sept. 11, and for complaining that a Muslim special agent, Gamel Abdel-Hafiz,
refused to wear a wire when questioning terror suspects, allegedly saying,
"A Muslim doesn't record another Muslim."
top Justice and FBI officials turned down
Minneapolis FBI agents' requests for a special counterintelligence surveillance
warrant to open the computer hard drive of bin Laden associate Zacarias
Moussaoui. An Eagan, Minn. Flight school tipped them off that the French
Algerian sought instruction on steering a Boeing 747, but not taking off or
landing. French intelligence alerted the FBI that Moussaoui, in custody since
Aug. 17 on immigration violations, has ties to terrorist groups.
But, under Bush's and Ashcroft's new
rules against secret evidence and profiling competing against Democrats like
Bonior for the Arab Muslim vote that information was deemed insufficient for
a warrant. According to Newsweek and MSNBC, when agents finally cracked into
Moussaoui's hard drive, after the attacks, they found information detailing
plans for terrorist attacks. Moussaoui, trained in Afghani camps, has been
linked to hijacking-leader Mohammad Atta's roommate, and is now believed to
have been a would-be hijacker on Flight 93 that crashed near Pittsburgh.
The FBI agent who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui weeks before Sept.
11 told a federal jury Monday that his own superiors were guilty of
"criminal negligence and obstruction" for blocking his attempts to
learn whether the terrorist was part of a larger cell about to hijack planes in
the United States.
During intense cross-examination, Special Agent Harry Samit - a
witness for the prosecution - accused his bosses of acting only to protect
their positions within the FBI. . . .
"They obstructed it," a still-frustrated Samit told the
jury, calling his superiors' actions a calculated management decision
"that cost us the opportunity to stop the attacks." . . .
Samit said that officials at the FBI headquarters in Washington
rejected a series of attempts to obtain a warrant to search Moussaoui's
personal belongings.
Had the belongings been opened before Sept. 11, agents
would have found numerous small knives, jumbo-jet pilot manuals, rosters of
flight schools and other clues that might have helped them understand the Sept.
11 plot.
Samit wanted to seek a criminal search warrant, and later one from
a special intelligence court. But officials at the FBI headquarters refused to
let him, because they did not believe he had enough evidence to prove Moussaoui
was anything but a wealthy man who had come to this country to
follow his dream of becoming a pilot. . . .
He said that as Washington kept telling him there was "no
urgency and no threat," his FBI superiors sent him on "wild goose
chases."
For a while, Samit said, they did not even believe Moussaoui was
the same person whom French intelligence sources had identified as a Muslim
extremist. Samit said that FBI headquarters wanted him and his
fellow agents to spend days poring through Paris phone books to make sure they
had the right Moussaoui.
Samit said that when he asked permission to place an
Arabic-speaking federal officer as a plant inside Moussaoui's cell to find out
what Moussaoui was up to, Washington said no.
And he said that when he prepared a lengthy memo about
Moussaoui for Federal Aviation Administration officials, Washington deleted key
sections, including a part connecting Moussaoui with Al Qaeda leader Osama bin
Laden.
Samit said he was so frustrated and so convinced that attacks were
imminent that he bypassed FBI officials in Washington and met with an FAA
officer he knew in Minneapolis. But he said FAA agents never got back to him,
and never asked to see a pair of small knives, similar to box cutters, that
Samit had found in Moussaoui's pocket and in his car.
Samit further described how he took it upon himself to cable the
Secret Service that the president's safety might be in jeopardy. He recounted
in the cable how Moussaoui had told him he hoped to be able to one day fly a
Boeing 747 from London's Heathrow Airport to New York, and how he also hoped to
visit the White House one day.
Samit said he warned the Secret Service that those desires could
spell disaster. "If he seizes an airplane from Heathrow to New York
City," Samit alerted the Secret Service, "it will have the fuel on
board to reach D.C."
Samit said he never heard back from the Secret Service either.
On February 12, 2007 Solejman Talovic a
Bosnian Muslim refugee opened fire in Trolley Square in Salt Lake City.Police and the FBI did
not search Solejmans computer.It
seems they dont want to find out that he was a terrorist.Or perhaps they already know .Debbie Schlussel received the following
email from one of her readers:
I read your article on the terrorist attack at Trolley Square in
Salt Lake City with interest. I knew as soon as I spoke with my friends Monday
night in law enforcement (the ones who actually killed the shooter) that this
was a terrorist attack.
According to my friends on the SWAT team who responded to the
scene first, the terrorist killed four individuals inside a gift shop
Jihad execution style. He actually made them kneel down. Then he put the gun
barrel to the back of their heads and killed each one of them one by one.
The day after the shooting, I observed a man dressed as a Muslim
cleric being arrested by the West Valley Police on his way to the Kaadeeja
Islamic Center in West Valley City. My friends in law enforcement confirmed
that this man is the Uncle of Sulejman Talovic.
Mark Steyn wrote an article
detailing how subservient and accomodating the United Statesis to the
Saudis. He wrote in (Bush and The Saudi Princess Freeman Center Broadcast
12/4/02):
On
20 September, George W. Bush said, 'You're either with us or you're with the
terrorists.' A couple of weeks later, a small number of us began pointing out
the obvious: the Saudis are with the terrorists. But the US-Saudi relationship
is now so unmoored from reality that it's all but impossible to foresee how it
could be tethered to anything as humdrum as the facts. Seven of the nine
biggest backers of al-Qa'eda are Saudi, and Riyadh has no intention of doing a
thing about it; but the White House insists, as it did on Monday, that the
Kingdom remains - all together now - 'a good partner in the war on terrorism'.
Fifteen out of the 19 terrorists were Saudi, but the state department's 'visa
express' programme for young Saudi males remained in place for almost a year
after 11 September and, if it weren't for public outrage, Colin Powell would
reintroduce it tomorrow. The overwhelming majority - by some accounts, 80 per
cent - of the detainees at Guantanamo are Saudi, but the new rules requiring
fingerprinting of Arab male visitors to the US apply to Iraqis, Libyans,
Syrians, Sudanese, Lebanese, Algerians, Tunisians, Yemenis, Bahrainis,
Moroccans, Omanis, Qataris, but not Saudis...At the specific request of the
Saudi government, no Arabic speakers are appointed to the post (of U.S.
ambassador to Saudi Arabia), a unique self-handicap by the US...We have a huge
Saudi-financed pile of American corpses, the Saudis are openly uncooperative,
and meanwhile back at the ranch it's ribs with Princess Haifa.
The behavior of 16 Saudi
employees who came as diplomats but who taught at the Institute of Islamic and
Arabic Sciences in America (IIASA) in Fairfax, Va. was too much even for the
State Department who expelled them (Perfidious Princes, Steven Schwartz, New
York Post 2/11/04). Al-Ahmed a Saudi dissident revealed the radical
nature of the texts being taught at that institute. One the
Arabic-language textbooks was titled "A Muslim's Relations with Non-Muslims,
Enmity or Friendship," by Dr. Abdullah al-Tarekee. The author wrote,
"unbelievers, idolaters and others like them must be hated and despised .
. . Qur'an forbade taking Jews and Christians as friends, and that
applies to every Jew and Christian, with no consideration as to whether they
are at war with Islam or not." One of the Saudi employees, a cleric
named Jibreen, called on Saudis to go north of the Iraqi border to attack
Coalition troops. Jibreen also praised Osama bin Laden only months ago,
calling on God to "aid him and bring victory to him and by him."
Unfortunately radical Saudi textbooks fill American Mosques according to a study published in January 2005 by Freedom House. Daniel Pipes
summarized the study's conclusions as follows:
These writings...
Reject Christianity as a valid faith: Any Muslim who
believes that churches are houses of God and that God is worshipped therein
is an infidel.
Insist that Islamic law be applied: On a range of
issues, from women (who must be veiled) to apostates from Islam (who should be
killed), the Saudi publications insist on full enforcement of the Sharia in
America.
See non-Muslims as the enemy: Be dissociated from
the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for
support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to
Islamic law.
See the United States as hostile territory: It is
forbidden for a Muslim to become a citizen of a country governed by infidels
because this is a means of acquiescing to their infidelity and accepting all
their erroneous ways.
Prepare for war against the United States: To be
true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allahs way. It is the
duty of the citizen and the government.
Dr. Yassin
Al-Khatib, a professor of Islamic law at Saudi Arabias Um Al-Qura University,
declared on Saudi/UAE Al-Majd TV on May 10 that, the fact that [the U.S.]
entered [Iraq] makes it every Muslim's duty to go out against them, not only
the Iraqis Jihad today has become an individual duty that applies to each and
every Muslim When the Muslims fought in Afghanistan they destroyed the Soviet
Union It collapsed, and Allah willing so will [the U.S.] collapse. Many
other Saudis have made similar calls for Jihad against the U.S. (Saudi
Terror Conference, Part IV by Steven Stalinsky Frontpagemag.com 2/1/05).
And as long as we call terrorist supporters
"friends and allies," we are headed for disaster. We should
never allow such a calamity as the 9-11 attacks to happen again.
Countries that sponsor, fund, and educate for jihad should not be allowed to
extort any deals from us, either through the ridiculous threat that if a Middle
Eastern regime is destabilized a worse one follow in its place or through oil
related blackmail. No regime could be worse than one that pays for jihad.
A
roadmap for Middle East peace was developed by the State Department and the
European Union, Russia and the United Nations. Tom DeLay, leader in the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives, warned President. Bush against
pressing Israel to ease its crackdowns in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and to
withdraw from some settlements, as called for in the peace plan. He said:
The Israelis dont need to change course. They dont
need to travel the path of weakness as defined by the neo-appeasers,
He called the road
map:
A confluence of deluded thinking between European
elites, elements within the State Department bureaucracy and a significant
segment of the American intellectual community.
Terrorism
that was supposed to stop with the roadmap continues. Naomi Ragen wrote
that
In a single day, we had two Jerusalem residents
axe-murdered near Hadassah, four soldiers killed by terrorists in Gaza, and a
man dead near Abraham's tomb.
In Israel a group of
historians (The
New Historians) decided that the way to bring peace and to improve the lot
of the Palestinian Arabs in the Middle East was to alter history. The idea
was that the way to peace was through Israeli territorial concessions and facts
that might lead to Israeli policy makers not to make those concessions should be
denied. Facts that might interfere could be that Jews had lived there
before and driven out, or Jews had bought the land or Arabs were likely to use
that land as a military base to attack Israel. The problem with distorting
history in this way is there is a reason policy makers pay attention or at least
should pay attention to facts. If the Arabs are likely to use the land as
a military base to attack Israel from, that won't bring peace. If the
Arabs had driven the Jews out in the past that means their intentions are not
peaceful and strengthening them with more territory in the Israeli heartland
could be suicidal. If you have an Arab population incited by and led by
evil leaders then the way to improve the lot of that population is to get rid of
those leaders not to empower those leaders with more territory. Another
way of understanding of why distorting history in this way to make peace and end
oppression is a bad idea is to to draw an analogy to a violent thief in prison.
That criminal is not free and if one reasoned the way the new Historians do, we
should end his oppression by lying about his past so that he will be released.
The consequences will be that he will resume stealing and murdering people.
Michael Ledeen when
askedWhy was the U.S. so unprepared for 9/11?
replied:
Lousy intelligence, driven
by many years of policy makers who didn't want to know what was really going
on, because they were not prepared to act against the terror masters.
They wanted to live in a
world of delusion in which there was no terrorist threat so they wouldnt have
to engage in military action against them.David Frum wrote an article in the National Post on Tuesday 10/9/07 in
which he discussed how the United States is afraid to treat Russia as the
threat it really is.He wrote:
Russia's
behaviour toward its former satellites has grown steadily more aggressive since
Vladimir Putin's arrival in power. This summer, Russia waged a weird cyber-war
against Estonia, jamming its Web sites and damaging the commerce of one of the
most wired nations in Europe. Russia is deploying missiles along its western
border in ways that Poles perceive as threatening.American policy-makers fear that taking precautions against
Russia will only provoke Russia. They worry that treating Russia as a potential
threat will hasten the transformation of Russia into an actual threat.
We have here a vicious cycle
in which the more Russia is threatening the more the West doesnt want to see
it as a threat and doesnt take the necessary defensive measures such as arming
Poland with a missile defense.
Fear
Dont want to antagonize enemy with defensive measures
.
Aggression
Enemy engages in aggression to intimidate and
dominate
Contempt
Enemy
sees one as week and easy to dominate
That didn't prevent Russia from invading Georgia in fact Georgia had trouble
getting arms because of concern other countries had about antagonizing Russia.
The Obama administration
wants voters to believe that they have defeated Al Qaeda and that overthrowing
Khadafy was a good thing. Daniel Greenfield
wrote:
While the intelligence
community was warning about the rise of Al Qaeda in the region, the White
House was trying to run an election on having defeated Al Qaeda and reformed
the Middle East with the Arab Spring. The intelligence professionals
remained unheard because what they were saying was too dangerous and
politically inconvenient.
The Obama administration
wants to get American troops out of Afghanistan. The problem is that the
Taliban are taking over again. The Obama administration doesn't want
American voters to know that because they could lose votes over that. They
might also be worried that they would be under pressure to continue an American
presence in Afghanistan. Lara Logan a woman who was
attacked while reporting in Egypt
gave a talk at the 2012 BGA luncheon in about the resurgence of the
Taliban in which she said:
We kept hearing the same thing time and time again
which is that there is no political reason for anybody to be talking to you
about this right now because if we talk about Al Qaeda in Afghanistan
doesn't that undermine the argument for leaving? and that was really a
problem for us. At one point we even had in writing from the U.S. military
that Al Qaeda and Afghanistan was off the table that they weren't even
prepared to talk about that which only made us more determined to talk about
it because When you're constantly knocked down when people are constantly
trying to bury you and you have the sense that you're on to something you
know that it's worthwhile. It's hard not to doubt yourself and you know that
at the end of the day you're going to be standing alone on the 50 yard line
in the super bowl right you're on premier of 60 minutes and you are saying
that nobody in the administration wants to hear. and a lot of people in the
United States military don't want out there... There's been a narrative
coming out of Washington over the last few years many of it driven by
Pakistani lobbying money and by Taliban apologists. One of my favorite
things to read about is how the Taliban today is so unlike the Taliban of
2001 they are just a more moderate gentler kinder Taliban who just can't
wait to see women in the workplace occupying an equal role in society and
great economic prosperity for all of Afghanistan and don't really want to
take us back 3000 years into that terrible terrible place that I witnessed
in 2001 when I went with the Afghan soldiers who retook Kabul from the
Taliban. You know it's such nonsense.
The video below shows Lara's talk.
Logan is right about the "kinder gentler
Taliban" being nonsense.
According to the New York Post:
Malala Yousafzai is fighting for her life in a
Pakistani hospital after a Taliban gunman boarded her school bus and shot
her and a fellow student in the head and neck. The Pakistani Taliban
who share the twisted ideology (as the countrys army chief put it) and
goals of its Afghan counterpart not only admitted responsibility for the
attempted murder, but boasted about it. Even more horrifying: The group
vowed that if she recovers, theyll shoot her again. And they wont stop
until shes dead. She has become a symbol of Western culture, said a
Taliban spokesman. Let this be a lesson.
Al Qaeda is carving
out its own state in Mali. Robert Spencer
wrote that Al Qaeda has had so much success that last Friday the French
launched airstrikes in hopes of stopping its advance and its consolidation of
power in the vast areas it already controls. After a French helicopter was
shot down the French expressed
surprise at how powerful the Al Qaeda forces in Mali were.
When the Al Aqsa Martyrs
Brigades terror group, took credit for firing a Qassam rocket along with Islamic
Jihad at Israeli population centers the Israeli media reported just that Islamic
Jihad had fired the rocket. The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is part of Fatah
which is run by Israel's so called peace partner Abbas. It may be that the
Israeli media does not want to jeopardize the "peace process" by revealing
that Abbas's group was behind the terrorist attacks. (Israeli Media Covering for
Peace Partner?
wnd.com 9/15/08)
Raymond Ibrahim points has
pointed out how American
media outlets ignore
or distort Islamic-inspired
violence. One example
is the coverage of the
Nigerian jihadist movement
Boko Haram. He wrote:
These jihadists have
publicly announced their
aim of cleansing Nigeria
of Christians and
establishing sharia law,
yet Western media
coverage consistently
ignores this aim and
casts the conflict as a
cycle of violence in
which both sides are
equally guilty. As
Ibrahim concludes, even
when Western media
report on violence
against Christians,
they employ an arsenal
of semantic games, key
phrases, convenient
omissions, and moral
relativism to promote
the anti-Western
narrative that Muslim
violence and intolerance
are products of anything
and everythingpoverty,
political and historical
grievances, or
territorial
disputesexcept Islam.
Michelle Malkin wrote an
article
(8/1/07) about how the human rights community ignored the plight of South
Korean Christians who went to Afghanistan on medical and humanitarian
missions.At the time of writing of
this paragraph they are being held hostage by the Taliban and two of them have
already been killed.One possible
reason for being silent about their plight is the desire to prevent military
action against the Taliban and get the United States out of Afghanistan and
Iraq.Part of doing this involves
discrediting Bush who made the decision to send the American military into both
countries.If the human rights
community makes noise about this the cruelty of the enemies who Bush fought becomes
apparent and his decisions become more justifiable in the public eye.Support for fighting the Taliban in
Afghanistan and terrorists in Iraq might increase.The United States has allowed much of the Christian community of
Iraq to be chased out.In both cases
the media hasnt said much and the human rights organizations have been
relatively silent.Perhaps it is
opposition to American involvement that is one of the factors behind this
silence.
President Bush in his
2002 State of the Union address described the North Korean, Iranian and Iraqi
regimes and their links to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction and said:
"States like these, and
their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the
peace of the world. By seekign weapons of mass destruction, these
regimes pose a grave adn growing danger... We will work closely with
our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials,
technology and expertise to make and deliver weaposn of mass destruction...
America will do what is necessary to ensure our national security."
Condoleeza Rice in her book No Higher Honor
wrote how the next morning the media focused almost exclusively on the phrase
"axis of evil." She wrote:
"We had for all intents
and purposes, some believed, declared war on North Korea, Iran and Iraq."
This is the kind of thinking that deters the
left from calling evil, evil. They are afraid we might go to war with it.
VA2 Creation of Delusion to Prevent Muslim From Turning
Against The West
Daniel Pipes wrote an excellent
article in
which he compiled examples of how the West goes to extreme and absurd lengths to
deny the Islamic roots of Islamic terrorism. Here are some of his
examples:
1990 assassination of Rabbi
Meir Kahane in New York: "A prescription drug for
depression."[6]
1991 murder of Makin Morcos in Sydney: "A robbery gone
wrong."
1993 murder of Reverend Doug Good in Western Australia:
An "unintentional killing."
1993 attack on foreigners at a
hotel in Cairo, killing ten: Insanity.[7]
Daniel Pipes discusses
several possible reasons for this including the fear that Muslims will feel that
they are being attacked if their faith is being mentioned as being responsible
for terrorism and feel that the West is at war with Islam and so will make war
with the West. The West would like moderate Muslims to help them against radical
Muslims. Unfortunately this results in the West giving vast quantities of
money to radical Muslims who pretend to be moderate Muslims in order to get them
to fight (or pretend to fight) radical Muslims who are honest about how radical
they are. It also leads to policies such as importing Muslim refugees in
order to rescue them from other Muslims. It leads to interference with
intelligence gathering so as not to discriminate against and anger Muslims.
Obama repeatedly has said that the barbaric acts done in the name of Islam have
nothing to do with Islam. Robert Spencer refutes that nonsense in the
video below.
Ezra Levant speaks about efforts to cover up the involvement of a Syrian
refugee in a rape in a Canadian pool and more in the video below.
Rape victims have actually been
told by British authorities not to mention the ethnicity of their
attackers .
Emma a vctim of Muslmi gang rapes in England went to the police for help.
The rapes continued after she reported it to police, as authorities told her it
was [her] word against his. The police had also lost the clothes she had been
raped in, leaving her with no evidence for a prosecution.
Eventually, her parents moved her out of the country.
Nobody wanted to stop it, and that was the only way they could stop it, Emma
said.
Ms. Hopkins told Emma that other parents of victims of Muslim grooming gangs had
moved their daughters abroad, saying moving girls to different parts of the
country was ineffective as the rape gangs are networked between cities.
VB Creating the Delusion of Moral Relativism to Avoid War
The
problem with believing in evil is it creates an obligation to fight it.There is an incentive, therefore, for those
who wish to avoid war to blur the difference between good and evil, to argue
that the evil people really arent that evil and we, are at least in part
responsible for the evil behavior of the other.At the time of this writing the left wing in the United States
are worried that the U.S. might go to war with Iran to prevent it from
manufacturing nuclear weapons.A movie
called 300 that portrays the Persians (what are now called Iranians) as evil
oppressors and tells of how 300 Spartans stood upagainst them for their freedom has been criticized by the
left.Benjamin Shapiro wrote in regard
to the movie (wnd.com 3/14/07)
the left doesn't like it at all. Many reviewers
have panned "300" not on artistic grounds, or even on grounds of
inanity, but on the grounds that the Spartans in the film are a bunch of
jackbooted thugs; that the tyranny they fight is less tyrannical than Sparta;
that good vs. evil is too simplistic.
In order to
defeat a Nazified enemy it is necessary for a time to occupy that enemies
territory and to stop the incitement so that the process of deNazification can
take place.No one wants to be labeled
as an occupier or as supporting occupation a word that has come to mean the
height of evil.Israel under pressure
to stop occupying the south of Lebanon withdrew which gave Hezbollah the
opportunity to build fortifications and ultimately defeat Israels attempt to
dislodge them from Lebanon.The same
thing is happening in Gaza (I write this on 3/15/07).David
Hornick wrote about this:
Incredibly, the same scenario of an Iranian-backed
buildup is repeating itself while Israel is passive and the U.S. appears not in
the least perturbed. And while before summer 2006 Hezbollah rocket attacks and
kidnap attempts sometimes drew an Israeli response, the present rocket attacks
from Gaza find the Olmert government, crippled by unpopularity and scandals,
not lifting a finger.
Again, whatever the unnecessary costs arising from
Israel having disengaged from Gaza and turned it over to Hamas in the first
place, a decisive Israeli action in Gaza would score a victory for the West.
Again, it would not be possible without some loss of Arab civilian lifeand in
this case, not just Lebanese, but Palestinians, beloved of the media and
darlings of dhimmified Europe (it goes without saying that losses of Israeli
life pose no PR problems for anyone). Again, genuine Israeli victory would
entail some measure of Israeli occupation of the territoryalso an ultimate
evil in the contemporary ethos, far worse than Iranian buildups.
So instead, Jerusalem and Washington prefer to keep
their heads in the sand and chase diplomatic phantasms while the arms keep
pouring over the border and the bunkers keep getting dug.
Rich Lowry in an article titled Dithering
Dialogue: Deluded Outreach to Iran 3/31/07 wrote:
No act of warfare
against the civilized world, no defiance of the United Nations, no violation of
international norms, no brazen lie is ever enough to mark Iran as unworthy of
outreach, dialogue and the art of sweet persuasion.If talking with the
Iranians doesn't work, it is because we aren't talking to them enough; or the
wrong people (i.e., not the United States) are talking to them; or when we're
talking to them, we aren't saying the right things; or we haven't talked to
them long enough - or maybe they don't realize just how very sincere we are in
our talking. But, surely, sometime soon, if we just keep talking and offering
to talk, all these "misunderstandings" will fade away.
On March 3, 2006 an Iranian student drove into students in the pit, a
pedestrian Plaza at the University of North Carolina in an attempt to kill
them. Derek Poarch, chief of the university's police department, told the
Associated Press news agency Mr Taheri-azar had said he wanted to "avenge
the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world". Tony Blankley in
an article titled Media won't report
radical Islamic event, Jewishworldreview.com 3/8/2006 wrote:
Neither the university nor most of the media has been willing to
characterize this event as a terrorist attempt by a radical Muslim. Mr. Colmes,
on "Hannity and Colmes" seemed to express genuine puzzlement as to
why it mattered whether we called it that or merely an act of violence.
Similarly, the attack at the Los Angeles International Airport a few years ago
was for nine months just called a violent attack, before it was finally
characterized by police as a radical Muslim act of terrorism.
I have been in contact with British politicians who tell me that there is
increasing radical Muslim street violence in Britain that is explicitly
motivated by radical Islam but is not reported or characterized as such. Even
in its cleansed versions, I am told, these incidents are being extremely
underreported.
In Antwerp last month, according to the reporter Paul Belien, rioting Moroccan
"youths" went on a rampage destroying cars and beating up reporters,
but the police were instructed not even to stop them or arrest them. According
to an anonymous policeman, "An ambulance was told to switch off its siren
because that might provoke the Moroccans." This event, too, was under
reported, or not reported at all in American media.
And of course, last October in Paris and other French cities, hundreds of
buildings were torched and tens of thousands of cars burned by Muslim
"youths" through weeks of rioting, while both the French government
and most of the "responsible" experts denied there was any radical
Muslim component to the greatest urban violence to hit France since World War.
Phyllis Chesler wrote about the attack on 17 year old Kippah wearing Rudy
Haddad who while walking in a Jewish quarter, was set upon by 15-30 African
immigrants. She wrote (6/25/08):
No one is saying whether they are Muslims or not. Alright,
Martians from Africa beat Haddad with iron bars and fractured his skull.
Haddad, like Halimi, and like their attackers, are also of African or
possibly Arab descentas was Sebastien Selam who was murdered in Paris in
2003. Haddad has just come out of a medically induced coma...
So, where are all the anti-racists now? I hear no
condemnations. The silence is chilling. And all too predictable. Where are
the mainstream media? Where is FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the International Herald
Tribune? (Only ABC ran a Reuters 190 word story earlier today). When I
googled this story, the first three pages consisted of stories filed by
small bloggers and mainly by Jewish and Israeli media. (Military Photos
carried a story as well). But where are The Washington Post, The Los Angeles
Times, The New York Times? For heavens sake: Where is Le Soir, Le Monde,
and Figaro? Has Frances Channel 2 covered this?
The 9/11 commission was formed to
determine why the attacks of 9/11 were not prevented and to determine how to
prevent such attacks from happening again. The commission received at
least two briefings that showed that government agents knew of Mohammed Atta's
affiliation with al-Qaeda two years before 9/11, that Clinton-era policies
prevented intelligence officials from sharing that information with the FBI and
that the movements of Atta are consistent with Czech reports that he met with
Iraqi intelligence and was paid enough funds to complete the September 11
attack. Frontpagemag discusses an article by Podhoretz that explains that
the commission was "protecting" its interpretation of Mohammad Atta's
international and domestic U.S. travels. (9/11
Coverup Commission, frontpage magazine.com 8/15/05)
Key in this interpretation in the minds of Clinton supporters and
Bush haters of all stripes is the necessity to deny all ties between Saddam
Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda. After all, in the endless cacophony of criticism
against the Iraq War, the two steady drumbeats have been the failure to find
WMDs, and the assertion that there were no links between Saddam Husseins Iraq
and the September 11 attacks. Until now the Left has issued a series of
deliberate misinterpretations of a series of reports including that of the
9/11 Commission, and WMD reports by David Kay and Charles Dueffler. However the
unimpeachable Able Danger report was at first denied by 9/11 spokesman Al
Felzenberg, then was reluctantly confirmed to be correct. Felzenberg said that
the information that [the Able Danger briefing officer] provided us did not
mesh with other conclusions that we were drawing. (Emphasis added.)
And here we get to the crux of the matter. The movements of Atta prior
to the terrorist attack as detailed by Able Danger, if acknowledged, would
support statements by the Czech Republic that link Atta, and hence the al-Qaeda
attack on America, irrefutably to Saddam's covert intelligence operatives. This
is something that surfaced shortly after 9/11. A former Czech deputy foreign
minister, later ambassador to the UN, gave statements that he personally expelled
a high raking Iraqi embassy official in Prague for being a covert foreign
intelligence agent after the latter was discovered to have met with Mohammed
Atta in the international lounge at the Prague airport in August 2001. There
the Iraqi transferred a large amount of cash to Atta, sufficient to fund the
completion of the September 11 attack. Despite cruel pressure from mainstream
media, the hard Left, the U.S. State Department, and the CIA, the Czechs
insisted that their report was correct. Former Congressman John LeBoutellier
was furious at the Bush administration for bowing to CIA pressure to discount
the Czech report because it verified a vital deadly connection within the
covert terrorist community. Now it appears as if the Czechs and those who supported
their account were right.
Former intelligence officer
Ralph Peters wrote Admitting that [terrorist] threats were
real.threatened to destroy the belief system the Clintonites had carried into
office, Peters detailed. In regards to the entire terrorist network,
methodology, and ideology, the Clintons were a textbook case of denial. The
Able Danger reports indicate, that the
Clintons were willfully ignorant of the threat.
Phyllis Chesler in an article titled
Appeasement and the West, (World
Jewish Digest 3/6/2002) wrote how the term Islamist is used to avoid facing
the reality of the threat of Islam. She wrote:
The
tendency to appease can also be seen in our language, which can be used to
either describe or obscure reality. Those who use the word Islamist want
desperately to believe that Islam itself is, or can be, essentially peaceful and
that moderate Muslims can wrest back control of their religion from the
totalitarian fanatics who have hijacked it. One therefore also uses the words
jihadist and terrorist to further distinguish the potentially good and
reasonable Muslims from the killers and fanatics. Many Westerners turn
themselves inside out in order not to describe even the 9/11 terrorists as
Muslims or Arabs lest they be attacked as politically incorrect racists.
The fear of this particular slander has led many good Western thinkers and
writers to obscure reality.
One way people avoid facing a
threatening reality is by blaming a weaker group for it. Then the reality
is less threatening. Many in Israel do not want to face that their Arab
enemy wants to destroy them simply because they are Jewish and
independent. It's much easier to blame their own Jewish settlers.
As a result they have uprooted settlers from Gaza, and have brutally attacked
them at Amona. The
consequence of this is that they are weakening themselves against the real
threat they face by creating internal divisions, by destroying the morale of
their security forces and by withdrawing from strategically important areas.
Robert Spencer in an article
titled Fantasies
About Jihad (frontpagemag.com 3/15/2006) wrote about how he had
criticized statements by former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid
that Islam is a Religion of Peace and how a reader then took him to task for
suggesting that Islam is irredeemable in some sense. The reader asked: if we
assume this to be true, what is to be done. What would Mr. Spencer suggest that
this or any American president do to deal with this reality? Spencer wrote:
What would I
suggest that the President do about this reality? I would suggest that he
acknowledge it as a reality. That he address the nation and the world, and tell
them that the United States is going to lead the resistance to jihad and Sharia
supremacism in the name of equality of rights and dignity of all peoples. That
any state that oppresses non-Muslims or denies them equality of rights in any
way will receive no American aid whatsoever. That any state that allows the
idea that Muslims must make war against non-Muslims until they either convert
to Islam or submit to the Islamic social order will be no friend of the United
States. That the idea that the U.S. Constitution should one day be replaced by
Islamic Sharia, whether by violent or non-violent means, will be understood
within the United States as seditious.
Spencer did not suggest
the obvious that Muslim immigration be stopped even though he did mention how
Bat Yeor spoke about how European officials themselves
had brought Eurabia into being by
encouraging immigration while eschewing assimilation at the insistence of the
Arab League. Spencer wrote: "Only now are Europeans realizing that their
culture, their soul, has been sold by their leaders for oil, and the jihad is
upon them.
It is a reality so bleak that
it is no wonder that most officials prefer fantasy. But they wont be able to
maintain their comfortable illusions much longer".
The United States
faces a growing threat of a nuclear attack from Iran that it doesn't want to
face up to. Newt Gingrich said: (Gingrich sees Iran
Threat to U.S. like Nazi Germany, worldnetdaily.com 11/21/05)
"Not
since the failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s to confront the
aggression of the dictatorships in Japan, Italy and Germany have we seen the
willful avoidance of reality which is now underway with regard to Iran.
There are lessons to be learned from the 1930s and those lessons apply directly
to the current government of Iran....
An
attack by a single Iranian nuclear missile could have a catastrophic impact on
the United States by causing an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) over a portion of
the country,Such an attack could quickly turn a third or more of the United
States back to a 19th century level of development. Electrical transformers and
switching stations would fall. Without electricity, hospitals would fails,
water and sewage services would fail, gas stations would be unable to provide
petroleum, trucks would not be able to distribute food supplies, and essential services
would rapidly disintegrate... This is not idle speculation, but taken
from the consensus findings of nine distinguished scientists who authored the
Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack, which was delivered to the Congress on June
22, 2004, the same day the 9-11 commission report was published.
Contemplating an EMP threat makes more troubling reports that certain Iranian
missile tests resulted in missiles that have detonated in flight at or near
apogee, which the Iranian press has reported as successful events.
Normally, it would be expected that the ability to target specific locations
would be the standard for success for ballistic tests. However, if the ability
to launch an EMP attack was being tested, detonation at apogee would be the
measure of testing success. "
The
Independent April 8, 04 writes how about self deluding Japanese who don't
want to face their responsibility for World War II as follows:
In theYasukuni
Shrine in central Tokyo, suicide bombers are heroes, America is the enemy and
the Emperor, supposedly reduced to mortal status after Second World War, is
still a deity, directly descended from the sun goddess, Amaterasu.
Here, at least, Japan was not the brutal aggressor but the liberator,
fighting to defend itself from the US and European powers and free Asia from
the yoke of white imperialism. Imperial troops were not guilty, as most
historians suggest, of some of the worst war crimes of the 20th century, but
the "normal excesses" of armies everywhere.
Japan's 5,000 dead suicide bombers - most, like the self-immolators of
the Middle-East, barely old enough to take their first legal drink when they
died in a fruitless attempt to turn the tide against the US military juggernaut
- are venerated in photographs and in testimony from comrades who survived. On
a giant video screen, Iwao Fukugawa, who was just 48 hours from detonating his
plane against a US ship when the Emperor announced Japan's surrender in August
1945, says he would have been happy to die for his country. "I was sad and
ashamed we lost the war."
Nicholas
Eberstadt in his article North Korea's Latest Con, (Frontpagemag.com
1/13/2004) wrote about how North Korea blackmails the west.
Long
ago, Kim & Co. figured out a formula for extracting protection money from
abroad in return for promising to scrap the nukes: make a deal, break the deal,
then demand a new deal for more, issuing threats until you get what you want.
So far, it's worked pretty well.
It has worked very well for North Korea for
details see the Appeasement of North Korea web page.
Why does it work so well? Mr. Eberstadt explains:
As
North Korea's neighbors prepare to be fleeced, one may wonder: What keeps this
con going? It's not that American and Asian leaderships are invincibly
ignorant. They've just bought into a variant of La Grande Illusion (as such
thinking was called in France in the late 1930s). The notion that the Kim
regime has absolutely no intention of ever giving up its nuclear capability--at
any price, for any reason--is too terrible to face. Better to play pretend,
even if this means being bilked in return for fake "breakthroughs"
and bogus "accords."
In January, U.S. Special Envoy for Human rights in
North Korea Jay Lefkowitz questioned Pyongyang's adherence to nuclear
agreements it has made with Washington. In response, Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice had his remarks erased from the State Department's Web
site.
There is a great deal of
antisemitism in the feminist movement but feminists don't want to admit
it. Phyllis Chesler, in her book, The New Anti-Semitism wrote about how a
feminist jew was disinvited from a feminist meeting. When Phyllis
suggested to some feminists that the reason was anti-semitism she writes that
most of them begged to differ:
"No
they probably weren't thinking clearly, who knows what pressure they were
under."
Women,
you see, cannot be accused of racism. - unless of course they are Jewish
women. Whatever other women do is entirely due to undue male pressure for
which women can never be held accountable.
The multicultural movement sees
the United States as the oppressor and so tends to side with Islam.
Feminist multiculturalists tend to be blind when it comes to Islamic
persecution of women. Phyllis Chesler a feminist who is trying to open
the unwilling eyes of other feminists about this, said in an interview with
frontpage magazine (2/24/04) that:
First,
we must recognize that Islam is the largest and most systematic practioner of
both gender and religious Apartheid on earth. The multi-culturalists
refuse to see what is staring them in the face and civilians may not truly
comprehend how ruthlessly circumscribed and endangered the lives of girls,
women, and non-Muslim minorities are under jihadic Islam.
23 year old Ilan Halimi of
France was found dying, covered with burns and cuts, on Monday February 13,
2006. He had been kidnapped three weeks earlier, after a Muslim gang sent a
blonde to seduce him during which time he was mutilated, and burned. The
police refused to acknowledge that Ilan was abducted because he was Jewish even
though in their e-mail and telephone communications with Ilan's family,
his captors repeatedly referred to his Judaism, and on at least one occasion
recited verses from the Koran while Ilan was heard screaming in agony in the
background. The family alleges that if the police had been willing to
acknowledge that Ilan was abducted because he was Jewish, they would have
recognized that his life was in clear and immediate danger and acted with
greater urgency. Apparently the French were afraid of angering the
Muslims by accusing any of them of antisemitism. (Ilan
Halimi and Israel, The Jerusalem Post, 2/24/2006)
There is a great deal of
antisemitism in France yet the French leadership has been reluctant to admit
it. Jeff Jacoby in an article titled The
Cancer of Antisemitism in Europe (Boston Globe 3 /14/04) wrote that the
French president, Jacques Chirac, admonished a Jewish editor.:
Stop
saying that there is antisemitism in France, There is no antisemitism in
France.
Ezra Halevi mentioned this unwillingness to acknowledge antisemitism in
an article in Israel National News (April 29, 2007).He wrote:
A young Jewish woman was brutalized by two Muslim
Arabs in France Thursday.
Audrey Brachelle, 22, was attacked in the French
city of Marseilles Thursday evening. The attack began as she walked back from
her job as an accountant at a textile factory toward the metro station in the
La Rose neighborhood of the city, which is home to many Jews.
Two Arab men followed her and attempted to steal her
cell phone. After they grabbed it, the attackers noticed the Jewish ornament on
the womans necklace, at which point she says they realized she was Jewish
and began focusing on brutalizing her rather than stealing her phone.
The men then punched her in the face, sliced her
dress with a knife and carved at least one Nazi swastika into her chest. They
also cut off a clump of her hair.
Despite the swastikas and epithets expressed by the
attackers, the French government is hesitating to admit that the attack was an
anti-Jewish one. French Jews say the government is hesitant to admit the attack
was anti-Semitic as that would have political ramifications and sway the
upcoming presidential elections set to take place May 6.
When Bill Clinton was president
he refused to meet with the CIA director. When asked what he thought
Clinton's motives were Robert Baer a former CIA agent said (frontpagemag.com
2/11/04)
I
think Clinton was naive. He didn't have the slightest idea there was a
dangerous world out there. A baby-boomer, he was more concerned about
Nasdaq and the way he felt about things than he was about national security.
Perhaps Clinton didn't want to
face the fact that there was a dangerous world out there. Perhaps that is
why he refused to meet with his CIA director. Bob Baer wrote that if
during this time
the
CIA had been running sources in the mosques in Germany and Saudi Arabia it
would have found out bin Ladin was recruiting suicide bombers. It was an
error we will pay for years.
Dick Cheney made a speech in
Nashville on Aug 26, 02 in which he spoke about the need for the United States
to attack Iraq. He said (New York Post 8/27/02):
What
we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking
or willful blindness...The risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of
action.
Frank Gaffney in an article With
Friends Like These (National Review Online Sept 19, 2001) wrote how the
U.S. was being encouraged to enlist terrorists to fight terror. He wrote
that:
President Bush is
being encouraged by his State Department and some allies to make an
extraordinary mistake: In the interest of creating the impression of worldwide
solidarity in the war against international terrorists and their sponsors, they
want the U.S. to enlist incredible as it may seem international terrorists
and their sponsors in the cause...
At
the very best, these initiatives will utterly compromise the nature of the war
Mr. Bush has correctly said we must now wage. It is simply impossible, not to
say incoherent, to pretend such "allies" can possibly be part of the
solution when they are so manifestly part of the problem.
Often,
regardless of the information available, the agency sees only what it wishes to
see.
and that:
The
CIA defends its operatives' incapacities by asking rhetorically how even the
most linguistically talented and well-disguised collectors could get inside
six-man terrorist cells.
But the question wrongly presupposes that terrorism consists of autonomous
(and, hence, spontaneous) cells. In fact the autonomy and spontaneity of
terrorists, the "loose-networks" theory, largely is the self-serving
invention of U.S. government officials who don't want to look into the role of
Arab governments in terrorism.
Dinesh D'Souza in his book What's
So Great About America, theorizes that the reason the U.S. government
blamed loose networks instead of Islam was to avoid antagonizing future Moslem
members of an anti-terrorist coalition. Another reason may have been to
prevent attacks by angry Americans on Moslems living in America.
Delusional
thinking often occurs in order to avoid facing uncomfortable truths.The Western attitude toward Islam is an example of
this. Steve Emerson wrote in the Jewish Monthly (3/95) that:
The level of vitriol against Jews and
Christianity within contemporary Islam, unfortunately, is something that we are
not totally cognizant of, or that we don't want to accept. We don't want to
accept it because to do so would be to acknowledge that one of the world's
great religions - which has more than 1.4 billion adherents - somehow sanctions
genocide, planned genocide, as part of its religious doctrine.
The delusion
regarding the cause of the Middle East conflict is another example of
delusional thinking to avoid unpleasant truths.. Major Shawn Pine in his
article Bush's Capitulation wrote (The Jerusalem Post, March 12, 2002):
IN
THE last decade, Israelis have deluded themselves into believing that the crux
of the Arab-Israeli conflict was over territories captured in the 1967 war.
Hopefully, Arafat's rejection of the offer made at Camp David, and his
launching of the intifada, have disabused Israelis of that notion. The reality
is that Israel is involved in an existential war and any agreement by Sharon to
cease military operations against Palestinian terrorists will be perceived by
the Palestinians as a victory and will embolden Palestinian Authority Chairman
Yasser Arafat to continue his terrorist war against Israel.
In an interview in the Forward,
Yoram Kaniuk, a pioneer of the Israeli peace movement said: Since the failure
of the Camp David talks, when the truth came out, I've had to face the fact
that the Arabs simply don't accept Israel being here... Our (peace) partner is
the suicide bomber. (Riva Rubin, "True Lies: Two Israeli Novelists on War
and Oranges," Forward, Nov. 29, 2002)
The single biggest thing that we do to aid Islams
expansion is to avoid the reality of the danger. I call it the ostrich
syndrome. ..We refuse to name or even see the problem...
Even in the face of endless atrocities executed by terrorists in the name of
Islam and the endless crimes against individuals, e.g., women, homosexuals
and infidels the West refuses to examine the root cause of the problem. We
offer endless excuses for actions and behavior that when measured by any
rational/moral standard would be deemed evil. Yet we seemingly cannot name
the cause.
Another aspect of our suicidal tendency with respect to Islam is the
never-ending peace process. We have had 40 years of peace talks in the
Middle East. One would think that after all that talking about peace the M.E.
would be the most peaceful place on earth. How can you hold talks with a
people who do not recognize your right to exist? This point is quite literal
in the context of Israel and implicit in the context of the West vies-a-vie
the Islamic jihad, Islamic actions and Quranic dictates and pronouncements.
We want to believe every positive word of nonsense the Islamic terror
countries and groups espouse. We grasp for any straw that will save us from
facing the truth of the problem. It is all so reminiscent of Europe and
Hitler in the 30s. The same psychological model seems to be operative - the
ostrich syndrome. However the lion always has his meal.
Daniel Pipes wrote about the
delusional expectations raised by the Oslo Accords (New York Post 9/9/03)
President
Clinton lauded it as a "great occasion of history," Secretary of
State Warren Christopher ruminated on how "the impossible is within our
reach."...Foreign Minister Shimon Peres of Israel discerned in it
"the outline of peace in the Middle East.".. Pundits like
Anthony Lewis of the New York Times called it "ingeniously built" and
"stunning."..
Oslo
brought the Palestinians poverty, corruption, a cult of death, suicide
factories and militant Islamic radicalization. The Israelis have mainly
suffered from terrorism's toll of 854 murders and 5,051 injuries, plus assorted
economic and diplomatic losses.
Eventually, the carnage of exploding buses began to
shift thinking among Israelis, even within the pro-Oslo elites. For example,
in 1997, Ari Shavit, seniorHaaretzcolumnist
and himself an early, enthusiastic supporter of Oslo, wrote: “In the early
90s... we, the enlightened Israelis, were infected with a messianic craze... All
of a sudden, we believed that... the end of the old Middle East was near. The
end of history, the end of wars, the end of the conflict... We fooled ourselves
with illusions. We were bedazzled into committing a collective act of messianic
drunkenness.” But Shavit was broadly excoriated for his stance, and about half
the Israeli electorate continued to support Oslo.
Jeff Jacoby wrote (Oslo's terrible toll,
Boston Globe, 9/14/03)
Oslo
quickly became a cult, worshipped with a fervor that brooked no doubts and
disdained all skeptics. There was never peace but there was a "peace
process," and the more the evidence of its failure mounted, the more
fervently it was venerated.
Within a few months it should have been clear to all that Arafat and the
PLO leadership had not abandoned terrorism. Empowering them with land and
money and authority had inflamed, not quenched, their thirst to
"liberate" Israel from the Jews. Buses exploded and funerals
proliferated, but Israelis told themselves that they were fashioning a
"peace of the brave" and that there was no alternative but to return
to the negotiating table and offer new concessions.
Yet each concession only further convinced the Palestinians that the Jews
were weakening, and that upping the violence would make them even more
desperate for peace.
Many Israelis rather than face the truth of
the implacable hostility of the Arabs towards their very existence, have
developed the delusional ideas that if they just appease the Arabs with
territorial concessions there will be peace. Shimon Peres outlined his
delusional thinking in his book, The New Middle East. Around 1995 in the
days of Israeli Euphoria about the Oslo peace process, Shimon Peres was asked
about the dangers of terrorism under his new Oslo regime and replied:
I
am far more worried about the danger of infiltration into Israel of cable
television than about the danger of infiltration of Palestinian terrorists.
A typical news item during this period shows
the absurdity of this statement. On 5/30/01, the day I wrote this
paragraph, three Israelis including a 53-year-old former Long Island woman who
were killed by Palestinian gunmen (New York Post 5/30/01)
Sara
Blaustein was gunned down in the West Bank near Bethlehem in an ambush that
also wounded her husband, Norman, 53, and left her 28-year-old son Samuel
seriously wounded with three gunshots to the back.
Authorities
said members of Yasser Arafat's Fatah paramilitary strafed the family's car as
it headed to the funeral of another settler, killed hours earlier.
Another
woman in the Blausteins' station wagon was killed and two others wounded in the
attack.
Foreign Minister Shimon Peres told
Israel Radio on the morning of Nov. 1, 2001 that it does not matter what
weapons the Palestinians have since "guns don't matter - what matters is
suicide bombers." The biggest attack during the prior week was in Hadera
when two Palestinian police armed with Oslo-issue assault rifles, murdered four
and wounded many. This was not a suicide mission. During the year
prior to the attack the overwhelming majority of Palestinian attacks were NOT
by suicide bombers.
A year later Shimon Peres repeated his profoundity
to Israel Radio on the 30 May 2002 morning news program that "people say
about Oslo 'why did you give them guns' - but guns don't matter - what matters
are suicide bombers." This was two days after a terrorist with a
single assault rifle murdered three teenagers and another terrorist murdered an
Israeli in a car - also with a rifle. IMRA on 5/30/02
speculated about why Shimon makes such absurd statements as follows:
Perhaps
because Mr. Peres does not want reality to interfere with his plans. As
far as Shimon Peres is concerned, full Israeli withdrawal and the declaration
of a Palestinian State is a few Kodak moments away. A declaration here.
A signing ceremony there. A few days that the Palestinians keep
their appetite for Israeli blood to just a "few" murders and its back
to the heady days of "hearing the fluttering of the wings of
history".
Aaron Lerner in his weekly commentary on Israel National Radio (Nov. 1, 2001)
said:
Peres'
case reality is a big problem: it suits his script for the problem to be
suicide bombers rather than Arafat's Fatah PA gunmen or PA police. Peres
doesn't want to accept that Arafat is behind the violence or part of the
violence. Instead Peres claims that the only problem with Arafat is that
he isn't doing enough to stop these third parties.
It's fascinating that Shimon Peres
sees others as delusional. In a stormy Cabinet debate after the
assassination of Rechaam Zeevi (New York Post Oct. 18, 01) Shimon Peres said:
Go
on with your dreams and illusions -- and at the end you will understand that
there is no one to talk with but the Palestinians.
One of Shimon Peres's many
illusions was that there was any benefit in talking to the Palestinian
leadership.
Words
are distorted and their meaning obfuscated. Concessions to terrorism equals
"peace." Resistance to terrorism means you are an "enemy of
peace." Terrorists, whose hands drip with Jewish blood, are freed from
prison or welcomed to enter Israel from abroad. Rabbis, Zionist patriots, and
housewives with a love of Israel are placed in jail for "sedition."
The world cheers the "peace loving" Israeli Stalinists while
condemning similar behavior in other countries like China. Israeli Prime
Minister Shimon Peres agrees to place Syria on the committee to monitor
Hizbullah in Lebanon. Allowing the fox to guard the henhouse certainly comes to
mind.
Has
the world gone mad? Are Israelis that stupid as to allow such delusions to
masquerade as policy?
In The National Interest (Fall
2001), Yossi Klein Halevi, the Jerusalem-based analyst for The New Republic,
recalls another haunted September, 1993, when after the Oslo signing he read a
column by David Bar-Ilan reporting Yassir Arafat telling an Arab audience that
Oslo was simply part of a stages policy. Halevi wrote:
My
instinctive reaction, was that the account must be exaggerated: Bar-Ilan, after
all, was a right-wing ideologue. Despite the devastating implications of that
speech, I did not bother checking whether Bar-Ilans report was accurate,
precisely because I feared it might be. Nor did I want to be tainted by
association with the right-wing opposition.
Israel Harel in an article called "The
Price of Ideological Collectivism" (Ha'aretz Thursday, June 7, 2001)
wrote:
After the Yom Kippur War, Israeli intellectuals and journalists admitted the
error of their ways. "We misled the public," some of them said.
"We served the top brass who were responsible for the debacle,"
confessed the military correspondents, "we refused to listen to the few
military intelligence experts who had sounded the alarm bells."
"Both a sense of social commitment and the belief in monolithic
ideology," wrote others, "sabotaged our performance. We ceased being
skeptics, Doubting Thomases and catalysts - and that, after all, is the very
essence of the role of intellectuals and media people." There were even
those who solemnly promised never to repeat their horrible mistake.
In his article Israel Harel writes
that these intellectuals and journalists have returned to the same patterns of
behavior and are embracing new delusions.
Emanuel Winston in his
article "No Apologies" (Freeman Center Broadcast 6/19/01) wrote
about the illusions of the Israeli intellectuals as follows:
The
picture which they concluded was real wasnt. It was as if a mirage could be
real. Their vision turned out to be a dream-turned-nightmare based upon their
wishful thinking. This aberrant self-identified intellectual pool of dreamers
had little grasp of reality. The gaggle of academia was well-represented by the
Media in offering their theories to the public. They saw the vision of what
peace could be IF the Arabs would only comply, hence their visions were more
like hallucinations. Non-compliance did not fit their carefully
constructed formula so they simply dismissed it...
Like
flies drawn to manure, the self-designated intellectual party pounced on the
slogans of "Peace Now" - as if they not only could control the Arabs
but, in fact, had conjured up the mirage as if they had actually done so.
Failed agreements and unremitting terror did not fit their scenario so
they dismissed them as temporary phenomena...
Even
as the battles of terror rage on, the followers of Oslo are trying to inject
life into that corpse. We see Arabists in the U.S. State Department and the
Arabists of Europe reconnecting with the Jewish Left as if nothing deadly has
happened. The perennial pall-bearers are back, assisting Jews into their
graves, explaining how the dead were volunteer "sacrifices for
peace".
Unwillingness to fact a bad reality is
one of the explanations given by Rand H. Fishbein in his speech Beyond Compliance: The
Victory of Illusion Over Reality, Outpost August 1999,
regarding the creation of delusion by the United States that the PLO was in
compliance. Mr. Fishbein said:
Ever
since the signing of the Oslo Accords in September 1993, conventional wisdom
has held that compliance by Israel and the PLO to both the letter and spirit of
the agreement was key to its success, and hence, the future of the "peace
process." This understanding was acknowledged by the signatories at
the time, and was reaffirmed in subsequent years by the Israeli and Palestinian
leadership, the U.S. Congress and the President in numerous speeches, resolutions
and declarations.
This
was not an unreasonable expectation. After all, no agreement, contract,
or treaty can long survive attempts to undermine its integrity.
Yet,
that is exactly what has happened. Over the last six years, the PLO has brazenly,
and persistently, set about to circumvent virtually every term and condition of
Oslo. They have done so with the tacit, if not express, approval of the U.S.
Department of State which regularly, and unflinchingly, certifies that the PLO
is in substantial compliance with the requirements of Oslo and its companion
agreements. It does so even though the overwhelming pattern of available
evidence clearly demonstrates otherwise.
So,
too, the PLO has carried out its deception with the full knowledge of the White
House, knowing all too well that the President and his advisors are unwilling
to countenance the collapse of a process which they have worked so hard to
nurture and in which they have invested so much political capital.
Fishbein continues:
The
public record documenting Palestinian non-compliance is clear, abundant and
growing with time. With shameless contempt, the Palestinians continue to:
* incite violence and mastermind terrorist acts;
* frustrate efforts to confiscate illegal weapons;
* defy prohibition against administrative offices in Jerusalem;
* oppose the crackdown on terrorist cells;
* resist the repeal of provisions of the PLO Charter calling for
Israel's destruction; stockpile offensive weapons;
* train and equip paramilitary forces;
* publish official maps which make no mention of a Jewish State in
the Middle East and depict a Palestinian entity encompassing all of sovereign
Israel; and
* thwart the apprehension, prosecution and transfer of known
criminals (twelve of whom are wanted by Israel, yet today serve in senior
positions in the Palestinian police force).
Today,
the Palestinian police force is over fifty percent larger than what is
permitted under Oslo. Nine separate and distinct police detachments now operate
in the territories. Despite claims by both the Administration and Palestinian
leaders that the Palestinian Authority (PA) is making strides to reduce
terrorism against Israel, nationalist-inspired Palestinian violence increased by
25% in 1998.
Fishbein continues that Israel
to creates delusion regarding Palestinian compliance and gives the following
explanation:
But
perhaps most astonishingly, Israel has contributed significantly to its own
predicament. For over three years, a Likud Government, led by Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, has chosen to mute its criticism of Palestinian violations.
On the surface, at least, it took this position in an effort to bolster Yassir
Arafat's authority, keep the Oslo talks on track and avoid an open conflict
with the U.S. Administration.
In addition Fishbein spoke about how
the Labor Government of Shimon Peres actually opposed American legislation that
would have denied American funding to the Palestinian Authority unless they
were in compliance with the Oslo Agreements. Fishbein said:
Later,
the Labor Government of Shimon Peres strongly opposed the "Middle East
Peace Compliance Act of 1995," which would have denied any U.S. funding to
the Palestinians until the PA fulfilled all of its commitments under Oslo. Also
included in the legislation was a prohibition on funds to known PLO terrorists
and a requirement that the PA make available for prosecution in the U.S.
members suspected of having killed or injured Americans.
Both
Israel and the U.S. made it clear it wished no disruption of Palestinian
assistance and accused those Members who backed the legislation of undermining
the peace effort. Astonishingly, it was a position taken by Israel's Labor
government even as the PLO and Hamas were mounting a vicious terrorist bombing
campaign on the streets of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Peres even said that Arafat shouldn't
be held accountable for the way he spent donated money. On Thursday Jan 4
it became apparent where some of that money was going. Israeli naval
commandos slid down ropes from air force helicopters and simultaneously climbed
up the sides onto a PLO freighter carrying 80 tons of arms bought from
Iran. Yehudah Poch wrote (Freeman Center Broadcast 1/9/02)
For
more than eight years, the world's democracies have joined the Arab states in
funding the Palestinian Authority, to the tune of hundreds of millions of
dollars a year, in an effort to "improve the living conditions of the
Palestinian people." In so doing, the world's leading states, including
the US, Russia, the G7, most European states, and the oil-rich states of the
Arab world, have deliberately chosen to turn a blind eye to the real
destination of the funds...
he
[Arafat] has pocketed the entire sum, leaving the Palestinian people living in
slum conditions, often without the basic necessities of life.
In such conditions, it has been easy for Arafat and his henchmen to incite
the masses into hatred of the economically prosperous Israel...
If
that money had been spent instead on the things it was meant for -
infrastructure development, education, social services, and employment programs
- there would have been no Intifada today, and there likely would have been a
healthy and vibrant Palestinian state joining Israel in economic prosperity and
progress.
But Yasser Arafat managed to pull off a stunning maneuver. He convinced the
world to give him such incredible sums of money and to dispense with any
accountability measures. After all, he needed to provide for his people, and
with international supervisors looking over his shoulder, such provisions would
be hampered. He then pocketed the money, spending it on weapons to entrench his
regime of terror.
It turns out that some of the
money was going for bombs for suicide terrorists. The New York Post
(4/5/02) reports that Israeli officils found documents seized by Israelis
during their sweep into PA controlled territories had Arafat's signature on
them and instructions for payments to suicide bombers.
Sharon and the United States had
a theory that replacing Arafat with a Palestinian democracy will make peace
possible. Yet democracy follows the wishes of the people and the wishes
of the Palestinian Arabs is for an end of the state of Israel. In
addition they wish for an Islamic theocracy so the moment they get a democracy
they will vote in a theocratic dictatorship.
After the Israelis
uprooted their fellow citizens from Gaza terrorists terrorists used their
villages as training grounds as well as launching pads for rockets. A
reporter named Marie Colvin who saw this thought that:
"Israelis
contemplating the evacuation of West bank settlements will shiver at the
discovery that al-Qassam fighters now live and train on the ruins of a place
that was home to 37 Jewish families."
Sarah Honig wrote:
That,
however, is where she gets it all wrong. Reasonable folks would indeed be
shaken to the core and rebuff those who uprooted the most dedicated of their
compatriots in order to facilitate genocidal preparations against the entire national
aggregate.
But Colvin misjudged us. Israelis, alas, are neither reasonable nor even
normal. It's not that our nonchalance is born of extraordinary courage in the
face of adversity. Instead it's the product of denial of adversity.
(Denial of Adversity by Sarah Honig, The Jerusalem Post 4/6/2006)
Lawrence Auster theorizes that the U.S.
doesn't want to face up to the possibility that they can't make the Muslims
peaceful by spreading democracy. He wrote (Global Democratization: The
Unasked Questions, Outpost September,
2005):
For
one thing, if Muslims are so different from us that they can never be expected
to construct societies based on liberal individual freedom, then there is no
hope for a peaceful world unified around a shared belief in democracy.
Irreconcilable differences of values between Muslims and Westerners, expressed
in terms of political conflict and ultimately military conflict, must be
perpetual, not only internationally, but, even more frighteningly, within the
West itself, where millions of Middle Eastern Muslims have settled as
immigrants. In the interests of maintaining both international and domestic
peace, any thought of irreconcilable cultural and religious differences must be
suppressed.
Beneath the fear of irresolvable conflict, there was, and is, a deeper,
ideological reason for the suppression of discussion. If liberal individualism
is rejected as a matter of principle by one-fifth of the worlds population who
follow one of the worlds major religions, then the claim of liberal
individualism to be the universal truth would lose its credibility. It would
mean that there was something particular about Western culture, perhaps even
about the peoples that had founded and created Western culture, that makes
liberal individualism possible, which in turn would mean that religious,
cultural, and ethnic differences matter politically.
The idea that such differences matter and need to be taken into account is, of
course, the antithesis of the liberal universalist creed of contemporary
conservatives, which says that all peoples are fundamentally the same and
therefore equally ready for democracy and equally assimilable into America. And
this is why none of the very smart people on the Bush team ever asked the
obvious question whether there was anything about Islam that would make liberal
democracy unacceptable to Muslims.
The United States insisted that Arafat
appoint Abu Mazen as prime minister as a step toward democracy because they see
him as a moderate.
Abu Mazen told his PA colleagues
on April 29, 2993 that he would "accept nothing less than an independent
state with its capital in Jerusalem, a state with continuous borders clean of
settlements in all the lands captured in '67." This shows no
willingness to recognize Israeli rights to live in Judea and Samaria.
The big hope regarding Abu Mazen was that he would be willing to give up on the
right of return.
The right of return is a
codeword for the destruction of Israel because it would mean the influx of
millions of people from refugee camps. Although Israel has been willing
to give land for peace that is not enough for the Palestinian Authority who are
unwilling to settle the refugees in that land. Regarding the "Right
of Return," Abu Mazen said it is a topic for future negotiations.
That means that Israel could give the Palestinian Arabs a state and still be
pressured to allow an influx of violent refugees.
Abu Mazens doctoral thesis
accused the Zionist movement, of conspiring against the Jewish people and
collaborated with the Nazis to annihilate it, because the movement considered
"Palestine" the only appropriate destination for Jewish emigration.
He was the treasurer of the PLO,
and provided financing for the attack on Israeli athletes at the Munich
Olympics.
Israeli attorney Darshan-Leitner told Arutz-7 (4/29/03) that
PA sources themselves told her that it is ridiculous to claim that Abu Mazen
was never involved in terrorism. In addition, Abu Daoud, who
masterminded the Munich attack, has said that Abu Mazen provided the funds to
carry it out. He made these charges in his autobiography,
"Palestine: From Jerusalem to Munich" (published in French in 1999)
and again in an interview last August in Sports Illustrated
magazine. The
mastermind of the Munich Olympics massacre, Mohammed Daoud Oudeh, says it was
Mazen who provided the money for the attack. Arafat and Mazen both kissed
him on the cheeks before he set off to kill 11 Israeli athletes.
It's also important to hear what
Oudeh had to say about the group he commanded on that attack. The terrorist
group Black September launched the assault. But the top operative explains the
organization was simply a new name for terrorists working under the Fatah
umbrella directly under the orders of Arafat and Mazen. (Roadmap to Nowhere
by Joseph Farah, WorldnetDaily
5/6/03)
To believe that such a man will bring peace
is extremely delusional. Another example of delusion is the Western
reaction to the appointment of Muhammad Dahlan as Palestinian Minister for
State Security. Michael Freund wrote: (Jerusalem Post 4/30/03)
The
New York Times this week labeled Dahlan the Palestinian security ace, as
though he were a beloved hero from an action film.
The Miami Herald called him a moderate, while the Associated Press
said he is urbane and carefully coifed.
Of course, what the guardians of the publics right to know neglected
to mention is that Dahlan has a nasty habit of trying to blow up schoolbuses
full of Jewish children.
On at least three separate occasions in the past six years, Dahlan
has reportedly been linked to such attacks.
His first attempt came on April 1, 1997, when Palestinian suicide
bombers blew themselves up outside Netzarim and Kfar Darom in Gaza in an
attempt to hit two Israeli schoolbuses packed full of students. In both cases,
miraculously, no Israelis were hurt.
The Chief of General Staff at the time, Lt.-Gen. Amnon Lipkin-Shahak,
said the bombers were wearing Palestinian police uniforms and that at least
one, and possibly both, belonged to Dahlans Palestinian Preventive Security
Service (The Jerusalem Post, April 2, 1997).
Undeterred by his first failed attempt to kill Jewish kids, the
moderate and urbane Dahlan tried again. On October 18, 2000, a busload of
40 Israeli women and children was attacked by gunfire and a bomb west of the
Gush Katif junction in Gaza as it passed near a Palestinian police station. In
this attack, too, no one was injured, but it was certainly not for lack of
trying.
Two days later, Israeli intelligence concluded that Dahlan himself was
behind the assault (Israel Radio, October 20, 2000).
Less than a month later, though, Dahlan finally got his wish when, at
last, an Israeli schoolbus was consumed by flames. On November 20, 2000, a
roadside bomb outside Kfar Darom blew up as a schoolbus drove by. Two adults on
the bus were killed, and nine other Israelis were injured, including five
children.
Among them were Tehilla, Yisrael and Orit Cohen, three beautiful
young people who each had to have limbs amputated as a result of the blast.
Within days, Israeli intelligence had cracked the case and the trail
once again led straight back to Dahlan. His second-in-command, Rashid Abu
Shabak, is said to have personally supervised the preparation of the bomb, and
other people under him were also involved in the planning and implementation of
the attack (Haaretz, November 23, 2000).
Still another of Dahlans men, Baha Said, was involved in an attack
on November 18, 2000 in which two Israeli soldiers were shot to death in Kfar
Darom. Rather than denouncing Saids actions, Dahlan reportedly eulogized him
at his funeral, praising his actions and posthumously promoting him for killing
Jews. (The Jerusalem Post, December 20, 2000)...
But
hoping and longing for someone to be a moderate does not make them so, as all
the wishful thinking since 1993 about Yasser Arafat has painfully demonstrated.
Deluding ourselves about the true nature of our enemies is not only foolish. It
is dangerous, too.
The war against
radical Islam has been called the war against terrorism probably to avoid
antagonizing Muslims and to make it easier to get Muslims to assist in fighting
Muslim terrorists. Richard Rubenstein gave another reason that it is
called the war against terrorism. He wrote (Encounter with an Angry
Muslim Academic, Frontpagemag.com
9/7/05):
many public officials and much of the press are more
comfortable talking about the war against terrorism than radical Islams war
against the West. There is risk in openly identifying, as I did, a religious
war for what it is. There may be greater risk in failing to do so.
J.R. Nyquist wrote an article titled
Russias Undeniable War Preparations which came to my attention in August 2007
and was probably published then.In it
he discusses how the U.S. doesnt want to face the truth that those war
preparations are for war with the United States.It may be that the U.S. wants to show Russia that it is not the
enemy so Russia wont feel threatened and so wont feel it necessary to arm and
to launch preemptive wars against U.S. allies.Whatever the reason the U.S. is not facing the reality of the
threat.Here is an excerpt from his
article:
Last week, in an obvious upgrading of nuclear war
readiness, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced
the resumption of long-range nuclear bomber patrols that had previously been
suspended in 1992. I made the decision to restore flights of Russian strategic
bombers on a permanent basis, said Putin. Combat duty has begun. For some
reason, Americans cannot digest Putins statement or his decision to resume
bomber patrols. Why is this happening? Well, we say to ourselves, there is no
reason other than the peculiar psychology of the Russians. President Bush has
not put U.S. strategic bombers on patrol. And why should he? Russia isnt our
enemy. We are all friends. We are all economic partners and allies in the war
against terror.
In Washington the State Department spokesman, Sean
McCormack, responded to the Russian announcement of permanent strategic bomber
patrols by saying, Its interesting. We certainly are not in the kind of
posture we were with what used to be the Soviet Union. Its a different era. If
Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of
mothballs and get them flying again, thats their decision.
Its as if the Russian military had resumed stamp
collecting or archery. There is no strategic alarm, no threat, no difficulty
and no discomfiture. Let them play with their obsolete toys. We are living in a
new era, and these activities no longer trouble us. The Cold War ended and the
animosity between the great powers is gone. Say good-bye to it. Any evidence to
the contrary is not evidence. Were living in a different era. Anyone who
doesnt know this, even if they are the president of the Russian Federation, is
out-of-step. One might imagine Washingtons reaction to a Russian missile
strike against U.S. targets. Its interesting, the State Department would
purr. This is not the sort of missile strike we would have expected from the
Soviet Union. Of course, its a different era. If Russia feels that they want
to launch some old, useless missiles, thats their decision.
Our lack of imagination, our inability to grasp our
enemys thought process, leads us to dismiss what is obvious. The Russians are
getting ready. Why isnt the American side responding? Why arent the Americans
getting ready? We have been seduced by a series of comforting illusions. We are
also absorbed in a struggle against Islamic terrorism (only we are at pains to
admit the Islamic aspect of it). The American shopping mall regime produces
stupefaction and complacency. The regime is predicated on economic optimism and
entertainment. This optimism is about to be shattered. The Russians know this
is going to happen, and they are preparing even as we fail to prepare.
Ann Coulter wrote an article in
which I think she made a very insightful statement.
She said:
Like the noose hysteria
currently sweeping New York City, liberals are always fighting the last battle
because the current battle is too frightening.
One example of this is the
liberal battle against Global warming when the world is faced with a nuclear
threat from Iran and North Korea which the liberals do not want us to fight.
Maybe they blame Bush for everything because Bush is a lot less threatening than
Osama Bin Laden.
Henry Morgenthau was
President Franklin Roosevelt's treasury secretary. In late 1943, several
of Morgenthaus senior aides discovered that State Department officials had
been secretly obstructing rescue opportunities and blocking transmission of
Holocaust-related information to the U.S.. In an article titled Lobbying Against
Genocide Then and Now (Israel National News 3/5/04) , Dr. Rafael Medoff
writes that:
The
State Department did not want them to be rescued, because that would increase
pressure on the Allies to give them shelter.
Despite ongoing anti-Jewish violence in
France , French President Jacques Chirac admonished a Jewish editor to
"stop saying there is anti-Semitism in France. There is no anti-Semitism
in France."
Author Salomon Malka, a Jewish community leader and director of one of the
Jewish radio stations in Paris, says a president who says "no
anti-Semitism" when synagogues are being bombed is a president saying
"not France's problem" when it comes to its Jews. (Barricaded
in Paris, frontpage magazine.com 11/24/05)
When radical Muslims murdered the American ambassador
in Benghazi the Obama administration did not protect him and told those who
wanted to to stand down. The ambassador has warned the U.S. administration
that Al Qaeda flags were flying all over Benghazi and asked for more help.
This was before the election. Admitting that terrorism was resurgent in
Libya and that Al Qaeda was all over the place after Obama's original intervention there would have made him look bad and
might have cost him the election especially since he wanted America to think
that with the killing of Bin Laden Al Qaeda was on the run (see comments made by
Biden in debate with Ryan). Instead they blamed it on people
reacting to a movie critical of Islam.
This shameful episode is discussed by
Brigitte Gabriel, Tom McInerney and others in the video below.
Hillary Clinton was grilled about this in Oct 2015 by
Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio. He was extremely knowledgeable about what
happened and the video is embedded below.
When 16 year-old Aqsa Parvez of Mississauga, Ontario
was strangled by her father for refusing to wear the hijab, Shahina Siddiqui,
president of the Islamic Social Services Association, dissembled the murder
as the result of domestic violence, a problem that cuts across Canadian
society and is blind to colour and creed (National Post, December 12,
2007).
On the following day, a spokesman for the Canadian Council on
American-Islamic Relations was quoted in the same newspaper, informing us
that Teen rebellion is something that exists in all households in Canada
and is not unique to any culture or background.
For Sheikh Yusuf Badat, Imam of the Islamic Foundation of Toronto, It
wasnt about Islam but merely a question of parenting and anger
management; and Mohammed Elmasry, president of the Canadian Islamic
Congress, whitewashed the killing as a teenage issue. Mohhamad Al-Navdi of
the Canadian Council of Imams, while regretting the slaying of the young
girl, responded by stressing the duty [of parents] to convince their kids
that this [the hijab] is part of their culture...
Islamic apologists will insist that honor crimes have
nothing to do with the Faith itself and are not even mentioned in the Koran.
Indeed, they will contend, as did Farah Khan, an organizer of a
feminist/race-relations conference in Toronto on November 11, 2008, that
calling such murders honor killings is both racism and Islamophobia
(National Post, November 15, 2008).
Haim Harari former president of the Weizmann
Institute of Science, gave a speech in April 2004 in which he said:
It
is a daily occurrence that the same people, who finance, arm and dispatch suicide murderers, condemn the act in English in front of western TV cameras, talking to a world audience, which even partly believes them. It is a daily routine to hear the same leader making opposite statements in Arabic to his people and in English to the rest of the world.
After terrorist attacks that killed Saudis, the Saudi
Government began cracking down on terror in Saudi Arabia and claimed to be an
aggressive ally against terror. When Imams preach hatred towards others
they are dismissed. This has not stopped Saudi Clerics from encouraging
Jihad against the United States (Saudi
Clerics Still Encouraging Jihad, MSNBC 3/31/05)
"I praise the jihad against the occupiers in
Iraq," said Sheik Ai'dh Al-Qarni on Arabic-TV. "Throats must be split
and skulls must be shattered."
Another cleric says suicide bombings are forbidden
inside Saudi Arabia, but outside they can be "a good thing."
"There is nothing wrong with [suicide attacks] if
they cause great damage to the enemy," said Sheik Abdallah Al-Muslih, also
on Arabic-TV.
In fact, in November 2004, 26 Saudi clerics published
a religious statement urging Muslims to wage holy war in Iraq. "Jihad
against the occupiers is a must," said the statement. "[It is] not
only a legitimate right but a religious duty." ..
A Saudi dissident says Saudi leaders engage in double
talk.
"The public message says, 'Terrorism is bad.' The
private message says, 'Terrorism is bad only when its against us.' When it's
against the infidels or other people, it's OK and even celebrated," says
Ali Al-Ahmed with the Saudi Institute.
A major cause of the conflict in the
Middle East between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs is constant incitement of
the Palestinian Arabs to hate Israel.Kenneth Levin wrote an article that demonstrated how the New York Times minimizes
that aspect and instead pins the blame on Israel.The New York Times minimizes that aspect by saying that Israelis
say that there is incitement instead of documenting the many examples of
incitement.After a Palestinian Arab
mob murdered two Israeli soldiers the New York Times wrote that
Israelis cite as one
egregious example a televised sermon that defended the killing of the two
soldiers. 'Whether Likud or Labor, Jews are Jews,' proclaimed Sheik Ahmad Abu
Halabaya in a live [official PA television] broadcast from a Gaza City mosque
the day after the killings."
Whats so bad about saying Jews are Jews?Jews afterall are Jews.Whats the big deal?The big
deal is that the New York Times omitted Halabaya's further comments:
"[The Jews] are the
ones who must be butchered and killed, as Allah the almighty said: Fight them;
Allah will torture them at your hands, and will humiliate them... Have no mercy
on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you
are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and
those Americans who are like them..."
Journalist Glen Greenwald said that all journalists on MSNBC have
an agenda but it's journalism because it's all accurate information and very
little has been called into question. Quite a lot of MSNBC's reporting has
been called into question and facts have been twisted and omitted to fit the
MSNBC agenda but his statement about MSNBC's bias is accurate. Click
here to watch him.
There have been many
hate crime hoaxes by Muslims attempting to show that American society is
Islamophobic. Michelle Malkin discussed this topic
here.
VII Holding on to Delusions Despite Contrary Evidence
Religions often teach that God
will protect the faithful. When tragedy strikes the faithful religious
leaders instead of questioning their assumption often claim the tragedy was
punishment by God of the faithful for not being faithful enough. Examples
of this are given on the Negative
Aspects of Religion web page.
Shimon Peres continued to
believe that Arafat shouldn't be held accountable regarding how he spent
donated money inspite of the discovery of a ship of arms that Arafat bought
with it. Steve Plaut wrote (Email Newsletter Jan 9, 2002):
When
Israel a few days back captured the PLO's Ship of Death, carrying 80 tons of
missiles, shells, mortars, and other weapons, I was convinced that THIS TIME
the nature of Oslo was undeniable, even for the most obstinate Oslo Believer.
Here were the weapons spread out on the docks for all to see. Here was
the proof that Arafat and the PLO itself were directing then terror, that they
would NEVER comply with ANY Oslo-like Accord, that the PLO was planning a huge
escalation of violence... Here was the proof, if any were still needed, that
the PLO had no interest in any state as a framework to pursue the welfare and
wellbeing of the Palestinian people, but rather solely as a base from which to
launch attacks on Israel.
But, I guess I am just getting old. Once again, I succumbed to the
temptation to think that THIS time the Oslo Camp would collapse. Like Fukayama,
who keeps predicting the "End of History", I keep expecting the
"End of Oslo". And we both are wrong. Israel's Left would pursue
appeasing the PLO even after the PLO would put them inside concentration camps.
Within moments of the capture of the PLO's Ship of Death, the Oslo Love
Boat, the Labor Party's Titanic, Shimon Peres and his henchmen were out in
force to explain why nothing had changed and that Israel was still seeking to
hold "talks" with the PLO to achieve new agreements which no doubt
the PLO would honor and with which it would comply...
Yossi
Beilin and the rest of the PLO's parliamentary contingent in the Knesset agree
that the Ship of Death just proves how correct they have been all along and how
Israeli concessions to the PLO need to be accelerated.
Inspite of the discovery of the
ship of death the United States defended Arafat. Powell said:
The
information we are receiving and developing on our own make it clear that there
are linkages to the Palestinian Authority, but I have not seen information that
yet links it directly to Chairman Arafat.
According to an Editorial in the New York
Post 1/11/02
successive
U.S. administrations, including this one, have invested so much time and effort
depicting Arafat as the only Palestinian leader capale of delivering peace that
they're unprepared to acknowledge a now-irrefutable reality: Arafat has never
had any intention of reaching a genuine peace with Israel.
A great letter to the editor of the New York
Post (Jan 13, 02) by Gerald Barsoni captured the absurdity of American
policy. He wrote:
How
can Bush tell Arafat to "arrest those involved"? Does the
president really think that Arafat is going to arrest himself?
Charles Krauthammer, in an article "Ship
of Truth" (1/11/02 Washington Post Friday, January 11, 2002; Page A21)
wrote:
The
ship's cargo is a candy store of terror. Two tons of explosives. Countless machine guns. Fourteen-hundred mortars. And dozens of Katyusha rockets, the quintessential weapon of terror: They go 12 miles and have no accuracy, perfect for random killing in Tel Aviv...
This
is plain as day. Yet the State Department professes puzzlement. "We have told him [Arafat] we need a full explanation."
Need
a full explanation? I can save State the time and the translator's fees. Arafat is embarked on a strategy of war -- and has been ever since he
signed the September 1993 Oslo "peace" accords on the White House lawn.
Don't take it from me. Take it from the mouth of one of the leading Palestinian moderates, Faisal Husseini. Shortly before his fatal heart attack last
year, he openly admitted that Oslo was "a Trojan Horse . . . just a
temporary procedure . . . just a step towards something bigger."
That something bigger is "Palestine from the river to the sea,"
Husseini said, i.e., from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. ...
There is nothing new here. This strategy has been the declared PLO position ever since it adopted the "Phased Plan" in Cairo in 1974. Phase
1: Accept any territory offered of whatever size within Palestine. Phase 2: Make it the forward base for the war to destroy Israel.
Our refusal to acknowledge this overwhelmingly obvious strategy is one of
the great acts of self-delusion in diplomatic history. European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana says that he hopes the weapons ship incident
will not scuttle peace talks. The peace efforts, says a U.S. official, will not
be derailed. "The Zinni mission will continue, ship or no ship."
This is madness. The ship is not an incident. The ship is not an accident. The ship is an announcement, inadvertent and therefore indisputable, of Arafat's duplicitous intentions: a temporary truce -- as he girds for war,
a far wider, deadlier, more explosive war.
What to do? Dare to face the truth.
The State Department did not take Mr.
Krauthammer's advice. In their 2002 report "Patterns of Global
Terrorism" they left out the terror activities perpetrated by PA security
forces themselves, as well as Arafat's calls and praise for terrorism. Instead
the report mentions how Arafat forcefully denounced the September 11
attacks. The State Department Report described the Tanzim, a group
controlled directly by Arafat who were responsible for many terror attacks as
"small and loosely organized cells of militants drawn from the
street-level membership of Fatah."
In the section on Egypt, the report does not
even mention the "terror underground tunnels highway" from Egypt to
the Gaza Strip that is the primary source of weapons and explosives in the Gaza
Strip.
Of the nearly 100 fatal terrorist attacks perpetrated against Israelis in 2001,
the State Department's
Chronology of Significant Terrorist Incidents includes only nine of them.
Omitted from the list of "significant" attacks were such incidents as
the purposeful bus crash into a bus stop south of Tel Aviv [Feb. 14; 8 killed];
the suicide bombing of a bus in Haifa [Dec. 2; 15 killed]; the massacre outside
Emanuel [Dec. 12; 11 killed]; drive-by murders such as that of a young woman
and her husband - Sharon and Yaniv Bar-Shalom - and her brother on the Modiin
highway [Aug. 25]; and dozens of others (Israel National News May 22 02)
The Zionist Organization of
America (ZOA) in a letter to U.S. President Bush and Secretary of
State Powell about the State Department Report wrote:
Once
again, the State Department is misleading Congress and the American
public by whitewashing Arafat's murder of Jews. Despite the capture... of
Arafat's 50-ton ship of terror weapons [and] of truckloads of documents signed
by Arafat in which he orders terrorism and pays individual terrorists, the
State Department continues to pretend that Arafat is innocent. The State
Department also ignores the culture of anti-Jewish hatred and violence in
Arafat's school textbooks, in the 90 PA-sponsored summer camps, and in sermons
by PA-appointed clergymen. "The State Department's policy... sends a
message to Arafat and other Arab terrorists that the United States will
tolerate his mass murder of Israeli men, women, and children, and that the U.S.
will not respond strongly even to the murders of 29 of its own citizens by
Palestinian Arab terrorists since 1993.
[T]he
Bush administration is, in effect, rewarding Arafat's terrorism by giving the
Palestinian Arabs an extra $50 million (in addition to the annual $100 million)
and by helping to prop up the Palestinian Authority police force, which itself
is involved in perpetrating terrorism against Jews. This policy tramples
President Bush's own doctrine of zero tolerance for terrorism, and actually
increases the likelihood of terrorism against the U.S. and the rest of the
West, for if suicide bombers succeed in Israel, they will inevitably strike in
America as well."
Frank Gaffney, president of the
Washington-based Center for Security Policy, appeared before a House Armed
Services subcommittee in May 2002 and said (Israel National News 5/27/02):
I
would suggest that not since [1995] has the Congress been served such a
distorted and, frankly, fraudulent document as that the State Department has
just rendered describing Palestinian compliance with its obligations and other
terrorist threats.
He added that the State
Department refused to acknowledge evidence that Arafat was involved in
financing suicide bombings and buying rockets to attack Israeli cities.
Americans For A Safe Israel in a Press
Release (5/24/02) regarding the State Department Report wrote:
Suffice
it to say that the State Department lists nine attacks against Israelis in
Israel in 2001 while Israels Ministry of Foreign Affairs listed 81 attacks.
The terrorist murder of Israels Ministry of Tourism, Rechavam Zeevy did
not make the list.
The report inverts truth by blaming Israels destruction of the PA
terrorist infrastructure for the ineffectiveness of the PA security forces.
The fact that these security forces are the terrorists themselves,
organized and paid for by Arafat himself, is never mentioned.
Herbert Zweibon, AFSIs
Chairman, said:
The
fixation by the State Department on a solution to the Israeli/Arab conflict
spins it into a world of illusion, where reality is ignored. This is a
dangerous position to take because it flies in the face of Americas fight
against terrorism as outlined by President Bush, and as endorsed by the
American people.
David Bedein in his article (Slurring
Israel, Frontpagemag.com 3/22/04) wrote about the delusional world of the
State Department exposed by its human rights report, released on 2/25/04 as
follows:
Since 1991, the Israelis and the Palestinians made
repeated attempts at negotiating peace. Despite meetings between high-level
Israeli and Palestinian officials, efforts to resolve the conflict yielded few
results
Such a statement gives the distinct impression that
both sides made equal effort. The reality, which is glossed over, is that
during the course of the Oslo process, from 1993 to 2000, Israel met its
obligations and turned over significant areas to the control of the Palestinian
Authority, while the PA failed to meet its obligations. No less a participant
than former President Clinton laid the blame for failure of the process
squarely on PA President Arafat. Yet the State Department chooses not even to
suggest that this might have been the case. ..
Only five specific attacks are listed even though
there were at least 17 suicide bombings alone and hundreds of other attacks
knifings, shootings, etc. that were perpetrated against Israel in the course
of 2003.
Nor is there is a single mention by name or
circumstances of the victims of those attacks: There is no specific mention,
for example, of the fact that children were bombed into non-existence when
returning from prayers at the Western Wall, or of the fact that a recently
released PLO prisoner had murdered Dr. David Applebaum much loved and much
mourned head of emergency services at Shaarei Tzedek Hospital and daughter,
the evening before her wedding...
What is lacking is the information well documented
that PLO gunmen frequently opt to position themselves behind civilians when
there is a gun battle so as to put the civilians at risk. It is not the PLO,
which sanctions this conduct, that is abusing the human rights of the
Palestinian Arab population?
The State Department human
rights report, released on 2/25/04 although condemning Arab terrorism also
condemned Israel's efforts to fight Arab terror. Caroline Glick in an
article Titled Surrealism vs. Reality (The Jerusalem Post 2/27/04) wrote:
Yet
aside from condemning every action Israel has taken to combat terrorism and
thereby equating actions aimed at protecting Israeli citizens with terrorism,
the report does something even more offensive.
The report very sensitively gives the names of a dozen or so Palestinian
children who died during Israeli assaults against Palestinian terrorists who
used these children for cover.
Yet, grotesquely, while the names of Palestinian children are listed,
the report provides not one name of any Israeli victim of Palestinian
terrorism. Not the Ohayon children, not 14-year-old Abigail Litle who was
murdered on a bus on her way home from school and not the names of hundreds of
other Israeli men, women and children who were murdered last year.
By naming Palestinian victims while not giving names of Israeli victims,
the State Department report follows in the path of the general climate that has
gripped us for the past 40 months. This general climate is characterized by the
dehumanization of Israelis and Jews by the international community.
This dehumanization prevents anyone from ever seeing the victimization of
Israelis. By balancing condemnations of Palestinian terrorism with
condemnations of Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, our critics,
even those among us, are cheapening the value of our lives.
By arguing that Israel abuses human rights when it defends itself
against an enemy which has declared its aim as genocide, the State Department,
like the UN, the EU, the foreign media and international human rights
organizations, is creating a false reality where Israel is not fighting a war
against an enemy bent on its physical destruction. Rather, Israel is simply
being mean.
In my articles on creation of
paranoia I mention how self esteem can be a motivating factor. This is
also the case in creation of delusion. When people are confronted with
evidence that contradicts their beliefs they may desire to ignore that evidence
rather than admit that they were wrong. There are other factors as well
that influence what people want to believe and their desire to believe may contribute
to delusional beliefs. Daniel Pipes
in his article "The Left's ongoing Oslo delusion" that appeared in
the Jerusalem Post, April 25, 2001, wrote how the Israeli left was sure
that:
If
only Israel made extensive compromises, Palestinians would respond by accepting
the permanent existence of a sovereign Jewish state in the Middle East. This
certainty inspired the seven-year-long Oslo effort from September 1993 until
September 2000 (yes, also during Binyamin Netanyahu's three years), when
Israeli governments pursued a policy of niceness.
But
instead of winning Palestinian acceptance, Oslo's painful concessions had the
reverse effect. The more Israel showed flexibility, the more Palestinians
smelled blood and became enraged at the very existence of the Jewish state.
This culminated in the violence of the past seven months.
Pipes writes how the extreme
left did not abandoned their beliefs in the face of such overwhelming
evidence. Instead they blamed their leader Ehud Barak The moderate
left blamed Arafat but continue to believe that concessions will lead to
peace. According to Pipes:
The
Oslo process did not fail because of poor implementation. Rather, its basic
assumption - that a policy of niceness would seduce Palestinians into accepting
Israel - proved profoundly wrong. If Israel truly wants to end its
problem with the Palestinians, it must adopt the opposite approach: convince
Palestinians not of its niceness but its toughness. This means ...punishing
violence so hard that its enemies will eventually feel so deep a sense of
futility that they will despair of further conflict.
Steve Plaut in his essay
"But, really now, how will we KNOW until we TRY it?" (Freeman Center Broadcast `10/6/03)
wrote about how the left rejected evidence that the Oslo process was a failure
with the argument that we need to try more and more and more...
Since
the beginning of the Oslo war process, the mantra of the Oslo Left has always
been, "But how do we really know till we try?"
When
the Labor Party and their fellow travelers proposed turning the West Bank and
Gaza Strip over to the PLO, promising the PLO would then seek peace and
suppress the terror, that it would live in tranquility, the objections of
opponents were snidely dismissed. "How do you KNOW it will not
work until you try it," hissed the Left. "No one really
KNOWS until it is implemented."
Well,
it was implemented and now we know. 1300 Israelis were murdered as
a direct consequence of the "testing" of the "ideas" of the
Left. And counting.
Then
the Left claimed that if only Israel would offer the Palestinians a state in
the West Bank and Gaza purged them of their Jewish civilians, along with
international recognition of "Palestine", control of East Jerusalem,
financial tribute, parts of pre-1967 Israel, and a well-equipped army, then the
Palestinians would respond with agreement to make peace. When opponents
objected that this was insane and suicidal, the Left caterwauled, "But how
do you really KNOW until you try it and make the offer?" Well Israel
did, at Camp David II, and now we know. The response was nazi atrocities and escalated war.
The Left has been wrong about absolutely everything in the past
decade. But it defends its "ideas" and insists that they be
further implemented by screaming, "No one KNOWS whether or not it will
bring peace until attempted."
Avi Davis in an article called WHOSE
ETHICS? WHOSE REVENGE? (Freeman Center
Broadcast 8/14/02) wrote:
Among
the more tragic examples of self-delusion visited upon the State of
Israel in recent years none has been greater than the conception that
unilateral action will set an example that Palestinians will emulate. The
Oslo Process all nine years of it - was largely such an
act, held aloft with crossed fingers, only to end in bitter
disillusion. For all Israels investment in peace making
there has been little obvious return for its giant leap of faith. The one
thousand Israeli dead and thousands of wounded provides brutal
confirmation of Prousts aphorism that the ultimate tragedy of the fool
is the inability to recognize the continuance of ones own folly.
The Israelis also believed that
withdrawing from Lebanon would be an excellent strategic move that would create
a peaceful northern border. Daniel Pipes wrote two excellent articles
about this in the Jerusalem Post. One was called Israel's
Lebanon Lesson, about what he terms Israel's "sweet delusion" and
the other is called Double
Delusion in which he writes:
In
2000, Ehud Barak's government implausibly maintained that the unilateral
retreat from Lebanon enhanced Israel's strategic position. His countrymen
brainwashed themselves into believing that their ignominious loss was "a
defeat for Syria and a victory for Israel." Israelis refused to see what
was plainly before their noses, so desperately did they want the end to
warfare.In contrast, the
Lebanese organization Hizbullah rightly claimed for itself a signal victory
over the mighty IDF and the first Arab military triumph over Israel. Without
exceptions or conditions, it achieved the goal of expelling Israel from
Lebanon.
The consequences of the withdrawal from
Lebanon are discussed further on the Appeasement in the
Middle East web page of this web site. Steve Plaut in his email
newsletter of May 24, 01 wrote about the delusions underlying the Oslo Peace
Process as follows:
Oslo has never been about Israel and the PLO striking deals and complying with
them. Oslo has been about Israel making unilateral appeasements and
capitulations. And Oslo is about Luddism, where Israelis convince themselves
that these appeasements buy goodwill and sympathy from the world, convincing
the world that Israelis are not such evil, cussed, racist demons as the world
has always thought. In other words, Oslo is based on a complete denial of the
past 2500 years of Jewish history.
Another aspect of Middle East Luddism is the obsessive drive to reach yet a new
"deal" with the PLO. The Israeli government, and NOT just the
politicians of the Left, keep seeking ways to get Arafat to sit down and at
last strike a new "deal". Sharon keeps sending his prodigal son to
meet with the Palestinian fascists in the hope of such a "deal".
Naturally, the Israeli press and the Left insist all settlements be frozen and
the Mitchell Commission Investigative Report into the Reichstag Fire be adopted
in full so that a new "deal" can be signed.
This pious and mystical belief in the promise of tranquility from any such new
"deal" with the PLO reminds me of all those millenary sects that keep
taking to islands and jungles after selling all their worldly goods because
they are sure the messiah (or at least UFOs) are imminently about to put an end
to the planet. Never mind how many times the end of the world has been declared
imminent and they are proven wrong, the true believers continue to march.
How anyone could think for a moment that any new "deal" would result
in ANYTHING but MORE PLO violence, atrocities, increased pressures on Israel
from the world to capitulate, and even more intense anti-Jewish agitprop on BBC
and CNN, is beyond me.
Steve Plaut has a point. Israeli
concessions since Oslo have been met with more PLO violence, atrocities
etc.. In an article "Are Most Moslems Anti-Terror?" 9/23/01 he
also points out that:
One
of the unchallenged axioms of American civic religion is that each and every group of people on earth must consist of an "overwhelmingly vast majority of decent hard-working honest people who want peace and are tolerant and freedom-loving and anti-violence."
It is an unchallengeable presumption of this theology that "vast majorities" of not only each and every racial/religious/ethnic group
may be so described, but even vast majorities of each and any subgroup within society. Hence we even sometimes hear assertions that the vast majority of prisoners, prostitutes, drug users, gang members, etc. are also decent, honest, peace-loving, honorable people.
The one imponderable in American civic theology is the idea that somewhere out there someplace there just might be is a group of people, the majority of whom are NOT peace-loving or honest or tolerant. This belief in universal peacefulness in the minds of Americans is the main obstacle to Americans ever understanding the Middle East. The simple fact of the matter is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of Arabs, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of Moslems, are not peace-loving and are not opposed to violence.
Noting this could not be more timely. Commentator after commentator among the Western media discuss the reactions in the Moslem world to the US atrocities with self-righteous fawning observation that Islam is a religion of peace, that the terrorists are about as representative of true
Islam as the IRA bombers are of Christianity, or as white supremicists are of Christianity. Each commentator goes out of his way to emphasize how we all understand that the vast majority of Moslems oppose terrorism and violence.
The only problem with this is that it is simply false and empirically disprovable. It is wishful thinking. The vast majority of Germans supported Hitler, supported wars of aggression, and supported genocide. The vast majorities of Hutus and Tutsis support massacres of the other. Similarly, the vast majority of Arabs support terror and violence and war. They do not see anything wrong with the blowing up of hundreds of civilians in an Embassy of the United States or in an office building of Argentinian Jews. They see any act of force taken against the perpetrators of such things to be itself a crime. (This is not to say that the vast majority of each and every subgroup of Moslems support such barbarism; the Turks and Indonesian-Malays come to mind as possible exceptions.)
The
vast majority of Moslems support the random and indicriminate use of terror and violence against Jews and against Americans. The reactions of Moslems everywhere are there on the TV screens for all to see and will be more unambiguously pro-terror the moment the US begins to attack Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Arab political thought is fundamentally Orwellian: murder is peace, prevention of murder or retaliation for murder is terror. Moslems are outraged by events in the Balkans because Moslems are being massacred; if Bosnians and Albanians were instead massacring Serbs they would have trouble hiding their approval and delight.
We have known for decades that the vast majority of Moslems also approve of Palestinian atrocities and bombings directly against Jews. There is no act of savagery directed against Israelis or Jews of which they will not approve by enormous majorities, and no act of defense by Israel that they will legitimize.
Public opinion polls are not conducted in most Moslem countries, but if they were they would no doubt reflect this popular approval. Polls ARE conducted among Palestinians and they show without exception that Palestinians approve of bombings and suicide bombs and atrocities committed against Jews, by enormous majorities. Their approval rates have generally increased with each Israeli concession to them under Oslo. The vast majority of Palestinians support Saddam Hussein. The vast majority probably support Bin Laden and the bombings of the Americans. The vast majority would approve if Iran or Iraq dumped chemical weapons or nerve gas
on Tel Aviv. These are the people with whom Oslo is supposed to produce
peace.
Oh, you might object, but Arafat has DENOUNCED Bin laden and even endorsed the US bombings in Sudan and Afghanistan. Well, yes he did, no doubt hoping
thus to get the US to force Israel to make a few more concessions as quid pro quo, and he was no doubt as sincere as were the IRA folks who denounced the bombing of Omagh. But the Palestinian fascist hordes, taking their signals from the PLO, know he is posturing and winking and these folks support Bin Laden by overwhelming majorities.
All this week there have been massive anti-American marches by the Palestinian brownshirts. US flags have been burned throughout the Palestinian zones...
Sweeney
was the name of an Irish king who believed he was a bird and spent his life in treetops. (Really.).. Oslo is based upon a fundamental denial
of empirical reality. Like the old Peter and Gordon song from the 60's, it is based upon the Sweeneyish assertion that "I don't care what they say I won't stay in a world
without love." And what happens to Sweeneys who live in unlit corners of the
earth without love? They pretend to be birds and rise above such mundane things as reality to live in treetops of utopian dreams. Leaving the rest of us to face terror, murder, violence, Arab fascism, and threats of genocidal extermination.
Peter Hutchins in an essay published on March
10th in the British newspaper, The Mail wrote:
In
normal life, it is a sign of being unhinged if you do the same thing over and
over again and expect a different result. But in the business of Middle East
diplomacy such behavior could earn you a Nobel Peace Prize. Since 1978, Israel
has been urged to give up a little more land in return for the promise of peace
which always seems to evaporate. The land however is gone for good.
One problem with the delusion
that most of a population is nice is that when there is a conflict it leads to
moral equivalence. If one assumes that most of the Palestinians are peace
loving people and many of them shoot Israelis than it appears reasonable to
draw the incorrect conclusion that the Israelis must have given them a
legitimate reason to do so.
Berel Wein in an article that appeared in the
Jerusalem Post June, 21 2001 called "Rebuilding our Confidence"
wrote:
We
need leaders who will speak the truth forcefully and calmly. We are tired of
suicidal delusions and shopworn slogans, of apple-cheeked youth dancing in
celebration of a mythical peace while our enemies prepare again for an armed
attempt to end the "occupation."
In another article called "A
Crazy World" (August 10, 2001 Opinion, Israel National News) Berel
wrote:
The
world in general ... is crazy beyond belief. How else can one explain that
Amnesty International is after Carmi Gillon while the Pope exchanges kisses and
hugs with Yassir Arafat? Arafats unblemished record of thirty five years of
terror, murder, corruption and violence got him a Nobel Peace Prize and
international approval, while all Gillon can show for his efforts at attempting
to save the lives of innocents here in Israel is a lousy ambassadorial
appointment to Denmark, with a threat of being arrested there. And what do you
say to the "peace rally" last Saturday night in Tel Aviv? Does it not
dawn upon the peace camp yet that there has to be another side willing to
make peace with us for any "peace process" to work? I would also
willingly join rallies for peace if I knew that such rallies were taking place
in Gaza, Ramallah, Shechem and Jericho, as well. But as long as they are taking
place only in Tel Aviv, I think that such gatherings, in light of present
realities, border on the ludicrous, if not the insane. And what shall we make
of the journalistic rewriting of the Camp David fiasco? What grain are these
journalists eating? Somehow, it isnt Arafats fault at all that he turned down
the deal to end all deals, offered no counteroffer to Barak and unleashed the
murderous campaign of terror and violence that, while it may be hurting Israel,
is certainly destroying the Palestinian economy and social structure.
What
are we to think about the "humanitarians" who unleash Code Red
"viruses" and "worms" on the worlds computer systems in
order to prove some obscure point? What sadistic pleasure they must gain from
their twisted exploits. And how shall we understand the behavior of the noble
anti-globalization protesters who have trashed Seattle, Genoa and other world
cities in their quest for social justice? Nothing accomplishes the advancement
of the cause of the poor and the downtrodden the world over as quickly and
definitively as does breaking shop windows, looting goods from their legitimate
owners, hurling rocks and firebombs at police and becoming drunk and stoned.
And, naturally, in this lunatic world of ours, the police are to be blamed for
"overreacting" and beating the firebomb throwing crazies.
The crazies are going to hold a conference on racism in South Africa next
month. In attendance there will be, among others, the Hutus and the Tutsis of
Burundi and Rwanda, the Zulus and the ANC of crime-ridden South Africa, Kadaffi
of Libya and Mugabe of Zimbabwe, all of whom are experts in killing and
stealing, with an horrendous record of accomplishments in these fields. They
will gather and solemnly decide whether Zionism is racism. The Russians, whose
methods of attempting to stamp out the Chechnyan uprising make the Middle East
violence look like a touch football game, will undoubtedly intone on the
matter. The righteous French, who have never yet admitted their
collaborationist role with the Nazis in the Second World War, will also have
something to say on the matter, as will the Oslo-creating Scandinavians.
Uri Dan in his article
"Bibi, Barak and Arafat" that appeared in the Jerusalem Post in July
2001 wrote that:
NETANYAHU
and Barak both lacked the intellectual integrity needed by the leader of a
Jewish state whose future is in jeopardy - integrity obligating him to
disconnect the fake "peace-drug infusion" from the veins of the
Israeli nation, which had been deluded into thinking that peace lay just around
the corner.
The
two leaders apparently succeeded in drugging themselves as well and hoped that
they would achieve some kind of agreement with Arafat. For this reason
Netanyahu gave Hebron to Arafat, an act he now deeply regrets. His office
director, Uri Elitzur, was amongst those in favor of giving up another 13
percent of Judea and Samaria, based on the public-opinion polls which guided
Netanyahu's actions. Barak, believing in his political blindness that he would
bring about "an end to the conflict," hurried to hand over the
remaining 11% in one go, destroying the Wye agreement in the process.
Evelyn Gordon in her
article "No End In Sight" that appeared in the Jerusalem Post on July
3, 2001, writes about the delusions of the International Community regarding a
so called reduction in violence that supposedly occurred after Arafat agreed to
a cease fire on June 13th. She wrote:
The
first flaw in the "progress" theory is the fact that eight Israelis
(as of this writing) - the majority of them civilians - have been killed since
the "cease-fire"began on June 13. This is an average of one murder
roughly every two and a half days. Not only is this a completely unacceptable
figure by any civilized standard, but it is also virtually identical to the
death rate in the months preceding the cease-fire. Thus it is hard to fathom
how this figure constitutes a decline in the violence. Equally
problematic is the fact that there have been numerous violent incidents that
miraculously failed to result in death...
It is not hard to understand why the international community so desperately
wants to believe that an end to the violence is in sight. What is puzzling,
however, is why so many people seem to think that closing their eyes to the
truth will further this goal. In fact, the opposite is the case: by rushing to
declare that "progress" has occurred when it has not - and that
Arafat should therefore immediately receive the diplomatic rewards that were
slated to accompany an actual truce - they are encouraging the violence to
continue. After all, if Arafat can obtain all the proffered benefits merely by
mouthing the right words, what conceivable incentive could he have for tackling
the much more difficult task of making those words a reality on the ground?
The Israeli belief that building a new fence will
protect them against suicide terrorists may be a delusional decision that
ignores prior experience. Yehuda Poch in an article called
"Political Fencing" (Freeman Center Broadcast 6/21/02) wrote:
For
decades there has been a fence along the border between Israel and Lebanon.
Not once has this fence prevented missile attacks against northern
Israeli communities. Any terrorist who wanted to invade Israel and commit
acts of war has not been deterred by a few electronic devices or barbed
wire. The fence never removed the need for the IDF to spend 20 years in
Lebanon ensuring the security of the Israeli north, and in the last two years
since Israel pulled out of South Lebanon, even a UN recognized border has not
stopped Hizbullah from attacking the north at whim.
In the Gaza Strip, a fence exists along the 1967 line. This fence
also has not prevented mortar attacks or other terrorist outrages emanating
from there. On the Lebanese border and along the Gaza line, the fences
have served more as a target for attacks than as a preventive, and have necessitated
increased IDF activity rather than its reduction.
Like its two predecessors, the new fence will not prevent terrorism.
If an Arab is prepared to die in order to kill Jews, nothing as flimsy as an
electronic wall will stop him. Terrorists will find ways around, over,
under, or through this obstacle...
Interestingly the fence did
reduce terrorism although as Yehuda predicted a terrorist dug a hole underneath
and murdered Israelis and terrorists during the hudna (cease fire) built
thousands of rockets to shoot over the fence. In October, 2003, Hanadi
Tayseer Jaradat, a 27-year- old law-school grad, blew herself up in Maxims a
Haifa Restaurant and killed at least 19 people including three children, ages
1, 5 and 6, (New York Post 10/5/03). It later came to light that
she was able to get past the fence surrounding Jenin (Israel National News 10/8/03).
Still if fences reduce terrorism it's better to have one than not to have
one. It is delusional however to believe that a fence is a substitute for
uprooting terror at its source.
In October 2002, the
Quartet U.S., EU, UN, and Russia drafted a road map peace plan. One of
Bush's prerequisites for the plan was democratic reform in the Palestinian
Authority. Arafat simply appointed his right hand man Abu Mazen to
represent him and that was considered sufficient by the United States
which pressured Israel to make concessions and agree to a Palestinian state as
required by the plan. Another part of the plan is that the Palestinian
Authority crack down on terror. Carol Glick wrote about this
"crackdown" in an article titled Washington's Betrayal, (Freemanlist
5/30/03). She wrote:
In
an interview with Yediot Aharonot on Thursday, Palestinian Authority Prime
Minister Mahmoud Abbas repeated for the 1000th time that he has no intention of
taking any action against the terrorist infrastructure. While he maintains that
he is presently negotiating with Hamas to stop attacks on Israelis and states
that once he has an agreement for a cease-fire, he will try to work out
arrangements with Fatah and Islamic Jihad, Abbas will take no military action
against any of the terror networks. "We will never have a civil war,"
he said...
For
his part, Saeb Erekat was even more succinct. Speaking with the Associated
Press on Wednesday, he explained that Abbas is aiming to get Hamas and Islamic
Jihad to agree to wait until after a Palestinian state is declared before
attacking Israeli targets. In his words, Abbas "will insist on this
declaration [of a cease-fire] because that's the key... for him to go out and
tell the Palestinians, 'Look, we've got the Israeli government to recognize the
Palestinian state, [so] we need two years in a peaceful, meaningful peace
process."
As part of the roadmap the
Palestinian Arabs agreed to a temporary cease fire and cessation of
terror. Yet according to statistics compiled by the IDF, there were a
total of 167 Palestinian terrorist attacks against Israel in the four weeks
after the hudna went into effect. That's down from their usual 300 but is
certainly not a cease fire. Then Raed Abdul Hamid Mask, an Islamic
scholar and father of two children, blew himself up on a bus packed with
parents and young kids coming home from prayers in Jerusalem (NYPost
8/20/03). The half-Hudna was over. Did that change the mind of the
American administration? Did they now realize that something was wrong
with the roadmap to peace? The small piece in the New York Post
(Peace 'map' still on course: Rice 8/26/03) answered that question:
The
United States will forge ahead with the violence-ripped "road map"
because the peace plan is the only way to bring "durable peace and
security" to the Middle East, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
said yesterday.
She
also called on Israel to carry out its "responsibilities" to help
achieve a "peaceful change."
President
Bush "remains committed to the course that he laid out... because it is
the only course that will bring durable peace and security," Rice told
veterans in San Antonio, Texas.
Jedidiah Purdy, in his book Being
America writes that:
Although
Muslims from Egypt to Indonesia claimed in the fall of 2001 that they would
accept Osama bin Laden's guilt if the United States proved it by public evidence,
their promise sounded hollow after Washington released a video in December that
showed bin Laden discussing having planned the attacks. The so-called
Arab street didn't blink: the tape was denounced as a fabrication.
Stalin a
former dictator of the Soviet Union was responsible for the murder of about 43,000,000
people. When he died Russia went into mourning. Before he died
he concocted the
Doctor's Plot to instigate progroms against Jews. While one would
think that all Jews would have breathed an enormous sigh of relief upon
Stalin's death, there was no shortage of Russian Jews who shared in the
country's paroxysm of grief. Even more peculiar, I. F. Stone, a well-known
left-wing Jewish journalist in the United States, attacked President Eisenhower
for not issuing a more effusive note of condolence on the mass murderer's
death.
In June 2014 a spokesman of Abbas
admitted that he lied to Americans regarding Palestinian intentions.
When I go out (publicly) and say that the (PA) government is
my government, and it recognizes Israel and so on, fine these words are
meant to trick the Americans,
Abbas was quoted as saying.
The Palestinians have a long history of deception, Sarah
Stern, founder of the Endowment for Mideast Truth, told
WND.
Stern said that in 1996, she obtained an audio tape of a closed-door meeting in
which the Palestinian National Council discussed a tactic of deceiving the
international community to make it appear they had voted to amend the
Palestinian National Covenant.
Stern noted the covenant has 33 clauses, 30 of which are devoted to the
annihilation of the Zionist entity, or Israel.
They never amended the covenant. Instead they voted to appoint a committee to
look into writing a new covenant. The committee has never convened, and members
of the committee have never been named. Sadly, it appears that deception is very
much a part of the modus operandi of the Palestinian people, she said.
Ion Mahai Pacepa wrote in a Wall Street
Journal op-ed (Jan 10, 02)
Arafat
has made a political career by pretending that he has not been involved in his
own terrorist acts. But evidence against him grows by the day.
Daniel Pipes and Jonathan Schanzer
in an Op-Ed Denial
A River in Egypt (New York Post 1/14/02), wrote how the editor in chief of
the Egyptian Government's daily Al-Ahram announced that:
The
story of the arms ship is but a licensed fabrication by Israel.
Pipes and Schanzer continue:
Saudi
media agreed that the episode was a hoax with Arab News calling it an
"elaborate trap" and Ar-Riyadh alleging that "it was necessary
to fabricate the ship story" to implicate other Arab and Muslim countries
as sponsors of terrorism...
this
denial avoids problems rather than dealing with them.
Part
of the U.S. war on terrorism, therefore has to be working with Muslim
governments and pressing them to face reality. This will not be easy but
so long as they remain in denial the stage is set for fresh disasters.
Zalman Shoval wrote an article in the
Jerusalem Post (August? 2001) in which he points out groups in other countries
have had delusions e.g. Britain's Cliveden set regarding Hitler,who
espoused appeasing Nazi Germany and branded Churchill a warmonger, and how in
in certain circles, in the US, France and Israel (Meretz), and Stalin was
crowned the hero of peace and progress but that they let go of their delusions
about Hitler during World War II and their delusions about Stalin when he
perpetrated his reign of terror. In his article Mr. Shoval asks:
Why,
unlike those British pro-German appeasers or the pro-Soviet dupes, is our own
Peace Now crop not yet able or willing to face reality, to admit it made a
tragic mistake - and to contritely leave the stage? Are they being
disingenuous? Haven't they noticed? Do they lack civic courage? Or perhaps the
answer lies in the realm of psychology - they recognize that everything they
ever believed in and fought for was always a myth - or worse, a house of lies -
but cannot admit it, even to themselves.
Not all pro-Soviet dupes gave up their delusions
during Stalin's reign of terror.
Jamie Glasov an emigre from the
Soviet Union whose parents were dissidents and were persecuted by the KGB wrote
that:
when the Soviet archives
were opened after the fall of the Soviet tyranny in 1991, I hungrily devoured
all the information inherent in the revelations in declassified documents,
disclosures from former Soviet officials, etc. They all confirmed and
substantiated what conservatives had been arguing for decades -- and what
common sense had long ago instructed -- that the Soviets were totalitarian,
power-hungry and expansionist brutes that started and prolonged the Cold War.
When I approached my
colleagues with this new evidence, ranging from everything from the issues of
the Korean war, Berlin, Soviet espionage, American communists links with the
Soviet regime, etc., I showed how I had been correct on every issue that we had
argued about for years.
And yet, instead of hearing
a mea culpa, a stated regret or admission of some kind of lesson learned, all
that I witnessed, in a manner that remains extremely eerie for me to remember,
was a callous indifference and smug contempt for the issues at hand. Some of my
colleagues articulated a few incomprehensible justifications of their
positions; others just switched topics with remarkable speed and ominous
neglect. All of them condescended to me for being interested in something so
old and ancient. They patiently counselled me, with a disdain and arrogance
that I will never forget, to stop chasing old ghosts and engaging in
necrophilia.
Jamie asked Professors John Earl
Haynes and Harvey Klehr, the authors of In Denial: Historians,
Communism, and Espionage why these historians were so dismissive of the
evidence that he presented to them. Klehr answered:
Jamie,
many of those you speak of live in a different reality from that of the rest of
us. Psychologically, they do not see what you see. They see the present and the
past through a special lens. What is overwhelmingly clear to them is an
imagined future collectivist utopia where antagonisms of class and race have
been eliminated, the economic and social inequalities that have driven people
to crime have been removed, poverty does not exist and social justice reigns,
world brotherhood has replaced war and international strife, and an economy
planned by people like them has produced economic abundance without pollution
or waste. Coupled with this vision of the future is loathing of the real
present which falls woefully short of these goals and hatred for anyone or
anything that stands in the way of their illusion of the radiant future.
At Solovki, one of earliest Gulag camps, Soviet administrators put up a
sign that expressed the Communist program: "With an Iron Fist, We Will
Lead Humanity to Happiness." That slogan captures the murderous nature of
the utopian vision of the hard left.
Avi Davis in his article Iron in the Soul (Freeman Center Broadcast Aug 5, 2001) wrote
that In 1954, the year following Josef Stalins death, the French intellectual
Jean Paul Sartre, author of the classic existential novel, Iron in the
Soul, wrote in the journal Liberation Soviet citizens criticize their
government much more effectively than we do. Furthermore, he later
added, Soviet citizens do not travel abroad, not because they are prevented
from doing so, but because they have no desire to leave the country.
This was at a time when Stalins iron fist was still as tightly clenched around
his peoples throats as ever. Freedom of speech had been brutally extinguished;
Labor camps, filled with hundreds of thousands of war veterans, writers, middle
class professionals and political enemies, groaned under the weight of their
failing capacities. Spies were everywhere, with children reporting their
parents and students their teachers. Yet Sartre, together with his
equally famous paramour Simone de Beauvoir, remained oblivious. Convinced
of the superiority and righteousness of the Communist cause, Josef Stalins
regime stood as a model of human progress, unsullied by damning reports to the
contrary.
Avi also writes that the way the Cliveden Set (Hitler apologists)
and the Fabian Society (Stalin apologists) who were thinkers, leaders and
champions of freedom, remained so unmoved by mounting evidence of concentration
camps and forced labor gangs, is one of historys more egregious examples of
moral gymnastics.
Avi writes that denial among
intellectuals did not die with Sartre and de Beauvoir. Its spirit
lives on in a myriad of academic
and left wing incarnations. No more so than in the left wing
intellectual communitys assessment of the Arab-Israeli dispute. One
needs only to read recent revisionist accounts of last summers
Camp David summit by such writers as Deborah Sontag, (New York Times)
Robert Malley (New York Review of Books) and Yossi Beilin (Haaretz) to be
convinced that the members of the left wing intelligentsia are traipsing the
same morally muddied terrain as their predecessors.
Avi writes :The Arafat apologists,
... have succeeded in bringing that brand of denial to a new level of
acceptability. How these liberal commentators, who have access to far
more graphic depictions of daily events, (than the Cliveden Set and the Fabian
Society, could excuse Arafats resort to terror, his tolerance for targeting
babies and children or the continued incitement and anti-Semitism of the
Palestinian media - no matter what Arafat did or did not do at Camp Damp
David - is truly a thing of wonder. But is the repeated
incidence of self delusion an example of career advancement, or is it
just plain heartlessness?
George Bush made a statement that he
looked in Vladimir Putin's eyes and saw his soul and knew he was a good
guy. Later during the American war with Iraq, Russia supplied Iraq with
GPS jammers. Nyquist wrote: (5/2003)
Confirmation
of Russia's enmity appears, even now, in the rubble of Baghdad. It has been
reported that the Kremlin offered Saddam Hussein access to a network of
assassins in the West. It provided transcripts of private conversations between
Western leaders.
X Reasons People Cling to Delusions
Avi writes that the British historian, Paul Johnson, wrote that
history has shown certain members of the intelligentsia take stands that
vitiate against both logic and their own principles. Paul Johnson
believed they did this for ego gratification or self publicity and/or in order
to advance their careers.
One book that sheds light on why
the left clung to delusions about Stalin is called The
God that Failed by Arthur Koestler. This book is an anthology
of essays in which the finest philosophers and writers of the West at the time
describe the painful process of emancipation from the false charms of the
Stalinist dream. Each in his own words and style, the contributors - Arthur
Koestler, Ignazio Silone, Richard Crossman, Richard Wright and others, some of
them former communists, others only admirers of the Soviet Union - talk about
how hard it was to give up the idea that the Soviet system heralded a new era
for mankind. Even when the horrors of enforced collectivization, the
Hitler-Stalin agreements, the Soviet forced labor camps and the lies and deceit
of the Stalinist show trials came to light - even then emotional separation
remained difficult.
Most of the writers said that the hardest part was not dealing
with the facts but with their own credo, their own self-image as soldiers battling
for a better world. How difficult it was to admit that their dream of
redemption was a fata morgana; that Stalin, the "shining sun," was a
murderer; that the Soviet ideological system was a web of lies; that the new
society, meant to be liberated and liberating, was nothing but a giant prison
cell, founded on terror, cynically exploiting the innocent faith of some of the
West's finest intellectuals.
In otherwords the barrier for
giving up delusion was the loss of self esteem.
In a Ha'aretz op-ed, August 24,
2001, Shlomo Avineri - a leading professor at Hebrew University, former
Director General of Israel's Foreign Ministry, and a prominent leader of
Israel's peace camp who supported negotiating with the PLO long before the Oslo
process began - argues that the difficulty of Israel's left to admit in the
ideological failure of the Oslo process and Arafat's leadership, in spite of
what happened at Camp David and since then, is similar in many ways to the
European left's difficulty to give up the idea that Communism, the Soviet
system and Stalin's leadership heralded a new era even when the horrors of
Communism and Stalin came to light. Following are excerpts from Avineri's
op-ed:
When
Arafat rejected the Clinton plan, turned the right of return into a matter of
principle, and denied that Israel has any right at all to the Temple Mount, it
became clear that the Palestinians were not prepared for a historical
compromise. In their eyes, the talks were only a way of getting what they
wanted - not a painful process of give and take. That the Palestinian public
and its leaders voice broad support for terrorism against Israeli citizens
shows yet again that all the universal values cherished by the Israeli left
mean nothing to the other side. Whoever expected Yasser Arafat to turn into
Nelson Mandela was proved wrong, but admitting it is hard. Incredibly hard.
For that reason, there are members of the Israeli left who prefer to labor
under the illusion that some compromise can be reached. It is difficult for them to admit that "peace now,"
however desirable, is not possible at the present time. When the other side
cannot come up with a single intellectual prepared to state clearly, without
mumbling, that the murder of children in a pizzeria is a crime, then the Israeli
left has no ally...
It was hard for those seduced by the charms of the Soviet Union to see that
it was a ruthless, oppressive country, but that was truth. Just as intellectual honesty enabled the foremost
intellectuals of the Western world, smitten by the idea of a new dawn in Moscow, to admit that "god [-Stalin -] had
failed," one hopes that the excruciating process of facing up to the truth will enable the Israeli left to accept a
solution that is capable of ending much of the occupation today.
If not, they are liable to find themselves - dialectically, if one can say
such a thing - among those who perpetuate the occupation. For the solution they
propose, there is no partner on the other side. It hurts, but that is the
truth.
Secretary of State Colin Powell
explained on 3/3/02 why the U.S. would not call Arafat a terrorist. He
said:
Arafat if the head of
the Palestinian Authority an organization we helped create. We need to
work with him.
Why does the fact that the U.S.
made the terrible mistake of helping create Arafat's administration mean that
"we need to work with him". Is it because anything is less
painful than facing up to the reality that it was a terrible mistake to support
Arafat?
David Basch in a broadcast of the Freeman
Center on October 14, 01 wrote that:
Israel
is ravaged by various mental illnesses that skew the thinking of its people so
that the nation ends up giving in to various stages of the Arab program for
Israel's destruction. Among these mental illnesses is a fanatic
universalism that grips leftist Israelis so that they come to regard the same
enemy that regards murder of Israeli civilians as legitimate and suitable
partners for peace. With this thinking comes acceptance of the myths that
somehow Arabs have a "right" to build a new nation on Israeli lands
and territories. Perhaps related to the above mental illness is the undoubted
fact that too many Israelis are swayed by a "Stockholm syndrome," an
unreasoning fear of the Arab enemy that makes them identify with enemy goals
and his propaganda.
J. R. Nyquist in an article titled Are We Honest? wrote
regarding the reason people misconstrue events:
One
of the central culprits in political analysis is ideology. If you live and
think according to a formula, you may be dead to reality -- and you certainly
aren't thinking. We must keep in mind that it is human nature to err, and that
ideology represents the ossification of error. It has to be admitted that we
see the world through the lense of what we already know, think and feel. And
sometimes, though we hate to admit as much, that lense is smudged. With
ideology, it is blinkered.
Daniel Pipes wrote an excellent
article in Commentary called Israel America and Arab
delusions. Once one has delusions then things that would be easy to
explain become hard to explain unless one comes up with another delusion to
explain it. For example, the delusion that the Jews are evil, leads to
the question "Why does the United States support Israel?" One
way to answer this is to create the delusion that the United States is
evil. Another is that Israel is incredibly powerful and controls the
United States. An example of this kind of delusional thinking was the
statement of Mawdudi, the pre-eminent fundamentalist Muslim of Pakistan, who
asserted that Jews rule the United States like the jinn rule mankind. The
Jinn are
minor supernatural beings, like elves or sprites, a legacy from the Middle
East's pre-Muslim polytheistic past.
The delusion of the power of the
Jews has lead President Assad of Syria to describe the Zionists as
"invaders who are threatening not just the Arab nation but the entire
human race." Likewise, senior Palestine Liberation Organization figures
portray themselves doing battle on behalf of all humanity. Amal, the moderate Shi'i
movement in Lebanon, calls Zionism a continuing danger "to the whole of
humanity."
The
Arabs are frightened by any act of the Jews that seems benevolent because that
destroys the irrevocably negative image they have of them. For example
when Israel dispatched a team of agricultural experts to Egypt, and they did
useful and laudable work, they were accused by the Egyptian press, followed by
the rest of the Arab world, of spreading diseases in order to contaminate
Egypt's land and ruin its farming. The rationale is clear: how could
miserable Israel, populated by those Jews that were born for humiliation,
extend any help to the most ancient and experienced farming culture in the
world? Something does not add up; therefore it is better to deny that the
Israelis are of any use and accuse them of ill will. Since no Egyptian
leader dares to come out against those calumnies, they are taken as valid and
true.
Raphael writes how since in the Arab perspective it is
in the Jewish nature to perform acts of profanation the attempts of Israelis to
put out a fire set by a Christian arsonist in the al-Aqsa mosque did not
exonerate them from the guilt for the fire.
Amir Taheri wrote how Saddam paid for
demonstrations on his behalf in other Arab countries. He wrote: (Saddam's
Orphans, New York Post 8/19/03)
Two
prominent Lebanese pan Arabists have fled to France to avoid paying the mobs
they hired for pro-Saddam demonstrations in Beirut last winter. And other
pro-Saddam Ba'athists are facing unpaid bills for anti-war demonstrations they
organized in Morocco, Algeria and Egypt.
At
the time, those efforts were seen in the West as a sign that the "Arab
street" was about to explode against the U.S. led coalition.
Scott Walker may become
president of the United States as of Feb 2015. He was asked questions from
the press such as "What do you think Obama's religion is?" and "Do you agree
with former mayor Giuliani that Obama does not love America." (I don't
have the exact quotes). He said I don't know to the first one and said
Giuliani is entitled to his opinion and that he wouldn't make comments on
whether Obama loves America or not. The media was trying to trap Mr.
Walker but his answers were reasonable. Inspite of that
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank
skewered Walker for "avoiding anything that might resemble leadership," because
he didn't say whether Obama loved America or not. The leftist press is
trying to discredit Walker in any way they can. This is in contrast to
their
fawning treatment of Obama.
Donald Trump said thousands of muslims in New Jersey celebrated 9/11. The
number that openly celebrated 9/11 in NJ is probably closer to dozens but some
of the media in their zeal to discredit Trump made it appear that
no Muslims celebrated 9/11.
People campaigning for a
candidate or the candidates themselves often distort the truth so that they can
win. Ralph Peters in an article titled
Iraqi Fairy Tales 6/21/08 wrote:
In a classic through-the-looking-glass
reversal last year, Sen. Hillary Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus, the man
who turned Iraq around, that his reports of progress were fairy tales. It
was the world turned upside down.
Bat Ye'or, a very
knowledgeable scholar of Islam and Islamic history has written several books
which clarify Islam's terrible history and the threat it poses. One
of her books, Eurabia, is a book with very
disturbing and fascinatiing information regarding Islamic influence on Europe.
The New York Times labeled her one:
of the most extreme voices on the new Jewish
right,
which Robert
Spencer writes is not only arrant nonsense, since Bat Yeor is in no sense a
figure of the right, but also Times-speak
for pay no attention to this person.
she argues in her latest book, Eurabia: the Euro-Arab Axis, that
Europe has consciously allied itself with the Arab world at the expense of Jews
and the trans-Atlantic alliance. But she is of the right, you see, so the Times feels no need to examine the
evidence for this that she marshals so relentlessly in Eurabia.
I think that the New York Times perceives the
idea that Islam is a threat, as a right wing idea and so any scholar who
demonstrates that Islam is a threat, by definition becomes a right wing fanatic
who should be ignored no matter how in depth their knowledge an no matter how
important or little known the information they present is that supports their
case.
One of the most successful creations
of delusion of this century was the creation of the delusion of the Palestinian
identity. Not only has the majority of the world been convinced of such
an identity, many of the Arabs living in the Middle East now consider
themselves oppressed Palestinians. An excellent web site that exposes
this delusion is called The Palestinian
Identity. Creation of this delusion greatly strengthened the Arab
cause of destroying Israel. Instead of the West viewing the conflict as
the result of the vast Arab nation attempting to destroy little Israel, the
conflict was now powerful Israel oppressing the weak Palestinians.
Other successful creations of delusion were
framing by the Soviests of wars of aggression and conquest as wars of
liberation.
Ion Mihai Pacepa, onetime director of the Romanian espionage service (DIE),
explained that the KGB created liberation front organizations throughout
the Third world including the PLO, the National Liberation Army of Bolivia,
created in 1964 with help from Ernesto Che Guevara, and the National
Liberation Army of Colombia, created in 1965 with help from Fidel Castro.
David Meir Levi in an article titled
The Communist Roots of Palestinian Terror wrote:
Arafat was particularly struck by Ho Chi Minhs success
in mobilizing left-wing sympathizers in Europe and the United States, where
activists on American campuses, enthusiastically following the line of North
Vietnamese operatives, had succeeded in reframing the Vietnam war from a
Communist assault on the south to a struggle for national liberation. Hos
chief strategist, General Giap, made it clear to Arafat and his lieutenants
that in order to succeed, they too needed to redefine the terms of their
struggle. Giaps counsel was simple but profound: the PLO needed to work in
a way that concealed its real goals, permitted strategic deception, and gave
the appearance of moderation:
Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war
into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people
eating out of your hand.
Another very successful delusion
creation was that Arabs who murder Israelis will go to heaven if they fall in
action. Ralph Reiland in his column Dying
for Dubious Jihad, Inside the Suicide Strategy (American Enterprise Online
6/24/02) quoted Arabs about their beliefs in this regard. He wrote:
A video
released by the militant Islamist group Hamas shows a proud Naima al-Obeid
holding a rifle beside her favorite son, Mahmoud, a 23-year-old college
student. Mrs. al-Obeid is saying good-bye to her son as he heads out to kill
some Jews.
The video starts with
a warm embrace between mother and son, their final embrace as it turns out, and
then a nice kiss. God willing, you will succeed, says the mother. May every bullet
hit the target, and may God give you martyrdom. This is the best day of my
life.
Mahmoud
says: Thank you for raising me.
Shortly
thereafter, Mahmoud was shot dead after killing two Israelis in the Jewish
settlement of Dugit in the Gaza Strip. His mother's response: We believe our
sons go to heaven when they are martyred. When Jewish sons die, they go to
hell.
And so,
another perfect ending: Two more Jews go to hell, Mahmoud is up behind the
clouds with a merry gang of virgins, and, praise be to Allah, Mrs. al-Obeid
becomes a village hero.
We found
crowds coming to the mourning tentand not just because of him, reports BBC
Middle East correspondent Orla Guerin. People here arent just remembering
Mahmoudthey are honoring his mother. She has become a heroine, being talked
about on the streets, praised in the local papers. Some Palestinians are taking
a great deal of pride in a mother who saw her son go to kill and die without
shedding a tear. They are already saying she will inspire other women to do the
same.
Guerin
asked Mrs. al-Obeid if it mattered whether her son killed women and children.
The women and children are also Jews, she answered. They're all the same for
me.
Naima
al-Obeid has nine more children, whom, she tells Guerin, all have a duty to
fight. And, according to documents obtained by Fox News, the Saudi Interior
Ministry pays 20,000 riyals to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Bottom line, if all nine kids blow themselves up, they'll be nine more parties
at the mourning tent and Mrs. al-Obeid will pocket some 180,000 Saudi riyals,
the equivalent of $48,060 in U.S. currency. ..
The London-based
Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat recently published an interview with
Umm Nidal, the mother of "shahid" (martyr) Muhammad Farhat. The
following are excerpts from the interview as translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute.
Q: "How did the idea of martyrdom
develop in your son?"
Umm
Nidal:
"Allah be praised, I am a Muslim and I believe in Jihad. We must instill
this idea in our sons' souls, all the time. Jihad is one of the elements of the
faith and this is what encouraged me to sacrifice Muhammad in Jihad for the
sake of Allah. My son was not destroyed, he is not dead; he is living a happier
life than I. Because I love my son, I encouraged him to die a martyr's death
for the sake of Allah. The atmosphere to which Muhammad was exposed was full of
faith and love of martyrdom. I maintain that a man's faith does not reach
perfection unless it attains self-sacrifice. I prayed from the depths of my
heart that Allah would cause the success of his operation. I asked Allah to
give me 10 Israelis for Muhammad, and Allah granted my request and Muhammad
made his dream come true, killing 10 Israeli settlers and soldiers. Our God
honored him even more, in that there were many Israelis wounded."
Q: "How did Muhammad say
good-bye?"
Umm
Nidal: Muhammad
was willing to carry out any martyrdom operation. He would tell me, I am going
out now to an attack. I cannot control myself. I would answer him, You will
yet have a great opportunity. Be patient, plan well, so that you don't
sacrifice yourself in vain. Act with your mind, not your emotions. He swore to
me that the only reason he loved life was Jihad. He would brandish his weapon
and tell me: Mom, this is my bride. He loved his gun so much.
Sheik
Ikrima Sabri, leading clergyman of the Palestinian Authority, sums it up:
"The Muslim loves death and martyrdom, just as the Jews love life."
The Muslims are succeeding in bending Christian
theology to justify their occupation of Israel and to undermine the Jewish
claim to Israel. Bat Ye'or wrote a chapter titled The Islamization of
Christianity in her book Eurabia
about this. She wrote:
The
Arab dhimmi Churches - especially the Syro-Palestinian ones - have elaborated
an entire theology of the non-Jewish, Arab roots of Christianity: Palestinian
Liberation Theology. According to this trend, Christianity was born in an
Arab tent and with a Palestinian identity. This new Arab-Palestinian sui
generis embodiment of Christianity evidently also denies any historical rights
to the modern State of Israel in its Hebrew-Israelite birthplace...
Palestinians
describe the flight of Muslims and Christians to neighboring Arab countires in
1948 following the Arab war against Israel as the exodus of the Hebrews from
Egypt, with the Israeli leaders representing pharaoh... In other mytical
Arab appropriations, Israel symbolizes Herod, "killer of the
Innocents," or the Roman oppressors in Judea - the Muslim Palestinians
being the oppressed Jews.
The
Arab Palestinians, heirs and symbol of the Arab Palestinian Jesus replace the
fallen deicide Jewish people, whose sins, in this view, have deprived them of
their history and rights to their own land. Palestinianism cements
the sacred Islamo-Christian fusion in Jesus as symbolized by a Palestine
crucified by Israel - a concept and image constantly propagated during the
Muslim/Christian Palestinian war against the Jews. The suffering of the
Palestinians in their struggle to destroy Israel evokes Christ's passion, his
suffering on the cross to save the world. Moreover, like Jesus, the
mission of Palestinian Liberation Theology is to liberate the world from
Israel's evil by unveiling its diabolic character, and cement through
Palestinianism a worldwide Muslim-Christian alliance...
Since
the emergence of Palestinianism in the 1970s, the Arab dhimmi churches have
striven for a united front against Israel by identifying totally with the Arab
Palestinian cause. They saw their service to Islam as bringing together
the whole Christian world in solidarity with the Palestinians and promoting an
anti-Israel campaign in the West.
The
Christian service to Islam thus consists primarily in its worldwide support of
the Muslim jihad against Israel. It has also included spreading Islamic
propaganda through Western religious channels, encouraging and giving practical
or moral succor to anti-Israel terrorism by blaming it on Israel, demonizing
Israel and America, vindicating Islam, and, above all, concealing the
Islamization and religious "purification" of Arab societies - including
the discriminatory and humiliating restrictions imposed on native Christians...
Yet
this supine attitude has not worked to the advantage of Christians in the Holy
Land and the Middle East in general. The appeasement policy that blames
on Israel and America the deterioration of their condition to evade any
criticism of Muslim intolerance, highlights the dangers inherent in Christian
dhimmi life.
The Christians living
under Muslim control are afraid to speak up against their persecution by their
Muslim masters. Of course their silence just makes it easier for their
Muslim masters to dominate them.
Ehud Ya'ari: in an article
called "Not Just Anti-Semitic Lies! No possibility of making peace with
the Jews" (The Jerusalem Report December 16, 2002) wrote that:
Syrian
TV is running the dramatic locally produced series, "The Collapse of Legends." Its central premise is that there is no archeological
evidence to support the stories of the Old Testament; that the Torah we hold holy is nothing but one big forgery made up by rabbis; that it has no connection with the Ten Commandments, but is rather a fabrication of history designed to give the Jews a claim to the Land of Israel. So in the dramatized
serial, a group of Syrian archeologists sets out on a campaign to expose a group of Zionists who have infiltrated their party with the aim of tampering with
the ancient antiquities at the famous archeological site of Ebla, in order to give some scientific basis to the forged scripture.
And in case you were worrying, Arafat is not being left behind. Palestinian TV is broadcasting a series of documentaries with one single objective: to disprove the "myth" that any Jewish Temple ever stood in
Jerusalem, and to present any historical reference to that claim as an act of deception.
According to Joseph Farah (The
Jewish Temple WorldnetDaily 8/14/03) Palestinian Authority Mufti Ikrima Sabri
told a German publication just last week,
There
is not [even] the smallest indication of the existence of a Jewish temple on
this place in the past. In the whole city, there is not even a single stone indicating Jewish history.
Similar statements have been
made by Yasser Arafat.
He
made the assertion again recently in the London Arabic paper Al Hayat:
Archaeologists, he said, "have not found a single stone proving that the
Temple of Solomon was there because historically the Temple was not in
Palestine."
According to a study by Dr.
Yitzhak Reiter, conducted for the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, the
claim that Jews have no real connection to Jerusalem and its holy sites has
been adopted by the Palestinian leadership and has become entrenched in Arab
and Muslim communities. At the heart of this new version is the argument that
Arabs ruled Jerusalem thousands of years before the Children of Israel.
According to this new history the First and Second Temples are lies fabricated
by the Jews. This view was even adopted by the website of the Egyptian Embassy
in Washington, which declared that there has never been any archaeological
evidence of Jewish life in the Jerusalem of ancient times. Film producer Arthur
Cohn when given the Rennert Prize in 2004, spoke about this
and said:
No
wonder, then, that the Palestinians seize every opportunity to destroy in the
most uncivilized way all the precious archaeological artifacts beneath the
surface of the Temple Mount. What an irony: No other people except the Jews has
ever made Jerusalem its capital, despite its conquest by many imperial powers,
but now clear facts are denied and history is rewritten.
In September 2007 , after Muslim driven
bulldozers dug a trench 1,300 feet long and five feet deep, the Muslim diggers
reportedly came across a wall Israeli archaeologists believe may be remains of
an area of the Second Jewish Temple known as the woman's courtyard. (wnd.com
11/9/07)
The Israeli government, however, blocked leading
archeologists from surveying the damage undoubtedly to avoid antagonizing the
Muslims so that there would be peace. The Muslims who dig trenches that destroy
Jewish artifacts have no such concern for keeping the peace.
Aaron Klein wrote:
Speaking to WND in a recent interview, Waqf official
and chief Palestinian Justice Taysir Tamimi claimed the Jewish Temples
"never existed."
"About these so-called two Temples, they never existed, certainly not at the
Haram Al- Sharif (Temple Mount)," said Tamimi, who is considered the second
most important Palestinian cleric after Muhammad Hussein, the Grand Mufti of
Jerusalem.
"Israel started since 1967 making archaeological digs to show Jewish signs
to prove the relationship between Judaism and the city, and they found
nothing. There is no Jewish connection to Israel before the Jews invaded in
the 1880s," said Tamimi.
The Palestinian cleric denied the validity of dozens of digs verified by
experts worldwide revealing Jewish artifacts from the First and Second
Temples, tunnels that snake under the Temple Mount and more than 100 ritual
immersion pools believed to have been used by Jewish priests to cleanse
themselves before services. The cleansing process is detailed in the Torah.
Asked about the Western Wall, Tamimi said the structure was a tying post for
Muhammad's horse and that it is part of the Al Aqsa Mosque, even though the
wall predates the mosque by more than 1,000 years.
"The Western Wall is the western wall of the Al Aqsa Mosque," he said. "It's
where Prophet Muhammad tied his animal which took him from Mecca to
Jerusalem to receive the revelations of Allah."
The Palestinian media also regularly claim the Jewish Temples never existed.
Then
there is the invention of the myth tracing the origins of the Palestinians to
the Canaanites. If they did that only to create a national myth that
would cement in a remote past their claim on the land, one could perhaps nod
with a smile of understanding. But when they, at the same time, deny the
existence of one millennium of documented Jewish history on that land, with its
two commonwealths and exiles, just in order to brand the Jews as forgers of
history, and they end up believing in their own concoction to boot, this is
self-delusion, pure, and simple.
Ariel Natan Pasko in an
article titled Arafat TV- Disinherits the Jews wrote about what Palestinian TV
broadcasts as follows (frontpagemag.com 8/12/04):
Thanks to Itamar Marcus over at Palestinian Media Watch, who monitors
Palestinian television broadcasts, we now "know" that:
1. The Hebrews of the Bible have no connection to the Jews of today. 2. The Hebrews of the Bible were Arabs. 3. The Prophets of the Bible were Muslims. 4. Biblical King Solomon was a Muslim Prophet. 5. Solomon's Temple was not built by Israelites but by Arab Canaanites. 6. The Canaanites are the forefathers of the Palestinians. 7. The Bible is legends based on what Jews imagined and not on history. 8. The Jews of today are descendents of a 13th Century
Khazar tribe with no history in the Land of Israel. 9. The location of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is a Zionist invention. 10. Zionism
is Racism.
The following is a poetry video that has been
broadcast often on Palestinian TV (Palestinian
Media Watch Bulletin 7/30/04) claiming that Israelis are just phantoms in a
land that belonged to the Palestinians for millions of years.
"You
are phantoms on my land [visuals of Israelis]
And
our roots in her are deep [scenes of land]
For
a million years it is our homeland
May
the conquerors exploit as they will [war scenes]
We
came - the dawn of man's creation in the world
And
our arrival - the beginning and time
Before
us no foot had strode through her [scenes of land]
And
calls were not heard
Ours
are the caves of her mountains
Ours
are her rivers
Ours
are her plants, vineyards, the fields
And
a waterway there is, faced with fields
And
the bones of our fathers that lived on the ground
And
under it they died...
This
is the beginning [scenes of Yasser Arafat]
This
is the beginning
And
every beginning is followed by an end [scenes of Al-Aqsa Mosque]
The
days are long [war scenes]
The
days have always been long
And
the course of history - revolution [PA flag flying] ."
The Israelis turned Joseph's
tomb over to the Palestinian Arabs as part of the Oslo accords with the
condition that Jews could still worship there. The Palestinian Arabs then
attacked Jews who tried to worship there. During one bloody week in
October 2000, Fatah gunmen attacked the tomb repeatedly, killing two and
injuring dozens, prompting Barak to order a complete evacuation of Judaism's
third holiest site Oct. 6. Palestinian Arabs set fires in the site and
then Fatah, to spread the propaganda that Joseph was a Muslim to justify its
unwillingness to restore the site.
Aaron Klein
wrote
In
the wake of an attempt by Palestinians to burn down Joseph's Tomb
Judaism's third holiest site Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud
Abbas' Fatah faction issued a statement denying it will help restore the
shrine, referring to both the shrine and the biblical patriarch as "Muslim."
"Pay no attention to the rumors that we will work with Israel to restore the
burial site of the holy Muslim Joseph," said the statement, issued from
Nablus, the biblical city of Shechem. "We are going to guard this holy
Muslim site."
XIIb Creation of Delusion to Prevent Competitors From
Gaining Power
The chief of NATO Anders Fogh Rasmussen
said
(June 2014) that Russia is secretly working with environmental groups campaigning against
fracking in an attempt to maintain Europe's dependence on energy imports
from Moscow. Speaking at the Chatham House foreign affairs think-tank in London, Anders
Fogh Rasmussen said Russia was mounting a sophisticated disinformation
campaign aimed at undermining attempts to exploit alternative energy sources
such as shale gas.
He said: "I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their
sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively
with so-called non-governmental organisations - environmental organisations
working against shale gas - to maintain European dependence on imported
Russian gas. That is my interpretation."
Mr Rasmussen did not say what form the Russians' engagement with the
environmentalists took or whether groups concerned were aware that they were
dealing with Moscow's agents.
He said that improving energy security was of the "utmost importance" and
required European nations to develop more diverse sources of supply.
Bat Ye'or in an address to the
International Strategic Studies Association (8/31/1995) explained how Great
Britain created the delusion of Muslim tolerance in order to keep the Russians
from gaining influence in the Balkans. The Russians argued that they
should intervene to save the Christians from Turkish persecution. Bat
Ye'or explained the situation as follows:
To
simplify it: The super power of the 19th century, Great Britain, waged a
"space game" with the other potential super power: Russia. Where
interests of the two crossed was - Balkans (then under Turkish occupation).
It
would be most natural that Russia should have the influence in the the area.
Most of the subdued Balkan nations (Serbs, Greeks, Rumanians, Bulgarians) are
Eastern Orthodox - like Russians. That did not fit British interests. That is
how Britain allied itself with Turkey and invented the myth of the Muslim
tolerance.
When
Turks cut throats, raped women and steal children of Balkan Christians - it was
OK for the Brits - it was an expression of tolerance... As long as Russians do
not get influence in the Balkans.
The American press is
overwhelmingly liberal and wanted Obama to win and Romney to lose. Bruce
Thornton
wrote:
No issue better illustrates this bias than the still
on-going scandal over the murders of our diplomatic and security staff in
Benghazi. As of last Thursday, CBS, ABC, and NBC had gone 7 nights in a row
without mentioning the story. The reluctance of the legacy media to demand
an accounting for the increasingly obvious attempt by the White House to
spin the attack for partisan advantage is one of the most shameful betrayals
by the Fourth Estate in recent memory. Just compare the feeding frenzy over
Watergate, a political scandal in which no one died, to the skimpy,
reluctant, special-pleading coverage of Benghazi, and the extent of the
medias degradation becomes obvious.
So pervasive has been this partisanship that even liberal reporters have had
to acknowledge it. ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper admitted that the
media helped tip the scales for Obama during the 2008 campaign. MSNBC
political analyst Mark Halperin acknowledged that the Washington media is
very susceptible to doing what the Obama campaign wants, which is to focus
on marginal issues like Mitt Romneys tax returns. And The New York Times
conceded that the Obama campaign is allowed to have veto power over the
reporting of its statements. But this self-awareness of the few cannot halt
what Jonah Goldberg calls mindless advocacy journalism, nor slow the
medias increasingly desperate partisanship as it becomes more evident that
Mitt Romney could win the race.
Psychiatrist/Historian
Kenneth Levin wrote the following in an article titled From Jewish to Israeli
Self-Hatred: The Psychology of Populations under Chronic Siege, which was
published onJuly 2, 2006 by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
In 1997, Haaretz columnist
Ari Shavit wrote of the course forged by Israel's political elite and
passionately embraced by its intellectual and cultural elites, including
himself: "In the early '90's...we, the enlightened Israelis, were infected
with a messianic craze.... All of a sudden, we believed that...the end of the
old Middle East was near. The end of history, the end of wars, the end of
conflict.... We fooled ourselves with illusions. We were bedazzled into
committing a collective act of messianic drunkenness."4
But while Shavit's
"messianism" gives a label to Oslo-era thinking, it does not explain
it. The explanation lies in the psychology of chronically besieged populations.
Whether minorities enduring persistent marginalization, defamation, and attack
from the surrounding society, or small states under continual siege, segments
of such communities almost invariably embrace the indictments of their enemies.
They hope that by reforming themselves in a manner consistent with those indictments
they will win relief.
The West is fearful of criticizing Islam.After Muslims reacted violently to some
Danish Cartoons about Islam there was widespread interest in knowing what those
cartoons were but the majority of the media refused to reprint them.Bill Warner from the Center of Political Islam said in an interview with Frontpage MagazinethatIt was fear that drove the vast majority of the media not
to reprint the Mohammed cartoons, not some imagined sensitivity.
After two
Muslim youths ran from the police, trespassed into an electric substation to
hide, and died as a result of short circuiting electrical equipment massive
Islamic riots broke out, causing millions of dollars worth of damage and
thousands of torched automobiles.
The French
reacted by prosecuting two of the police the Muslims ran away from ( 2 French police face pre-riot charges.)This creates the delusion that the police were guilty in some
way.
Bruce Bawer wrote an outstanding article with many outrageous examples of
how the West bows down to Islam.
When the
American embassy in Benghazi was being attacked and nearby American CIA and
military men wanted to help they were told to stand down. Daniel
Greenfield wrote an article titled "Why
Our Forces Were Told to Stand Down in Benghazi". He wrote:
"A
Spectre gunship blasting away at an Islamist militia in the streets of
Benghazi would have ended the fiction of a successful war in Libya and
infuriated most of the Islamist militias. Worst of all, it would have made
Americans seem like imperialists, instead of helpful aides to the Islamist
transition of the Arab Spring. It would have ruined everything and so it was
shut down...
Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods are our
governments sacrifices of peace. They died so that we might go on in our
futile effort to win over the Muslim world. And they are not the only ones.
There is no way of knowing how many of the 1,500 Americans who were killed
in Obamas surge died because they were prevented from firing first or
denied air support. But the number is likely to be in the hundreds."
Peace now
and other organizations that believe that Israeli settlements are preventing
peace in the Middle East have published articles stating that those settlements
were built on privately owned Arab land. The only problem is those
settlements were
built on what had been Jordanian state land which wasn't privately owned.
Jordan was artificially cut out of the Jewish National Home by the British.
It appears that Peace Now was lying in order to bring more pressure on the
government to disband the settlements so that there would be peace. Of
course as the withdrawal from Gaza showed peace does not come when Jews
surrender lands, it just whets their enemies appetites and encourages more
violence.
Worldnetdaily
reported how On Feb. 28, 1973, James J. Welsh, the National Security Agency's
Palestinian analyst, was summoned by a colleague about a communication
intercepted from Yasser Arafat involving an imminent Black September operation
in Khartoum, Sudan.Within minutes,
Welsh recalls, the director of the NSA was notified and the decision was made
to send a rare "FLASH" message -- the highest priority -- to the U.S.
Embassy in Khartoum via the State Department.But the message didn't reach the embassy in time. Somewhere between the
NSA and the State Department, someone decided to downgrade the urgency of the
warning.
On March 1, 1973, eight members of the
Black September terrorist organization, part of Arafat's Fatah faction of the
PLO, stormed the Saudi embassy in Khartoum on Arafat's orders, taking U.S.
Ambassador Cleo Noel, diplomat Charge d'Affaires George Curtis Moore, Beligan
diplomat Guy Eid and others hostage, and one day later, killing Noel, Moore and
Eid.Audio tapes made in Cyprus and
U.S. embassies in Beirut and Khartoum left no doubt that it was Arafat's voice
directing the operation from Feb. 28 the day before the men were kidnapped to their execution
two days later.
When President Clinton invited Arafat to
the White House for direct negotiations on the Middle East, Welsh said, that
was the last straw. He has been on a personal one-man mission to uncover the
tape recordings and transcripts of those intercepts between Arafat and Fatah
leader Salah Khalaf, also known as Abu-Iyad, in Beirut and Khalil al-Wazir in
Khartoum.
Welsh
did not found many allies among members of the U.S. Congress -- in either
party.
"No one wants to touch this thing,"
Welsh
said.
"It's a hot potato. No one wants to be
responsible for derailing the Mideast peace process."
Covering
up the involvement of Arafat in these murders was done to help bring peace to
the Middle East but did it bring peace to the Middle East?Obviously not.Did it make the Middle East more peaceful at least?The violence increased as Israel gave in to
Arafats demands under pressure from the United States.Covering up the truth to bring peace brought
more violence.
An interesting
aspect of the murder besides the lesson it makes about the consequences of
covering up the truth for peace, is that one of the demands of the terrorists
who killed these people was the release of Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, the convicted
assassin of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.This suggests to me that the Palestinian Arabs may have been behind
Sirhan Sirhans murder of Kennedy.Sirhan was a Palestinian Arab who was angry at Robert Kennedys support
of Israel.There is evidence that he is
not the only one who fired shots at Kennedy, there may have been other
Palestinian Arabs involved.Perhaps the
murders in Khartoum are not the only murders being covered up for the sake of
peace.
Sir Ridley Scott directed
a movie about the Crusades called Kingdom of Heaven in which he altered history
to get across a message that he believed would help Muslims, Christians and
Jews to get along. According to the New York Times
Muslims
are portrayed as bent on coexistence until Christian extremists ruin
everything. And even when the Christians are defeated, the Muslims give
them safe conduct to return to Europe.
Sir Ridley according to the Times,
said
he hoped to demonstrated that Christians, Muslims and Jews could live together
in harmony if only fanaticism were kept at bay.
Eva Green a French actress in the movie
said that the movie is intended to move people
to
be more tolerant, more open towards the Arab people.
[T]he
Kingdomof Heaven script invents a group called the Brotherhood of Muslims, Jews and
Christians. A publicist for the film elaborated: They were working together.
It was a strong bond until the Knights Templar cause friction between them. Ah
yes, everything was all right until those Christian extremists spoiled
everything.
Kingdom of Heavenis designed to be a dream movie for those
guilt-ridden creatures who believe that all the trouble between the Islamic
world and the West has been caused by Western imperialism, racism, and
colonialism, and that the glorious paradigm of Islamic tolerance, which was
once a beacon to the world, could be reestablished if only the nasty white men
of America and Europe would back off. A dream movie for the PC establishment,
except for one little detail: it isnt true.
Professor
Jonathan Riley-Smith, author of A Short History of the Crusades and one of the worlds leading historians of the period, called the
movie rubbish, explaining that its not historically accurate at all... It
has nothing to do with reality. Oh, and there was never a confraternity of
Muslims, Jews and Christians. That is utter nonsense.
Professor Riley-Smith also labeled the
movie "Osama Bin Laden's version of history" and said, "It will
fuel the Islamic fundamentalists." (Variety 5/8/05) The movie
opened on 21 screens in the United Arab Emirates, nine in Lebanon, six in
Kuwait, three in both Qatar and Jordan and on single screens in Bahrain, Oman
and Syria.
Does altering people's views of
reality in this way help bring peace? Altering perceptions of reality in
order to prevent conflict can actually create more conflict. Those who
are influenced to believe that it is Western nastiness that causes friction
with the Muslims are likely to think of those who warn about Islam as being
nasty Westerners. They are likely to see them as bringing about terrorism
and war and to become hostile toward them. Those who are influenced to
see the Muslims as the "good guys" will vote for politicians who wish
to appease Muslims regimes. Appeasement by nature leads to the growth of
power of the appeased and so will increase the chance of conflict.
Painting the West as evil reinforces the hostility of Muslims already hostile
to the West and undermines the positions of Muslim reformers who wish Muslims
to get along with the West.
Harvard University chose for its
commencement speaker Zayed Yasin, the past president of the Harvard Islamic
Society to give a speech titled "American Jihad". Yasin
declared an intention to convince his audience of 32,000 that "Jihad is
not something that should make someone feel uncomfortable." Jihad sure
made the thousands of people who burned to death in the World Trade Center very
uncomfortable.
Hugh Fitzgerald in an article
titled Jihad as a Spiritual Struggle (Outpost April 2005) wrote:
Muslims,
and not only on NPR, have preferred that Infidels take the word Jihad to mean
what they want those Infidels to think it means: "a spiritual
struggle." But the evidence, textual and historical, is
overwhelmingly the other way. We are told: Forget what people chant at
rallies in Cairo, or Karachi, or Gaza, or what imams in Jiddah and Baghdad and
Teheran preach. Forget what the boys in the madrassas learn, or what the
Qur'anic commentators have written. Just remember - What the World Needs
Now is Love Sweet Love, and not a "clash" but a "dialogue"
of "civilizations," and if that means pretending that people do not
mean what they mean, surely it is worth it.
The
ideology of jihad was formulated by leading Muslim theologicans and scholars
from the 8th century onward. Their voluminous writings make clear the
notionof jihad as a holy war of conquest. Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d.
966), for example, stated,
"Jihad
is a precept of Divine institution...We Malikis [one of four schools of Muslim
jurisprudence] maintain it is preferable not to begin hostilities with the
enemy before having invited the latter to embrace the religion of Allah, except
where the enemy attacks first. They have the alternative of either
converting to Islam or paying the poll tax (jizya), short of which war will be
declared against them..."
Why this creation of delusion about the
meaning of Jihad? A Harvard dean defends it as a "thoughtful
oration" that defines the concept of Jihad as a personal struggle "to
promote justice and understanding in ourselves and in our society." The
dean promises, "The audience will find his oration, as did all the Harvard
judges, a light of hope and reason in a world often darkened by distrust and
conflict." According to Daniel Pipes (Harvard Loves Jihad, New York Post
6/11/02):
Unfortunately,
Harvard's stance is typical of nearly all North America universities. Almost
every Middle East specialist hides the truth about jihad and (as shown by a
chilling report from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, Defending
Civilization) almost every campus drips contempt for the U.S. war effort
(typical statement: "The best way to begin a war on terrorism might be to
look in the mirror").
It
is delusional and dangerous to maintain that this ideology is rooted in social
deprivation, backwardness, injustice, or despair. Moreover, paying
subsidies to suspend global jihad terrorism is tantamount to paying a tribute
to terrorist states.
David Crystal spoke about the
creation of delusion during the Clinton administration regarding the Middle
East Conflict in an interview with frontpagemag.com (Defaming Israel
10/14/04). He said:
We all know now what I knew back then, that the PLO
had committed material breaches of the Oslo Accords, which stated that the PLO
must confiscate illegal weapons, must dismantle militias and terrorist groups
must do everything in its powers to fight terrorism emanating both from its
borders and within its borders and must do everything within its powers to
protect Israeli citizens, even within their own borders. Since 1994 they had
violated these contingencies numerous times in a series of suicide attacks upon
Israelis and were very active in disseminating jihadist-style propaganda. Also,
Arafat himself was secretly taped by the Mossad planning at least one suicide
bombing with Hamas officials in 1994-95, even though the Declaration of
Principles relating to the Oslo Accords was signed by Arafat in 1993. But
instead of condemning the PLOs actions as Clinton should have, as any even
handed broker would have, these actions were instead attributed to so called
enemies of peace." In reality, these enemies of peace were Yasser Arafat
and his PLO but Clinton would never indicate this. Instead he perpetrated a
fantasy that Arafat was in fact a man of peace when as any objective party
could clearly see; he was nothing of the sort. On the other hand, when Israel
would exercise its rights of reprisal in response to the material breaches of
the Oslo Accords committed by the Palestinian
Authority [PA], the Clinton State Department would then criticize Israel for
making moves that were not acceptable or not helpful to the peace process. So
real PLO violations were rarely criticized but alleged Israeli violations and
appropriate responses by Israel to real Palestinian violations were criticized
as having violated the Accords. In an effort to seem impartial, the Clinton
State department adopted the tactic of having to criticize Israel as much as
the PA. This created a false moral equivalency between Israel and the PA. When
a terrorist attack was committed upon Israel, the Clinton State Department
would characterize it as having been committed by so-called enemies of peace
when in fact they were being committed by the PA itself.
Why whitewash Arafat in
this way? It's possible that the reasoning of the Clinton administration
was that Arafat was all the Israelis had to deal with so if he was a painted as
a terrorist there was no hope for peace so they had to pretend he wasn't
one. Why blame Israel? It is possible that the Clinton
administration thought that blaming Israel would pressure it to make concessions
that would lead to peace.
After a series of horrific suicide bombings
of Israeli civilians the Israeli army went into the areas under PA control to
rout out terrorists. President Bush gave a speech on (4/4/02) in which he
said:
I
ask Israel to halt incursions into Palestinian-controlled areas and begin the
withdrawal from those cities it has recently occupied.
In the same speech he said:
At
Oslo and elsewhere, Chairman [Yasser] Arafat renounced terror as an instrument
of his cause, and he agreed to control it. He's not done so.
Terror
must be stopped. No nation can negotiate with terrorists, for there is no way
to make peace with those whose only goal is death.
In the same speech he advocated a policy
contrary to the principles he stated in that speech. Daniel Pipes wrote
an article in the LA Times (4/5/02) called Missing:
Realistic Take on Arafat about the contradictions in Bush's speech.
President Bush and Secretary of State
Colin Powell have been avoiding labeling Arafat a terrorist. This even
though as Netanyahu told CNN (4/2/02)
He's
nightly and daily calling for ... a million suicide bombers in Jerusalem. He's
not getting a million, but he's getting quite a few.
Benjamin Netanyahu in a speech to the U.S.
senate April 10 2002 said that
Yasser
Arafat brazenly pursues an ideology of policide the destruction of a state
and meticulously promotes a cult of suicide.
With total control of the media, the schools, and ghoulish kindergarten
camps for children that glorifies suicide martyrdom, Arafats dictatorship has
indoctrinated a generation of Palestinians in a culture of death, producing
waves of human bombs that massacre Jews in buses, discos, supermarkets, pizza
shops, cafs everywhere and anywhere.
Among the evidence that Arafat is a terrorist
are the following items:
1.The "Arafat
file," presented on May 5, 02 by Minister Danny Naveh of Israel, is a
100-page document containing evidence that much of the money sent to the Palestinian
Authority by the European Union for humanitarian purposes was used by Yasser
Arafat for terrorism - and to line the pockets of top PA officials. The
file is based on the vast intelligence information garnered as a result of
Operation Defensive Shield, including testimony by Fatah-Tanzim head Marwan
Barghouti and other captured terrorists. Minister Naveh, who oversaw the
writing of the document, noted that many PA "policemen" received
salaries for simply carrying out terrorist activity against Israel. The
file also shows that the EU sent over $9 million monthly to the PA for purposes
such as building homes for refugees, food and medicine, and that Arafat
diverted much of it - up to 2/3, in some months - to the Tanzim's Al Aqsa
Brigades and other terrorist organizations. Larger sums of money from
Arab countries were also diverted in this manner. In addition, much of
the money also ended up in the pockets of senior PA officials, according to
testimony gathered by Israeli investigators. A collection of documents seized
by the Israelis can be viewed
online.
2.American and European
officials have confirmed that Arafat's Palestinian Authority was the moving
force, paymaster and operational supervisor of the attempt, foiled by the
Israelis on Jan. 3, to smuggle 50 tons of Iranian supplied rockets, mortars,
anti-tank missiles, assault rifles and C-4 explosives by freighter into
Gaza. Palestinians have been firing rockets and mortars at Israeli civilians.
3.The United States
recorded Arafat's commands to the terrorists on the Achille Lauro to kill Leon
Klinghoffer.
4.Israeli intelligence
officials intercepted a phone call in 2001 in which Arafat told the head of his
Tanzim militia Marwan Barghouti to accelerate attacks on Israelis despite what
Arafat said publicly. "When you hear me call for a cease-fire, step
on the gas," Arafat said.(New York Post 4/16/02)
5.The head of Arafat's
"Office of Preventive Security Rajoub's headquarters were stocked with mortars,
heavy machine guns along with disguises used by suicide bombers.
6.The CIA has a lot of
classified evidence that Arafat is a terrorist. Robert Baer a former CIA
agent wrote in his book See
No Evil, The True Story of A Ground Soldier IN the CIA's War On Terrorism,
that: "At the end of the day, whether you're tracing 'Imad
Mughniyah or seeking to unravel the Iranian revolution, a lot of the trails
converge at the feet of Yasir Arafat." (Imad Mughniyah was probably
involved in the bombing of the American Embassy in Lebanon and the kidnapping
of Americans in Lebanon.) He also wrote that: I unraveled the Beirut
embassy bombing, at least to my satisfaction: Iran ordered it, and a Fatah
network carried it out.
Incredibly after being given the
information about the involvement of Arafat and his police forces in terrorism
Bush decided to send George Tenet to unify Arafat's security forces (New York
Post 5/9/02). This can only make those forces more powerful. In
addition according to the New York Post (5/17/02)
In
Washington, the State Department said it had found "no clear
evidence" that Arafat or other senior PLO officials ordered or knew in
advance of terror attacks on Israel between June and December last year.
In regard to this outrageous intelligence
assessment by the State Department Major Shawn Pine wrote (An Intelligence
Abyss 5/18/02 Freeman Center Broadcast):
Unfortunately,
the public record is replete with literally hundreds of violations of the
Accords by Yasser Arafat and the PA.
and that
one
can only conclude from the State Department's confirmation of PA compliance is
that either the intelligence they are receiving and the analysis being applied,
is extraordinarily faulty, or that the analysis is being manipulated so that
the State Department can pursue its political agenda.
Major Pine argues that the correct
explanation is the analysis is being manipulated and that this report and
another DOD report:
will
provide the Administration with justification for pressuring Israel to pursue a
political solution with the Palestinians without appearing hypocritical as it
pursues its war against Al-Qaida. By the issuance of these reports, the
Administration can obfuscate Arafat's terrorist background and minimize the
strength of the 100 page detailed report that Israel recently provided the
United States regarding Arafat's participation in terrorism. The importance
of both of these news reports is that they reflect the inherent politicization
of the nation's intelligence services to produce analysis that will facilitate
political objectives rather than accurately report the truth.
Not only does the State
Department lie it also pressures Israel to hide the truth. According to
the global Israeli alliancethe State Department
has demanded that Israel NOT publish the documents it has acquired that link
the Palestine National Authority and Fatah in the premeditated campaign of
murder in Israel over the last five years (2000-2005).
Sharon in an interview with Fox News
(4/11/02) said:
Powell knows who Arafat is, but the U.S. is having a
problem with the Middle East now and wants it to be quiet so it can get on with
its own war against terror. The Arab world is taking advantage of that
and saying if Israel does not agree to conditions that it cannot accept, that
would mean it cannot survive, then there will be no peace in the Middle East.
Arafat stands behind the terror in the world today.
Israel will continue to act against terror. President Bush said one should not
negotiate with terrorists. Well? Israel faces terror every day. With
Arafat it will never be peace because he doesnt want peace.
Sharon conceded that Arafat
is still secure in his role as Palestinian leader.
No one will dare to act like they could replace him.
After all, hes accepted as legitimate by the secretary of state of the worlds
only superpower. I said it was a tragic mistake. Its a mistake not just from
Israels point of view, but for American interests.
Israel Radio correspondent Yoni Ben-Menachem
asked Powell why the US has been fighting terrorism in Afghanistan for seven
months, yet demands that Israel stop fighting terrorism on its own doorstep
after only seven days. Powell responded,
The
President and I have spoken about this. We understand Israel's need to
defend itself, we understand that Israel is under threat of terrorist attack,
and we have been supportive. But at the same time we believe, as a friend
of Israel, we have to take note of the long-term strategic consequences of the
incursions that are underway and its effect on other nations in the region and
the international climate. I have explained our position to [Prime
Minister Sharon] and he has explained to me what he feels has to be done.
And I hope we can find a way to come to an agreement on this point of the
duration of the operations, and get back to a track that will lead to a
political settlement. We do understand what terrorism is, and as we have
responded to terrorism, we know that Israel has the right to respond to
terrorism. The question is, how do we get beyond just the response? ...
What is the next step?
What is the long term effect? If
Israel withdraws after routing out the the terrorist infrastructure it will
grow right back. If Powell is worried about long term affects he should
encourage Israel to take measures to prevent the terrorists infrastructure from
coming back.
Major Shawn Pine in an article called "A
Shameful Decision" (Freeman Center
Broadcast 4/19/02) wrote:
It
is almost surreal to follow the conduct and rhetoric of the United States as it
conducts its operations in Afghanistan while simultaneously calling for Israeli
restraint and urging the resumption of negotiations with Arafat, the
quintessential terrorist. It is important to note, The victims of Palestinian
terrorist attacks against Israel have numbered been some eight times the
magnitude of that suffered by the U.S. last September...
The
President appears to have accepted the false premise that by not fully
supporting Israel's war against terrorism the US will gain Arab support in its
operations against Iraq. However, the Saudi embrace of Iraq at the Arab summit
should have disabused the US of that notion... The US experience vis-a-vis
Afghanistan has clearly demonstrated that only when the US displays the
requisite resolve to achieve an objective do the countries in the region
acquiesce.
Seven months after Shawn Pine's
article was published the New York Post (11/4/02) reported that Saudi Foreign
minister Saud el Faisal said on 11/3/02 that Saudi Arabia would not permit
bases on its soil to be used in an attack against Iraq and would not grant
flyover rights to U.S. military planes even if the U.N. sanctioned an invasion.
"I
call upon Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian Authority to do everything in their
power to stop the terrorist killings,"
and writes:
Everything?
How about anything? The administration's response to Palestinian
terrorism is a cowardly evasion of reality. Mr. Arafat shouts,
"Jihad, jihad, jihad." Mr. Arafat's Voice of Palestine radio praises
suicide bombers as "heroic martyrs." Mr. Arafat releases known
terrorists from his jails, like the two responsible for turning a Passover
seder into a slaughterhouse. Mr. Arafat's Tanzim militia competes
with Hamas in murdering Jews. In January, Mr. Arafat tried to smuggle 50 tons
of heavy armaments and explosives into his terrorist mini-state.
Why won't Bush say the
truth? Why won't they brand Arafat as the terrorist that he is?
Secretary of State Colin Powell answered that question on CBS' "The Early
Show" on 4/2/02. He explained
We
still believe there is more he can do and we are asking him to do more and it
would not serve our purpose right now to brand him individually as a terrorist.
So terrorists are only people
who it is our advantage to call terrorists.
The Israeli Government does not
want to deal with Arafat so Arafat appointed Abu Mazen for the Israelis to deal
with. Despite all the evidence given previously on this page that Abu
Mazen is also a terrorist the United States refuses to see him as one.
Despite the disastrous results of CIA support for Arafat's polices forces and
the use of those forces of donated guns against Israeli civilians Secretary
Powell said at a G8 Press Conference in Paris 5/23/03 that:
We
have been in conversation with the Palestinian Authority with Prime Minister
Abbas, as well as his Minister for Security Mr. Dahlan, and they have come up
with a plan. To execute that plan will require assistance to rebuild their
security forces, their security apparatus, the infrastructure of the security
organization. And the United States, working with other interested friends in
the region and from Quartet membership will assist the Palestinian Authority in
that regard.
Benjamin Netanyahu in a speech to the U.S.
senate April 10 2002 said that:
Until
last week, I was certain that the United States would adhere to its principles
and lead the free world to a decisive victory. Today, I too have my concerns.
I am concerned that when it comes to terror directed against Israel, the
moral and strategic clarity that is so crucial for victory is being twisted
beyond recognition.
President Bush proclaimed "If
anybody harbors a terrorist, they're a terrorist. If they fund a terrorist,
they're a terrorist. If they house terrorists, they're terrorists. I
mean, I cant make it any more clear to other nations around the world"
(November 26, 2001). In the last week of Mar 2002 Bush said that:
I
laid out a doctrine and it's really important [that] when the United States
speaks, it means what it says,"
"And
I said that if you harbor a terrorist, you're just as guilty as the terrorist.
If you feed one or hide one, you're just as guilty as those who came and
murdered thousands of innocent Americans."
The New York Post (4/4/02) writes that these
statements:
beg
the question of why the administration refuses to attach a terrorist label to
Arafat - when, by Bush's criteria, he's the personification of international
terror.
The
answer, of course, is that the administration still looks to Arafat to play the
critical role in forging an Israeli-Palestinian agreement - even though there
is absolutely no reason even to hope that he'll do so.
Nyquist gave another explanation. He
wrote in his weekly column of April 16,
2002:
Everyone
knows the Bush administration's posturing against Israel's West Bank
incursion has been for the benefit of that fabled creature, the Arab
moderate. To appease the "friendly" Arab suppliers of the West's
life-blood (i.e., oil) Washington's approach has been purposefully
inconsistent: Attack terror in petroleum-null Afghanistan while appeasing
terror on the petroleum-sensitive West Bank.
Reuel Marc Gerecht was a Middle East
specialist in the CIA for nine years and is the author, under a pseudonym, of
"Know Thine Enemy, A spy's Journey into Revolutionary Iran"
(1997). He wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal (4/8/02) called CULTURE OF DEATH, They Live to Die Only war can stop the
suicide bombers.
Devoid
of a serious understanding of the religious component in Palestinian politics,
American policy in the region will inevitably run aground on secular
illusions. Make no mistake: The Palestinian suicide bombers' motivations
are rooted in a nihilist, amoral understanding of the Muslim's duty to wage
jihad... The idea of jihad against Israel has extraordinary appeal even to
secularized Muslims, who can feel the shame of Islam's long slide from glory
and superiority over the West as acutely as any practicing Muslim.
The
Palestinian use of female suicide bombers and the failure of the Islamic world
to loudly condemn this practice shows how brutally modern ethics have become in
the Middle East. It also shows how surreal and schizophrenic the Bush
administration is becoming in the region. In 1979, Washington painfully learned
that there was no way it could negotiate with the clerical regime [of Ayatollah
Kholmeini]. Yet Washington now believes that it and the Israelis can somehow
negotiate with a Palestinian Authority that encourages policies that would
probably unsettle Ayatollah Khomeini.
Does the administration really believe that if all the Israeli settlements
in the West Bank and Gaza were removed--they occupy less than 1.5% of these
territories--and East Jerusalem became Palestinian, the kamikazes would stop?
Former prime minister Ehud Barak essentially offered this deal at Camp David in
July 2000, but Yasser Arafat rejected it, preferring to unleash the second
intifada.
Arafat asserted that his position mirrored the sentiments of most
Palestinians. If he crossed those sentiments, Arafat remarked, he would forfeit
his life. Though one can doubt that the PLO chairman ever really embraced a
pragmatic approach to Israel, there can be no doubt that his obstinacy was
popular among Palestinians. Arafat received a hero's welcome when he returned
from Maryland.
Which
provokes the question: What in the Palestinian kamikazes' psychological makeup
makes the Bush administration believe that they are going to be more pragmatic
than Arafat was in 2000? Or is Arafat supposed to be more willing to die for
"peace" now than he was then? Arafat has consistently encouraged and
endorsed suicide-bombings as blessed work. At what future point in negotiations
is Arafat supposed to turn to wannabe martyrs and tell them that their holy war
against the Jewish state is wrong? Even if Arafat wanted to, how could he even
begin to construct the ethical argument to quiet the passions that he has
unleashed?
The Bush administration seems to believe that there is some rational switch
inside the Palestinian national movement, which has now elevated holy-war
kamikazes to iconic status, that if flipped would make it a committed convert
to the sober Western gradualism inherit in the Tenet, Mitchell and Oslo peace
plans...
What
is it that the Bush administration sees in the pro-martyr Palestinians that
makes them more reasonable than Hezbollah, which has eagerly continued its war
against the Jewish state after Israel's withdraw from Lebanon in May 2000? Can
the Middle East hands in Foggy Bottom name one nation in the Middle East born
of such radical, revolutionary violence that has become pro-American,
peace-loving and opposed to terrorism? ..Unfortunately, it is only war--not the
well-intended but meaningless Tenet and Mitchell plans--that can now burn out
istishhad (Martyrdom) among the Palestinians. The sooner the Bush administration
realizes this, the sooner the suicide bombers will cease. If the administration
tries to "negotiate" with this syndrome, it will only fuel the fire
and make America, not just Israel, look weak. As Osama bin Laden should have
taught us, weakness in the Middle East never goes unpunished.
According to Eric Fettmann (New
York Post 4/10/02) The Arab world made clear to Cheney that it would not
support any move against Iraq without an agreement between Israel and the
Palestinians.
This may explain why Bush is
pressuring Israel to withdraw. Yet withdrawal won't bring an agreement it
will just bring suicide bombings, demonstrate weakness and invite war.
Don Feder in the same article in which he
criticized Bush's grasp on reality points out that Sharon hasn't been facing
reality either.
For
the past year, Sharon has been shadowboxing with butchers -- blowing up police
stations and heliports in Gaza, launching air strikes and briefly occupying
West Bank cities. Does he really expect one more shelling of Arafat's compound
to succeed where all of the other half-measures have failed? After an
emergency cabinet meeting last week, the prime minister declared Arafat
"an enemy." What was he before -- a potential ally? "We
have no interest in conquering or staying in the territories," the general
assures the White House. Instead of cleaning out the terrorist nest known as
the Palestinian Authority, he'll agitate it a bit, then withdraw so the suicide
bombers can get back to work...
The
protagonist of "A Beautiful Mind" saw things that weren't there and
talked to people who didn't exist. The Arafat that America continues to court
as a possible peacemaker isn't real. The Palestinians Sharon thinks he can
intimidate with a hard kick exist only in his imagination. Alice occupies the
Oval Office, and Gen. White Rabbit leads the Jewish state.
The grasp on reality of the
Israeli left is even less than that of Sharon. Israel's defense
minister, Ben-Eliezer, made a statement that Israel must take advantage of the
new wind that is blowing among Palestinians by withdrawing systematically
from Gaza, Hebron, and Judea and Samaria. The chairman of Americans For A
Safe Israel, Herbert Zweibon dismisses both suggestions as delusional
talk. He said (AFSI Press Release Aug 6, 2002):
There
is indeed a new wind blowing. In fact, it is the ill wind of sedition
and terrorism among Israels Arab occupants. Israels recent arrest of
four Arab terrorists responsible for the massacres in Hebrew University on July
31, the Moment Caf on March 9, the pool hall in Rishon Le Tzion on May 7
disclosed that they were residents of comfortable neighborhoods in East
Jerusalem. ...Those Israeli dreamers who capture the medias attention in
their invocations of more appeasement and more concessions, are either blind or
deceptive, or both.
A group of private left wing
Israeli citizens without the authority of the Israeli government, negotiated
the Geneva Accord with representative of the Palestinian authority.
According to the terms of the accord, in return for the Palestinians committing
themselves to combat terrorism, refrain from incitement, limit the weapons in
their arsenal, and accept the permanence of Israel, Israel would give the
Palestinians a state and would put an International force in charge of
combatting Palestinian terrorism. Nevermind that the Palestinians had agreed to
do all this when they signed the Oslo accords and didn't. Nevermind that
international forces in the past have not stopped terror against Israel.
The architects of Geneva have assured the Israeli public that the Palestinian
participants have renounced the demand for the return of refugees to pre-1967
Israel. Yet even a cursory reading of the Accord belies this claim. There is no
explicit renunciation of the right of return. So, while Israel is to tangibly
repudiate its claim to Greater Israel by removing settlements, the Palestinians
under Geneva aren't even obliged to verbally renounce their claim to Greater
Palestine. "The assertion that the Accord cancels the right of return...is
inaccurate," Palestinian signatory Jamal Zaqout recently wrote. "It
was spread by Israeli figures trying to make the document more palatable to
Israelis." Zaqout is correct: The Accord cites both the Saudi peace plan
for the Middle East and U.N. resolution 194, both of which say that refugees
should return to Israel (Fantasy, Yossi Klein Halevi and Michael B. Oren,
New Republic, December 15, 2003).
The mountainous Hindu Kush
region of eastern Afghanistan means Hindu slaughter. According to the
National Geographic Article 'West of Khyber Pass' 'Generations of
raiders brought captive Hindus past these peaks of perpetual snow. Such bitter
journeys gave the range its name Hindu Kush - "Killer of Hindus"'(W.O.Douglas,
National Geographic Magazine, vol.114, No.1, pp.13-23, July
1958). The Afgan historian Khondamir records that during one of the many
repeated invasions on the city of Herat in western Afganistan, 1,500,000
residents perished (T.J.Abercrombie, National Geographic Magazine,
Vol.134, No.3, pp.318-325, Sept.1968 ). In 1982, the National Council of
Educational Research and Training issued a directive for the rewriting of
school texts. Among other things it stipulated that: 'Characterization of the
medieval period as a time of conflict between Hindus and Moslems is forbidden'.
Thus denial of history or Negationism has become India's official 'educational'
policy (Negationism in India, by Koenraad Elst, Voice of India
Publ, 2nd Ed, pp.57-58, 1993). It is possible that the Indian government
is trying to promote peaceful relations between Moslems and Hindus by
forbidding education regarding past Islamic atrocities against Hindus. Or
they may be appeasing the Islamic fundamentalists in India by forbidding
teaching about the Hindu Kush. India has a history of appeasement of
Muslims, one example of this is that they never asked the Afghan Moslems to
change the name of the Hindu Kush but when the Jerusalem symphony came to
perform in India in July 1993 the Indian Government asked the symphony to
change its name because the word Jerusalem in its name is offensive to Moslem
Fundamentalists.
XIIIB Creation of Delusion Because of Desire For Peace
and Harmony
What killed the worlds conscience and rendered it indifferent to the plight
of Christians in the Middle East? Well, when it comes to Cardinal Bechara
Rais brother bishops in the West, it was the desire for a fruitless and
self-defeating dialogue with Muslims that gave the appearance of genuine
interfaith harmony, albeit without a scintilla of reality.
Not only did Western bishops waste their time having coffee with imams and
being subjected to slyly couched dawah, but in the service of this useless
exercise, they ruthlessly suppressed any genuine discussion of the
persecution of Middle Eastern Christians, and the real causes of that
persecution.
This notorious quote fromRobert
McManus, Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester, Massachusetts, February 8, 2013,
sums it up: Talk about extreme, militant Islamists and the atrocities that
they have perpetrated globally might undercut the positive achievements that
we Catholics have attained in our inter-religious dialogue with devout
Muslims.
Europe's policy toward the
Arab world has been one of appeasement in order to avoid conflict, ensure the
flow of oil, and gain influence. They refuse to admit that there
is a jihadist war on their continent in the hopes that by denying such a war
exists and by not generalizing terrorist behavior to all Muslims by not even saying
the word Muslim in association with terrorist actions, the Muslims will be
convinced that they are friendly and will not wage such a war.
After
Muslims attempted to commit multiple car bombings in England and Scotland,
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown banned ministers from using the word
Muslim in connection with the terrorist attacks and also instructed his team
that the phrase war on terror be dropped. (Daily Express
7/3/2007)
It
is interesting that not only does he try and avoid antagonizing Muslims by
ordering his ministers not to say the word Muslim in connection with terrorist
attacks that Muslims committed but he wont even allow the phrase war on
terror which doesnt mention Muslims at all.Why, perhaps because war on terror has come to mean war on terrorist
Muslims since Muslims have been committing the terror that made it necessary
to fight a war on terror.
Mark Steyn wrote that Gordon Browns behavior has become a
time-honored tradition and that his new home secretary said:
Any
attempt to identify a murderous ideology with a great faith such as Islam is
wrong, and needs to be denied.
Mark Steyn gave additional
examples of this time honored tradition (Five Guys Named Mo, National Review Online 7/4/07):
After
the 2005 Tube bombings, the first reaction of Brian Paddick, the deputy
assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, was to declare that
"Islam and terrorism don't go together." After the 2006 Toronto plot
to behead the Prime Minister, the Canadian Intelligence Service's assistant
director of operations, Luc Portelance, announced that "it is important to
know that this operation in no way reflects negatively on any specific
community, or ethnocultural group in Canada."
In the old
days, these coppers would have been looking for the modus operandi, patterns of
behavior. But now every little incident anywhere on the planet apparently
testifies merely to the glorious mosaic of our multicultural societies. Or as
the Associated Press puts it, "Diverse Group Allegedly In British
Plot":LONDON - They had diverse
backgrounds, coming from countries around the globe, but all shared youth and
worked in medicine...
Bat Ye'or in her book Eurabia
wrote the following about European denial:
The
willful blindness of EU leaders has thus brought the jihadist threat to the
heart of Europe. While European authorities deny the existence of a
radical Islamic terrorist war on their Continent, police and soldiers have to
patrol its cities, train stations, and airports. This reality, plus the
anxiety of the public, points to the opposite conclusion: that, in fact, Europe
is in a war she does not wish to recognize or to fight - preferring to maintain
the illusion of peace. Because the history of jihad and dhimmitude have
been denied, and replaced by mythical narrative, we see the re-emergence in the
twenty-first century of the millennial struggles between dhimmi
collaborationists and the free leaders within the dar al-harb which is
threatened by jihad. The future of civilization depends on the outcome of
the conflict.
On March 16, The Forward carried a
story about Americans For Peace Now founder Leonard Fein and how he now regrets
supporting the Oslo Process.
It
is time for reflection on where we, who so enthusiastically advocated for Oslo,
were mistaken," says Fein. "Our mistake was to allow ourselves to be
so carried away by the prospect of peace that we chose to close our eyes to the
persistent Palestinian violations of the Oslo accords and to what those
violations implied about Palestinian intentions. Whether Mr. Arafat ever was sincere
in his endorsement of peace remains an open question. That in the end he has
proven either stupid, evil or both scarcely can be thought debatable.
President Bush in a speech on June 24, 2002 said
regarding Israel and a future Palestinian State "My vision is two states
living side by side in peace and security," President Bush wants to
believe that a Palestinian state if restructured into a democracy, could exist
peacefully side by side with an Israeli one. He would like to believe that
a democratic state of Palestine would not want war. In fact in his speech
he said: "The hatred of a few holds the hopes of many hostage".
After Arabs killed students at the Hebrew University president Bush said
"There are a few killers who want to stop the peace process that we have
started. We must not let them." Yet the majority of the Palestinian people
enthusiastically endorse suicide bombing. Many cheered on rooftops as
Iraqi Scuds flew into Israel. Many cheered when thousands of Americans died
in the World Trade Center. According to the New York Post (8/7/02) after a
terror attack killed five Americans and two Israelis in the Frank Sinatra
Cafeteria at Hebrew University
in
Gaza, ... thousands danced in the streets, first to celebrate the mayhem
wrought by their brave martyrs at the university and then, a few days later, to
clap and laugh about their heroes' noble destruction of a commuter bus. At this
rally, the "people" salivated as their Hamas leaders advised Israelis
to "prepare more body bags."...
Polls
reveal repeatedly that the Palestinian people support suicide bombers. Even
among the minority who oppose them, it's mainly because they think the tactic
may backfire.
Producers
of a Palestinian version of Sesame Street are reluctant to broadcast a new series
that gently promotes tolerance because they fear it would not have a market.
The findings of many polls including one
released by the Palestinian Jerusalem Media and Communication Centre (JMCC) in
June 2002 in the same month as Bush's speech about the hatred of a few holding
many hostage, showed that the Palestinian Arabs, not just their leaders
want Israel destroyed.. The survey shows that a majority of PA residents
believe the aim of their 20-month-old uprising should be to eliminate Israel,
and not just to end Israeli "occupation" of Judea and Samaria.
Many official PA symbols show the entire map of Israel as their
"future" country - contrary to the wishful thinking of "two
states living side by side."
Israel
and Palestine living peacefully, side by side (and the suicide bombers shall
lie down with the victims), is a dream of diplomats disconnected from reality.
A provisional Palestinian state would be an interim, but irreversible, step
toward the abolition of the Jewish state.
Frank Gaffney wrote before Bush's speech on
6/20/02 (Email Broadcast of the Unity
Coalition for Israel 6/25 /02):
It
can only be hoped that President Bush will heed his own instincts and eschew
the sophistry of those whose idee fixe delusions about "peace
processes" and "land for peace" have brought Israel to the
present, perilous pass. If so, he will confine his "plans" for
Mideast peace to a reaffirmation of America's desire to achieve that goal and a
recognition that it cannot impose one through such seductive but ultimately
disastrously futile ideas as a provisional Palestinian state or the even more
benighted idea of inserting U.S. monitors/peacekeepers into the
Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
George Will wrote in the Washington Post that
(6/2/02)
A
slice of Czechoslovakia in September 1938 inflamed the recipient's appetite for
the rest of it six months later. Today, only the delusional can believe that
gratitude for the powers granted to a "provisional" Palestinian state
will predominate over resentment about powers withheld. Furthermore, the
withheld powers that would make a Palestinian state provisional will not be
withheld for long. Who will enforce any restrictions on the
"provisional" state's armaments or diplomacy? The "world
community"? The United Nations with its animus against Israel?..."
Gary Cooperberg (The Ostrich Syndrome 8/26/02
Freeman Center Broadcast) wrote:
It
is nothing less than astounding to see the absolutely outrageous attempts at self delusion our leadership is making to convince themselves that we should still attempt to make peace with our Arab enemies. We have eyes to see, yet we close them. We have ears to hear, yet we refuse to listen. Innocent civilians have been murdered by the hundreds by human bombs who have elevated murder to an act of worship. Rather than completely destroy those who seek our destruction, we continue with the mad obsession that we have no other choice but to find a way to live with those who refuse to live with us.
One delusion that has been
very destructive is that the way to fight terrorists is to go on with the peace
process that they supposedly oppose. Both Israeli and American government
officials have been possessed with this delusion. So for example when two
suicide bombers blew up Israeli civilians on August 12th during the Hudna or
cease fire Colin Powell vowed to go on ("Bombs Shatter Truce, New York
Post 8/13/03)
We
will continue to move forward on the road map
he told a group of Israeli and Arab youths
vacationing together in the United States with the group Seeds of Peace.
We will not be stopped by
bombs.
Of course this plays right into
the hands of the terrorists who want the peace process to go on since the peace
process involves Israeli territorial concessions for a non-existent peace.
The State Department in order to maintain
good relations with Saudi Arabia does not assist Americans whose spouses have
kidnapped and imprisoned their children in that country. According to
Joel Mobray (New York Post 9/5/02):
The
U.S. State Department surreptitiously undermined Congressional efforts this
past weekend to rescue two abducted children from Saudi Arabia -- and two U.S.
citizens remained trapped in the desert prison as a result... The abduction
cases date back to 1986, when Patricia Roush's daughters, Alia and Aisha, were
stolen from their suburban Chicago home by their Saudinational father...The
Saudis shuttled Alia and Aisha to London - just as the Congressional delegation
was arriving in Saudi Arabia - in order to have them sign a
"statement" denounching their own mother and the country of freedom
and liberty where they were born...Despite asking for - and being denied -
Rouch's permission to take a statement from her daughters, a consular officer
with STate willingly took the "statement" made by Alia and Aisha on
Saturday anyway....With a straight face, State claims Alia and Aisha were - no
joke - "on vacation."...State told the press not that Alia and Aisha
did not want to move to the Untied States, but that they didn't even want to
"travel" here...
The
whole affair raises a serious question: If the Saudis refuse to be honest
partners on something as simple as helping us retrieve kidnapped U.S. citizens,
how can we trust them as a partner in the war on Terror? And the fact
that the Saudis' duplicity only succeeded because of State's complicity begs
the more important question: How can we trust our own State Department to
protect us when it willingly sacrifices the lives of two American citizens at
the altar of its unholy alliance with the Saudis?
Jan Willem van der Hoeven, Director International
Christian Zionist Center in an article titled The Un-American Department of
State (July 1, 02) wrote about how the CIA betrayed John Noble an American
prisoner of the KGB to avoid antagonizing the Soviet Union. He wrote:
Other
high-profile betrayals of U.S citizens include the case of John Noble, the
American held prisoner for nine years by the harsh KGB in Vorkuta, Siberia -
and concerning whom the Soviet prison regime first denied any knowledge. The
State Department denied knowledge of his plight, apparently out of a desire not
to upset the then policy of Soviey-U.S. detente. Only when confronted at a
press conference with evidence that Noble was indeed an illegally held U.S
citizen in Siberia did State finally began to work for his release.
(Noble, John: "I Found God in the Soviet Union" St. Martin's Press,
New York, 1959).
The State Departmentreleases an
annual list of nations subject to diplomatic action because of their
"systematic, ongoing and egregious" violations of religious freedom.
According to WorldnetDaily (3/3/03) Newsweek magazine first reported that Saudi
Arabia will once again not be a "country of particular concern," a
designation that requires action by the U.S., ranging from a quiet diplomatic
demarche to sanctions. Saudi Arabia has never been listed despite the State
Department's own repeated assessment that freedom of religion in the kingdom
"does not exist."
According to geostrategy-direct
7/11/03:
U.S.
intelligence sources have told Congress in closed session that elements of the
Saudi royal family continue to dole out tens of millions of dollars to Islamic
terrorists in the Middle East who promise holy war.
They
said Saudi money and volunteers are flowing into northwestern Iraq, where the
Sunni insurgency against the U.S. military is raging.
Riyadh
is one of several factors that comprise the Sunni insurgency, the sources said.
The Saudi strategy has been to finance loyalists among the Sunni clergy and
sponsor mosques and other institutions. A terrorist infrastructure has emerged
that will continue to make itself felt for years.
The
most shocking part of the congressional briefing was that al-Qaida-related
agents from Saudi Arabia have been organizing and financing many of the attacks
on U.S. troops. They are believed to have paid for weapons that come via Syria.
According to WorldnetDaily (CIA: Saudi Arabia
funds Sunni Insurgency 8/26/03)
A
CIA report which cites the activities of major Islamic insurgency groups in the
country and their state sponsors was disclosed by Kurdish sources in Iraq to
the London-based Al Hayat daily, according to a translation by Middle East Newsline.
Al
Hayat reported U.S. intelligence officials assert Iran, Saudi Arabia and Syria
have contributed insurgents and funding to a range of groups, including
al-Qaida and Hezbollah.
The
paper, which is owned by members of the Saudi royal family, said this marks the
first time the kingdom was specifically identified as a supporter of the Sunni
insurgency in Iraq. Last week, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said
Islamic insurgents have infiltrated Iraq from Saudi Arabia, but cleared the
royal family of involvement.
The BBC
would not broadcast Churchill's warnings about Hitler because they believed
that doing so might antagonize Hitler and bring war.
XIIIb2 Creation of Delusion to Avoid Conflict and Prevent
Violence
Ploughshares is a group
funded by some of the richest men in America including Warren Buffet and
George Soros. Ploughshares gives money to the media. Ploughshares
funds pro-Iranian propaganda. On May 5 the NYT published its profile
of Ben Rhodes, in which Rhodes
bragged about creating an echo chamber with the Ploughshares Fund to sell
the Iran deal on the basis of false pretenses.
Kenneth
Timmerman wrote how State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow advices Secretary
of State Rice to hide the truth about Iran to avoid war.Timmerman
wrote:
Bob Woodward revealed in one of his books that,
State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow learned that the Iranian government
was supplying weapons and cash to the insurgents during a fact-finding mission
to Iraq in September 2005, but advised Rice to keep this information under
wraps.
Zelikow was worried that the Iranian action was
arguably an act of war against the United States, and that if the U.S.
revealed what it knew, the administration might well start a fire it couldnt
put out. And so the U.S. put a cork on what it knew about Iranian support to
the insurgency until last December.
If the
United States had aggressively attacked the Iranians who supported the Iraqi
insurgents instead of pretending they didnt exist many victims of the
insurgents might be alive today.In
addition the growing nuclear threat of Iran might have been neutralized.
According
to worldnetdaily,
1/3/2007, one of the most unreported stories of 2006 was Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's driving conviction, as reported in WND,
that a messianic figure known as the "Mahdi" to Muslims is poised to
reveal himself after an apocalyptic holocaust on Earth that leaves most of the
world's population dead.Ahmadinejad is
on record as stating he believes he is to have a personal role in ushering in
the age of the Mahdi. In a Nov. 16, 2005, speech in Tehran, he said he sees his
main mission in life as to "pave the path for the glorious reappearance of
Imam Mahdi, may Allah hasten his reappearance."With Iran on the verge of producing nuclear weapons and already
in possession of sophisticated medium-range missiles, mystical pre-occupation
with the coming of a Shiite Islamic messiah is of particular concern because of
Iran's potential for triggering the kind of global conflagration Ahmadinejad
envisions will set the stage for the end of the world.
It is likely that the Western press
underreports this because they dont want the United States to go to war with
Iran.There is considerable
evidence that Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage takers of Americans in
1979.According to worldnetdaily
the White House and State Department made it clear
they would rather not know the truth about Ahmadinejad because it would place
the U.S. in a position of refusing to permit a head of government into the
country to attend U.N. meetings.
One official said such a finding would "enormously
complicate" matters.
U.S. "investigators" never bothered to interview any of the
former hostages who made the charges against the Iranian leader.
The State Department believes that it is
better to avoid facing the truth about Ahmadinejad but that simply leads to not
dealing with the threat he represents and paves the way toward wasting time on
negotiations with him while he produces nuclear weapons.
In April 2003, the North Koreans told a U.S. government
delegation in Beijing,
"[A]s
we had previously told you in New York, we have finished reprocessing all 8,000
of our plutonium fuel rods."
The North Korean statement floored the Bush
administration because the State Department had kept these revelations from the
White House National Security Council and the Pentagon. (Newsmax June
2004)
A likely reason the State Department kept
this information secret was fear that the Bush administration would go to war
with North Korea to destroy their nuclear capability. We can only
speculate about how much other intelligence is being kept from the Bush
administration in order to prevent war.
Simon Aban Deng was a Christian
native of the Shiluk kingdom of the Southern Sudan and was enslaved at the age
of 9 by Arab Muslims. During the ongoing genocide of his people, he met
with Madeleine Albright's assistant and asked her why the United States
wouldn't at least call the genocide, genocide. Her assistant answered
that the United States had signed covenants that it would intervene to prevent
genocide and since the United States was unwilling to intervene (i.e. get
involved in a violent confrontation), it wouldn't call it genocide. (Daily
Pennsylvanian 3/2/05)
In the last
10 years, more than 5,000 Christians have been massacred in Egypt.Hundreds of businesses and homes first have
been looted, then burned and destroyed. Churches have been burned and
destroyed.And you know what? Not one
Muslim has been indicted, let alone convicted.When it comes to [Egyptian] Christians asking for asylum in the U.S.,
very frequently, the U.S. administration lies and deceives by saying when it
comes to Christians suffering from persecution there is no proof that
Christians are persecuted in Egypt.However, such cases have been documented over and over by international
Christian ministries as well as groups such as Human Rights Watch
Why pretend that Christians are
not suffering from persecution in Egypt?Relying on Egypt as an ally is a cornerstone of American policy in the
Middle East.Facing the reality that
Egyptians persecute Christians could jeopardize that illusion of Egypt being
friendly with the United States.Giving
asylum to Egyptian Christians could antagonize Egypt and threaten the friendly
relationship the delusional State Department believes it has with Egypt.
The French (I wrote this before Sarkozy was voted into office)
who are anxious to appease the Arabs for their oil and to create a joint
French/Arab alliance so that they can match and perhaps excede American power,
are willing to teach Arab history as if it was a glorious thing and to minimize
Israel's historical claims.
Bat Ye'or wrote about how
President Chirac of France was willing to meet the Arab demand for increased
accommodation of Islam and Arab culture by opening an entire department devoted
to the glory of Arab civilization in December 2003 at the Louvre. The
must have been difficult (see Islam's
Contribution to Civilization). What is more outrageous is the
Louvre's exhibit of Israel in biblical times. Palestine did not exist in
Biblical times, Israel did but the exhibit is titled an exhibit they call
"Palestine and Transjordan, from the origins to the Iron Age."
Historical descriptions on the walls mention neither Hebrews, Israelis nor Jews
- with one exception where an archaeological find on display mentions Omri,
king of Israel. Perhaps to the find was to valuable to hide. Bat
Ye'or wrote:
The
Aramaeans are remembered, as are the building and artistic competence of the
Phoenicians and their kingdoms; in contrast, the contemporary kingdoms of
Israel and Judea are omitted.
The
National Education Association links its website to a detailed list of
"Tips for Parents and Schools Regarding the Anniversary of Sept. 11,
2001," prepared by Dr. Brian Lippincott of John F. Kennedy University in
Orinda, Calif. Professor Lippincott insists that commemorative programs must
avoid any suggestion that Islamic fanaticism can be blamed for the attacks, and
that the most important way to protect ourselves from future assaults is to
embrace all religions and sexual orientations...
Among
the "Tips for Parents and Teachers," Lippincott suggests that we must
"Address the issue of blame factually Do not suggest any group is
responsible ." In other words, educators should avoid the implication that
al-Qaida and the worldwide network of Islamic fanatics had something to do with
the slaughter of Americans. "We have no reason to believe that the attacks
on our country were part of an organized plan of any other country," the
curriculum materials insist. "The terrorists acted independently without
the sanctions of any nation."
What
about Afghanistan, which welcomed Osama bin Laden as an "honored
guest"? What about Saudi Arabia, which continues to raise money through
telethons and the royal family to support international terrorism? What about
Iraq, which lavishly praised the 9-11 attacks as a heroic blow against America?
According
to the education establishment, we should avoid such unpleasant observations
because "protecting against harassment of our Arab American classmates and
neighbors is most critical right now.
This is an example of creation of delusion to protect
Arab Americans.
Another example of creating
delusion to protect Arab Americans was given by Robert Spencer in frontpagemag.com
(8/26/04). He wrote:
George
Orwell knew that if you can control a peoples past, you can control its
present; thats why in 1984 he has a whole government department the Ministry
of Truth devoted to rewriting history. Now, twenty years beyond Orwells
nightmare year, we call the Ministry of Truth the State Department: in a press
release issued Monday, Islamic Influence Runs Deep in American Culture,
Phyllis McIntosh of States Washington File burbles that Islamic influences
may date back to the very beginning of American history. It is likely that
Christopher Columbus, who discovered America in 1492, charted his way across
the Atlantic Ocean with the help of an Arab navigator.
Rewrite
the history books, indoctrinate the children, and you can own the future. The
bit about the Arab navigator is not just being put out by State, but will also
be taught in Massachusetts public schools this year...
Did
Columbus tag after the retreating Muslims and hire a navigator and a few
sailors? Well, in fact his navigators name was Martin Pinzon, who served as
captain of the Pinta. Of the known names of his crew members, there is an
abundance of Juans and Pedros, but nary a Mahmoud or Ahmad...
So
why are the State Department and the Massachusetts public schools purveying
this hooey? ... Their multiculturalist fantasy history is designed, of
course, to make Americans more accepting of an influential Islamic presence in
the country. But unfortunately, since no one seems concerned about how to
screen terrorists out of this Islamic presence, theyre likely to find that the
Muslims to whom they have surrendered their history and who they have invited
into their future are no less multicultural than their forefathers of 1492.
Educators
and clinical psychologists said the worst thing teachers can do is
"sugarcoat" the events of September 11. "Honesty is
important," said Robin Gurwitch, a clinical psychologist at the pediatrics
department at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center...
"There's always a part of us that says if we bring it up, we're going to
need to downplay it or sugarcoat it," Miss Gurwitch said. "By doing
that we may create more problems if we don't address it. The truth is always
good."
On August 21 the Board of
Education unveiled a guide for remembrance of the Sept 11 attacks -- focusing
on "hope healing and heroism," (NYPost 8/22/02). Among the
proposed lessons posted on the schools
system's web site are:
In grades two through six students will make
"hope chains," write recipes for "cooking up some hope" and
place leaves on a "hope tree."
The teachers are advised to tell students:
that
being a certain religion does not make someone our enemy. Just as there
are some Americans who do great things, and some Americans who do terrible
things there are all kinds of Muslim people...
Statements in the Koran about killing
the unbeliever of course will not be mentioned in order to ensure that Arab
kids aren't picked on.
Even though there were many
intelligence warnings of an impending terrorist attack before July 4th 2002,
when the attack did happen and Hesham Mohamed Ali Hadayet opened fire in the
Los Angeles Airport on that day, the FBI spokesman has said that "there's
nothing to indicate terrorism." According to Debka
(7/5/02) a source that is not always reliable, Hesham was a member of Egyptian
Jihad. The Arabic London-based Al Hayat followed the original DEBKAfile
disclosure of July 5 - that Hadayat was a member of the Egyptian Jihad Islami -
and took it a step further. According to the Arabic paper, the
Egyptian gunman met Dr. Ayman Zuwahri, the Jihad Islami chief who is Osama bin
Laden's deputy, twice in California - once in 1995 and again in 1998. Yet the
FBI has no evidence that Hesham's attack was terrorism.
Daniel Pipes wrote an article in
which he lists several other examples of the FBI denying that terrorists acts
are terror (Daniel Pipes, New
York Post 7/9/02). Yashiko Sagimori in an article titled What Caused
the Fall of the Roman Empire (freeman center
broadcast 5/11/05) wrote:
[D]o
you remember the recent murder of the Armanious family in New Jersey? They were
Copts, members of a ruthlessly persecuted, mostly Christian ethnic minority in
Egypt. The Copts are descendents of the ancient Egyptians, who had created one
of the oldest civilizations on Earth, built the pyramids, kept us in bondage
for a few centuries, and eventually lost their land to Arab occupiers who now
call themselves Egyptians with about as much right to that name as Arabs occupying
Gaza, Judea, and Samaria have to call themselves Palestinian. Hossam
Armanious and his wife Amal had a dangerous hobby. They were trying to convert
Arab immigrants from Egypt to Christianity. They received several death
threats. In January 2005, the entire family, including two daughters, 15 and 8
years old, was brutally murdered in their home. The absence of any signs of
forced entry indicated that the victims knew the murderers and let them in
suspecting nothing wrong.! Burglary was ruled out since nothing was missing.
The method of killing was consistent with the method of Islamic ritual
slaughter. This led the Coptic community to suggest that the victims were
killed by Muslims they were trying to convert. The authorities were unwilling
to investigate such a possibility. Instead, they arrested two Christians and
accused them of burglary and murder. One of them was the Armanious' tenant,
which was supposed to explain why there were no signs of forced entry; the
victims knew the visitor and let him in. The official version stated that the
murderers were wearing masks. Initially, they weren't going to kill the family,
and changed their minds only after the youngest girl accidentally saw the face
of one of the burglars. This may explain why nothing was missing. This also
implies that the victims voluntarily allowed inside their home two people
wearing masks. In other words, the official version is total bull. Does the
government cover Muslim crimes?
On November 5, 1990, in the
conference room of the Mariott East Side Hotel, an Egyptian immigrant fatally
shot Rabbi Meir Kahane in front of dozens of witnesses. He was arrested, tried,
and acquitted of murder, but convicted for illegal gun possession. The
government refused to treat it as a terrorist act.
On March 1, 1994, near the
Brooklyn Bridge in New York City, a Lebanese immigrant opened fire on a minibus
carrying Lubavicher yeshiva students, killing one of them and injuring three
others. He was charged and convicted of murder, attempted murder, and illegal
possession of weapons. The government refused to treat it as a terrorist act.
On October 21, 1999, after taking off at JFK, an
Egyptian pilot deliberately crashed his 767 into the Atlantic, killing all 203
passengers and 14 crew members. The government refused to treat it as a
terrorist act.
On July 5, 2003, an
Egyptian immigrant opened fire at the crowd near the El Al counter in the Los
Angeles International Airport, killing two and injuring six. The shooter was
killed by an El Al security officer. The government refused to treat it as a
terrorist act.
These are only a few cases reported by the media. God
only knows how many ere swept under the rug.
Whether Mr. Sagimori is correct or not
the following was posted on a Muslim web site.
Bibo
117: This is a picture of the filthy dog, curser of Muhammad (Hissam Armanios)
and a photo of his filthy wife, curser of Muhammad (Amal Jaras). They got what
they deserved for their actions in America. They were slaughtered along with
their children as a punishment from the heavens to those who curse the most
divine of all who were created.
Oriana Fallaci, in her book The
Rage and the Pride, accuses Europeans and of not wanting to face the
reality of jihad, for fear of having to do something about it.
The American government
deliberately avoids facing the truth regarding the Middle East.
David Bedein in an article titled "Hear
No Evil, Report No Evil" (Freeman Center Broadcast 1/25/2004) wrote that:
The
Fateh, defined by both US and Israeli law as a terrorist organization, operates
under a waiver that allows it to enter into political negotiations in both
countries.
Talk
about a license to kill.
When Rim Al-Riyashi a Muslim mother of two
committed a suicide bombing the Palestinian media praised her heroism.
Mr. Bedein wrote that:
The
US Ambassador's office was asked for comment on the official Fateh praise for
the suicide bomber .
However,
the US embassy spokespersons answered by saying that they were not listening to
the Voice of Palestine radio.
If
US Ambassador Kurtzer is not listening to the Fateh praise of murder, then the
US government will not know about it, and the waiver for the Fateh will
continue so that 'political negotiations' can continue.
American policy makers have a history
of pressuring Israel into making more and more concessions for peace despite
the fact that such concessions have always been met with more violence.
Although the concessions made by Israel as part of the Oslo accords were met
with more and not less Arab violence the United States followed that up with
the roadmap in which they are pressuring Israel to make more concessions.
The rationale is that sweetening the pot for the Arabs will lead to
peace. So in response to terror Arabs are rewarded with concession which
surprise surprise leads to more terror. Daniel Pipes (New York Post
7/8/03) wrote about his
concerns with the roadmap as follows:
Yet
I worry. Won't human nature and governmental inertia combine to induce the Bush
administration to push the road map through to completion, riding roughshod
over the pesky details to keep things moving forward? Suppose Palestinian
violence continues; won't there be a temptation to overlook it in favor of
keeping to the diplomatic timetable?
Such
has been the historic pattern whenever democracies negotiate with totalitarian
enemies to close down their conflicts, starting with the British-French
attempts to appease Nazi Germany in the 1930s, then the American-Soviet dtente
in the 70s, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in the 90s and South
Korea's sunshine policy with North Korea since 1998.
In
each case, the delusion that sweetening the pot would bring about the desired
results persisted until it was dashed by a major outbreak of violence (the
German invasion of Poland, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the second
Intifada).
President Bush announced his two state
"vision" for settling the Arab-Israel conflict in his address to the
UN on June 24, 2002. Rael Jean Isaac wrote in an article called
"Hubris" (Outpost
Jul-August 2003) that:
The
speech was widely praised at the time, even by Israel's staunchest friends, and
Americans for a Safe Israel was almost alone in pointing up its disastrous
potential. yet the peril should have been clear. Pursuing a mirage,
shimmering but unattainable because it has no substance - the Arabs want to
eliminate Israel, not make peace with it - can only lead to bitter
disappointment...
While
it might be objected that hindsight is 20/20, our vision was 20/20 when Bush
made the speech, immediately following it, in the July-August 2002 Outpost, under the heading
"And When the Policy Fails?" this writer asked: "So what happens
when the kind of benign government Bush hopes to see replacing Arafat's regime
fails to come into being"" Will President Bush tell the Arab
world the Palestinian Arabs have missed their opportunity?" I wrote
that would happen was all too foreseeable. The President would find
"sufficient 'progress' being made to focus on the second half of his
speech - driving Israel back to lines approximating the borders of 1949 and
creating a Palestinian state." In the same issue, we published an
article by Jacob Miller, "No Way to Security; No Way to Peace" which
also pointed out the fallacies in the President's speech. Wrote Miller:
"Democratization, though an admirable goal, is impossible to achieve at
this time and in this place. Who really believes that a people so full of
hate could be capable of democratic nation-building? Socialism's faith
int he ability to change human nature lives in this proposal just as it did in
the Soviet Union for most of the last century."
And
sure enough, although Yasser Arafat was still in charge, terror in full flower,
incitement against Israel in the media as virulent as ever, PA corruption
endemic, instituions unchanged, the mere appointment of longtime Arafat
lieutenant Abu Mazen as a toothless Prime Minister was enough
"progress" for our President to sign off on a "provisional"
(whatever that means) Palestinian state by the end of this year...
With
the ink scarcely dry, the Road Map has already gone from folly to farce.
The Road Map calls for the Palestinian Authority to dismantle and disarm terror
groups. Prime Minister Abu Mazen promptly announced he intended to do no
such thing. Instead, he proposes to form a unified national leadership
with Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terror factions and incorporate their
members into the police, to be trained by the CIA. As AAron Lerner of the
IMRA news agency points out, "Senior Hamas, Islamci Jihad, and Tanzim
terrorists aren't going to come in as buck privates - they will be
officers. And the men they bring in, steeped in both ideological fervor
and baskign in the glory of past battles, will ahve no trouble turning the PA
security service into a wing of Hamas/Tanzim."...It is precisely as if
Afghanistan's Taliban government, in the wake of 9/11, had offered to include
Al Qaeda's leaders int he government and turn over the army to its operatives,
while the U.S. trained them to become more efficient fighters...
Te
parallels between the road map of 2003 and the Munich sell-out sixty five years
ago are of course striking - the diktat to the victim-state, even the fact
that, then as now, four political entities signed off on the road map for peace
"in our time." So will the consequences be similar, should
today's road map be implemented. Just as Chamberlain was self-deluded to
place any credit in Hitler's protestations that he had no designs after
Czechoslovakia, so is President Bush deluding himself if he thinks that the
Moslem world's chief quarrel with the West is over Israel. Far from
satisfying the Islamic tiger, the prize of Israel will only whet its
appetite. The little Satan gone, conquered by Arab determination and
Western folly, can victory over the Great Satan be far behind?
President Bush created the delusion
that there was enough progress in order to make peace. Another example of
this type of delusion creation was the behavior of Scott Ritter. One way
Saddam kept Iraqis in line was by imprisoning the kids of parents deemed
disloyal to the regime. Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter knew about
the children's prison because his team inspected it in 1998. He once said it
was the most horrific thing he had seen. "Probably 200 kids from toddlers
to 12-year-olds. The stench was unreal--urine, feces, vomit, sweat" But
Mr. Ritter told Time magazine (Saddam's Silent Collaborators, Margaret
Wente Globe and Mail, April 15, 2003)
Actually,
I'm not going to describe what I saw there, because what I saw was so horrible
that it can be used by those who would want to promote war with Iraq, and right
now I'm waging peace.
It turns out that Saddam bribbed Shakir al Khafaji a
Detroit businessman who then gave $400,000 to Scott Ritter to make "In
Shifting Sands" an anti-sanctions film. Saddam built new palaces
with oil for food money during the sanctions while taking away U.N. ration
cards from his people (New York Post 4/2/04).
On New Years Eve of January 2016 over
a thousand Muslims went on a
rampage in the train station of Cologne Germany. They robbed, raped and shot
fire crackers at people in the mall.
Cologne police only arrested five people in relation to the attacks and even
those only two days later. This left people wondering why precisely in
places like train stations there is such enormous security camera surveillance
if they obviously cant be used to get more detailed descriptions of the
perpetrators. The
reason for the cover-up, it was reasoned, is a desire by the police
to preserve public order and any sort of violent reaction to the attacks.
A jury in New York federal district court found the Palestine
Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority guilty of supporting
terrorists in carrying out attacks in which Americans died. The press
spun the story in support of the PLO. That may be because the press
sees the Palestinian as poor oppressed people who are justified in carrying out
terrorist acts. Never mind that the people who are oppressed are the
victims of Palestinian terror.
In general the left portrays Muslims as people who are
oppressed by Israel and the West and who must be protected. For example the BBC identified a man as a Kashmiri Muslim when he was denied a visa but
identified him as an Indian after he was allowed to travel to the U.S. and he
sexually
abused a 12 year old American girl.
Leftist judges and governments go out of their
way to help the "oppressed" Muslims. Canadian born Al Qaeda terrorist Al
Khadr killed U.S. army medic Christopher Speer. The Canadian government
gave him 10 million
dollars as compensation after Al Khadr argued that he confessed under
duress. The only way I can explain this is that the Canadian government is
trying to win favor with the Muslims, that they are afraid of the Muslims, and
that Muslims give money to leftists and that they adhere to leftist doctrine
that sees Muslims as "oppressed" and the West as oppressors.
The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario ordered a
landlord in April to pay the tenants $12,000 each after he failed to take his
shoes off in the bedroom were the couple prayed while he was showing the home to
potential renters.
In Sweden women are afraid to step
out of their homes but even their homes are not safe as they are broken into.
If women speak up they are accused of racism. Apparently the feminist
movement of Sweden will go after them if they speak up. A reporter who
heard about the bad situation in Sweden and didn't believe it went to Sweden and
reported what she found below.
In Israel a group who called themselves the new
historians make Israel out to be a lot worse than conventional Israeli
textbooks do regarding the Middle East conflict. Avi Davis in his article
"History's Revenge" (Freeman Center Broadcast 11/19/01) writes about
Teddy Katz, a doctoral candidate at Haifa University who was found guilty in a
Tel Aviv District Court of making false accusations against the Alexandroni
Brigade, a Haganah platoon from the 1948 War of Independence. The Court
agreed with the plaintiffs and found that not only had Katz fabricated the
story, but that much of the Arab testimony he produced to defend his case,
contradicted his claims.
Ilan
Pappe is another "New Historian" who wrote in his introduction to his
book "A History of Modern Palestine" that
My
bias is apparent despite the desire of my peers that I stick to facts and the
"truth" when reconstructing past realities. I view any such
construction as vain and presumptuous. This book is written by one who admits
compassion for the colonized not the colonizer; who sympathizes with the
occupied not the occupiers.
The motivation of these new
historians in creating new history may be to help who they perceive to be
oppressed. We can't assume that it is their true motivation even though
Ilan Pappe claims it is his since he himself admits to not respecting facts and
truth. He admits being willing to lie in order to help who he perceives
to be oppressed. If they truly our oppressed why not tell the truth to
make his case? The fact that he and Palestinian
Propagandists have to lie in order to do so indicates that the image of
Palestinians victimized by Brutal Israeli Occupiers may be a mirage created by
Arabs who want to destroy Israel. (Review
by Ephraim Karsh of Pappe, Ilan., A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two
Peoples, 2004)
XIIIb3 Creation of Delusion to Prevent Discrimination
On
Thursday, January 7, 2016 a jihadi, convert to Islam named Edward Archer,
shot and seriously wounded police officer Jesse Hartnett, and then
explained: I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic state.
That is why I did what I did. Philadelphia Mayor Kenney showed a
surveillance video of Archer garbed in Islamic dress shooting at Hartnett and
then said: In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam
or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what youve seen on the
screen.It is abhorrent. It is terrible and it does not represent the religion
or any of its teachings. This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill
one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the
Islamic faith.
Poor Archer! What does he have
to do to get taken seriously as a jihadi? If shooting a police officer multiple
times and pledging allegiance to the Islamic State, which has called on Muslims
in the U.S. to attack police officers, wont do it, what will? Would it help if
he had passed out Qurans on the morning of his shooting, told a neighbor that
he was going to do something great for God, and screamed Allahu akbar as he
was firing? No, Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Malik Hasan did that as he
murdered thirteen Americans in Fort Hood on November 5, 2009, and that one, as
we have seen, was workplace violence. How about if he said, as Boston Marathon
jihad murderer Dzokhar Tsarnaev did, that he and his brother cooked up the
entire jihad mass murder plot to defend Islam? No, everyone knows that one
happened because Americans werent friendly enough to the immigrant brothers.
How about if he had been reading literature by jihad mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki
and spoke about Islamic martyrdom, like Chattanooga jihad murderer Mohammed
Abdulazeez? No, that one has proved a real head-scratcher, with authorities
puzzled as to the motives for months.
The whitewash after a Muslim
terrorist attack at Ohio state is discussed by Pamela Geller below:
Former Louisville Police Detective Dale Rhodes took to
Facebook to openly
communicate about racial violence in Kentucky after the Louisville
Courier-Journal removed his initial comments. Black-on-white crime is a fact
of life in Louisville, he says. As is its denial.
Over a period of about five weeks (I think in the summer of 1990) there
were at least 20 incidents where white people were assaulted by a gang of
blacks numbering anywhere from 5 to 15, Rhodes wrote. Many of the victims
were severely beaten, some left for dead and others left with life-long,
career-ending injuries. All the incidents involved black-on-white crime,
every single one. Yet we were ordered, if asked, to tell reporters and the
media there was no evidence to indicate these crimes were racially
motivated. I personally witnessed commanding officers being far less than
truthful with the media regarding these incidents.
On
Aug 22, 2006 Chelsea Schilling wrote in Worldnetdaily that:
A wave of illegal-immigrant gang rapes is sweeping
the U.S. while public officials and law-enforcement authorities fear drawing
the link, experts say.Deborah Schurman-Kauflin,
a Ph.D. researcher of violent crimes, told WorldNetDaily, "It appears as
if there is a fear that if this is honestly discussed, people will hate all
illegal immigrants. So there is silence.
Black mobs
have been attacking whites and Jews in the United States. Colin Flaherty
wrote:
If Chaim Amalek had his way,
no one would know that mobs of black people are attacking and beating and
robbing Jews in the New York area.
Or that they shout anti-Semitic epithets.
Or that they target Jews because they dont fight back.
Such information can only serve to heighten racial tensions between these
two groups, said Amalek, an alias for New York video blogger Luke Ford.
Let us all look beyond the issue of race (in any event a mere social
construct) and instead celebrate our diversity...
Ford and others, such as MSNBC news anchor
Melissa Harris-Perry, say the media should not report news if it
makes black people look bad. But most racial crimes and violence
from black mobs in the New York area are usually not reported not
by the mainstream media anyway...
Just a few days before the Heinberg beating, a
group of students from a predominately black school in a
predominantly black neighborhood in Brooklyn were evicted from the
9/11 Memorial site in Manhattan after they callously hurled trash
into its fountains. The vile vandals from Junior High School 292 in
East New York treated the solemn memorial its reflecting pools
honoring the nearly 3,000 people killed in the terror attacks like
a garbage dump.
One of the students was found carrying
ammunition.
The story did not identify the race of the
students. The picture for the article featured a young white person
looking over the fountains.
Colin Flaherty in 2013 wrote how 3 years ago
black mobs
started:
Stealing, beating,
destroying, vandalizing, terrorizing, stabbing,
even killing.
All of a sudden, the
reporter must turn color blind. And ignore the
central unifying feature of the violence:
Everyone involved is black...
Last weekend,
500 black people ran
up and down the
upscale shopping
area called the
Magnificent Mile.
They beat people,
attacked a cop and
his horse, destroyed
property, the usual.
This is just the
latest of dozens of
such attacks there.
On
a Chicago commuter
train, a group of a
black people beat a
restaurant worker
and her mom. They
knocked her down,
kicked her and hit
her with a bag full
of locks.
Eventually, 28
people were arrested
downtown for various
misdemeanors. And 11
were arrested on the
train for
misdemeanors as
well. They were all
released right away.
Everyone involved is
black. The videos
show it. So people
know it. But
reporters cannot
bring themselves to
say it. Instead they
attach all sorts of
words to it: flash
mobs, or wilding, or
teens, or elderly
teens, or unruly
teens, or
mischievous teens,
or gangs, or
disturbances, or
fights. Anything but
what it is: Black
mob violence.
Black mob violence is now so frequent and intense that
even big city editors cant keep it out of the news anymore.
The latest high-profile story, now familiar to many, is the recent beating
and killing of the 88-year-old World War II veteran Delbert Belton at the
hands of two black people in Spokane. Allegedly.
A few days before, two black people stalked and killed Chris Lane, the
23-year-old Australian college student in Oklahoma. Allegedly.
A few days before that, three black people stalked and killed 27-year-old
nurse David Santucci in Memphis. Allegedly.
A few days before that, a black mob in St. Paul beat Ray Widstrand with a
sock full of rocks that will leave him with permanent brain damage.
Allegedly.
In St. Louis this week, a black mob hit a hot dog vendor in the head with a
hammer. In Chicago, this weekend, a black mob attacked a police officer,
fracturing his skull with a baseball bat.
And in the space between the time I started this article and when I finished
it, I received the worst video Ive ever seen: Several young black people
bully and beat up a three-year old girl. After the footage was taken, the
12-year-old cameraman went onto Facebook and posted the video with the title
When white people piss black people off, reported Kristin Tate of
MrConservative.com.
Two black males in Milwaukee walked up to the home of a white family, in a
majority black neighborhood, and unleashed a hail of gunfire. A five-year-old
white girl was murdered while sitting on her grandfathers lap.
Milwaukee police say there is no question the shooters were deliberating trying
to kill people inside the house. At least a dozen bullets were fired directly
into the house. There may have been a third person driving a getaway car.
The house was located in a census tract that is 77% black and 14% white.
The national media largely ignored it. The local media
claimed that the girl was killed by a stray bullet.
Below is a trailer to Colin Flaherty's book
White Girl Bleed a Lot. In the video he says that "all I am is a guy
standing on the corner watching a car crash and wondering why everybody else on
the corner is trying to convince me that there is no car crash."
In the small town of Texas City, Texas, a fight broke
out at a Christmas night party called Hood Night. Police arrived to find
one man shooting a handgun toward a crowd of people. When officers told him
to drop his weapon, he instead turned it toward the officers, and they
promptly shot him dead. The surrounding crowd of black people began throwing
rocks, bottles and bricks at police officers and their vehicles.
Flaherty stressed that this sort of violence against police is
happening all over America.
Its open season on cops in this country, he said.
Flaherty wrote:
I dont know what its going to take for people to open their
eyes and go, Theres something really bad going on in this country, he said.
Way too many people are pretending not to notice.
In November 2013 Fox News did a
report on the widespread black racist violence against whites and how the
media is keeping it silent.
Brooks Macquarrie, a white man was
attacked by a black mob in New Haven. David Hartman of the New Haven
police department said there was no evidence that the attack on Brooks was
racially motivated. The press said the same thing. The press and the
police say it could have been a car accident. If so it was an
accident that did no damage to the scooter Macquarrie was riding. Perhaps
the hostile blacks Macquarrie remembered hostile blacks approaching were just a
figment of his imagination as was the blow to his head.
Dennis Prager wrote an excellent
article titled "The Left Sees Only White Evil". He wrote:
whenever blacks are killed by whites which, it is
worth noting, is many times less likely than a white being murdered by a
black and especially by white police officers, the left attributes the
killings to racism. But when blacks kill whites, the left attributes the
killings to guns.
Making whites more vulnerable, by taking away guns will only
encourage more black violence.
Another example of hiding the truth (creating
delusion) to avoid discrimination was reported by the New York Post (4/5/04)
In February 2003,
the European Union's Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia secretly
suppressed its initial 112 page report on European anti-Semitism Manifestations of Antisemitism in the EU 2002-2003,
because its conclusion that radical Islamists and pro-Palestinian groups
were largely responsible was deemed "inflammatory."
Now the latest
report has decreed that the rise in violent anti-Jewish attacks is being
perpetrated mostly by "young, disaffected white Europeans" who have
been "influenced by extreme Right ideas." That is neo-Nazi
skinheads.
Yes, the report
says "young Muslims of North African or Asian extraction" are "a
further source of anti-Semitism... in some countries," but warns that such
generalizations are "problematic".
I wrote a web page about Muhammad which uses quotes from the
Koran and the Hadiths to make a convincing case that he used religion to
manipulate people into subjugating others for him and for adding women and
money to his substantial collection of both. An angry reader reacted by
saying I was full of hate and that Islam is not a terrorist cult and that I
should meet some Muslims and see what they are really like. He did not
address the facts and the quotes in the article because they undermined his
argument. His argument boils down to "there are nice Muslims out
there therefore what you say about Muhammad is wrong." The desire to
prevent discrimination against "nice" Muslims is a big motivator to
distort and ignore reality. Tony Blair, the prime minister of England, in
an article in the Observer (4/14/04) wrote:
In every country,
including our own, the fanatics are preaching their gospel of hate, basing
their doctrine on a wilful perversion of the true religion of Islam.
Prime Minister Blair will not
admit that Islam is the problem. Likewise the President of the United States,
George Bush, in a speech to the armies 101st Airborne on 11/21/01 (Bush to al
Qaeda: 'We will never tire' CNN.com 11/22/01) said:
We
fight now because we will not permit the terrorists -- these vicious and evil
men -- to hijack a peaceful religion and to impose their will on America and
the world.
In yet another speech on April 14? 2004, President
Bush said:
The violence we
are seeing in Iraq is familiar. The terrorist who takes hostages, or plants a
roadside bomb near Baghdad is serving the same ideology of murder that kills
innocent people on trains in Madrid, and murders children on buses in
Jerusalem, and blows up a nightclub in Bali, and cuts the throat of a young
reporter for being a Jew.
We've seen the
same ideology of murder in the killing of 241 Marines in Beirut, the first
attack on the World Trade Center, in the destruction of two embassies in
Africa, in the attack on the USS Cole, and in the merciless horror inflicted
upon thousands of innocent men and women and children on September the 11th,
2001.
None of these
acts is the work of a religion; all are the work of a fanatical, political
ideology. The servants of this ideology seek tyranny in the Middle East and
beyond. They seek to oppress and persecute women. They seek the death of Jews
and Christians, and every Muslim who desires peace over theocratic terror. They
seek to intimidate America into panic and retreat, and to set free nations
against each other. And they seek weapons of mass destruction, to blackmail and
murder on a massive scale.
How does President Bush know
that it's not religion? Why does the President find it necessary to
bring this up? Is it just a coincidence that so many of these political
fanatics are Muslim? One reason in addition to wanting to avoid discrimination
against Muslims may be a desire to show that he is not against
Muslims so as not to further antagonize the Muslim world. In addition the
President may honestly believe that all religion is good.
The world media also goes out of
its way to mention the Islamic element behind Islamic terrorist
attacks. Michelle Malkin, in an article titled "Remember 9-11: Stop
sanitizing the killers" (worldnetdaily.com
9/8/04) asked:
How
many times have you picked up a newspaper and read about terrorist attacks
perpetrated not by Muslim terrorists, but by generic "militants" or
"guerrillas" or "rebels" or, as Middle East scholar Daniel
Pipes noted, the Pakistan Times called them, "activists"?
Michelle pointed out the
contrast between this and press coverage of the Waco Texas siege:
which
constantly reminded us that David Koresh and his Branch Davidian followers were
members of a "peculiar religious sect" (New York Times, March 3,
1993) and "a group of religious zealots with a known propensity for
violence" (Washington Post, March 2, 1993) who were steeped in a
"culture of Christian extremism" (San Francisco Chronicle, April 20,
1993).
When children misbehave
they are often given the diagnosis Attention Deficit Order. Arnold Ahlert
writes (N.Y. Post 4/5/04) Thus another rash of generally annoying behavior is
reduced to "symptoms" for which people can no longer be held "accountable."
They aren't annoying, they're "sick.".. Pardon the heresy, but
sometimes the things we do are nobody's fault - but our own.
One of the astonishing
coverups by the United States is the link of Iraq to the attacks on the World
Trade Center. One would expect that the United States would want the
world to know about this link to justify the war it fought with Iraq.
Perhaps there were secret sources and information the United States wanted to
protect. The following is an excerpt from an An article called 9/11
Lawyer Mystified Over Failure to Invoke Iraq-WTC Link (Newsmax 5/14/03) about
the subject:
The
lawyer who won a $104 million court award last week for families of two victims
of the Sept. 11 attacks said Sunday that he remains mystified over the Bush
administration's decision not to publicize evidence tying an Iraqi hijack
training facility to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
"Who
knows exactly why they're not focusing on it," said Philadelphia attorney
James Beasley, whose court victory last Wednesday gave legal validation to
claims of several defectors that Saddam Hussein provided instruction for
al-Qaeda recruits in hijacking techniques never employed before 9/11 at the
terrorist training facility at Salman Pak...
Going
back to the Clinton administration, American weapons inspectors working for the
U.N. witnessed what they said were hijacking practice sessions conducted aboard
a Russian Tupelov 154 airliner parked in an open field at Salman Pak.
The
revelation that those sessions may have been dress rehearsals for the 9/11
attacks would leave more than a few in the intelligence community with some
explaining to do.
"Once
people focus on what was known beforehand," said Beasley, "then the
obvious question is, well gee, what were you guys doing before 9/11." ...
In
satellite photos taken over Baghdad on April 25, 2000, a commercial airliner
parked in a field at Salman Pak is plainly visible.
"They
didn't have the benefit of the satellite photo when they were drawing their
pictures," Beasley told Malzberg. "But this one fella, Sabah Khodada,
who was a captain there and one of the trainers of the Fedayeen Saddam, drew a
picture that matched almost identically the satellite photos that we had."
Khodada,
who worked at Salman Pak for eight years, defected to the U.S. five months
before the 9/11 attacks. In November 2001 he told the London Observer,
"The method used on 11 September perfectly coincides with the training I
saw at the camp. When I saw the twin towers attack, the first thought that came
into my head was, 'this has been done by graduates of Salman Pak.'"
The
fact that the accounts of Khodada and others matched the satellite photo
evidence lends credence to other parts of their testimony.
"Khodada
also told a bunch of different people that they were training these non-Iraqi
Islamic fundamentalists in groups of four or five on how to take over aircraft
using non-conventional weapons," Beasley said. "That's exactly what
we saw [on 9/11]."
When
the Salman Pak defector told his story to PBS's "Frontline" on Oct.
14, 2001, Bush administration officials were quick to dismiss it. An editor's
note accompanying the Khodada transcript on the PBS Web site explains,
"Although U.S. officials acknowledge terrorists were trained at Salman
Pak, they say it is unlikely that these activities were related to the Sept. 11
attacks."
But
it's not clear how those officials could know for sure that the training camp
had no 9/11 connection - especially since Khodada told PBS that his first
interview with the FBI had taken place only days before.
Despite
the official position that Salman Pak played no role in the attacks, attorney
Beasley managed to convince federal judge to the contrary.
He
pointed out that even after the war, evidence of Salman Pak's role in 9/11
continues to mount. "When the Marines went through there they found
everything that Khodada had said," he told Malzberg.
Those who argue that there is no link between Al Qaeda
and Iraq, should tell that to Nicholas Berg, beheaded by al-Qaeda leader Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi, who after being wounded in Americas war against the Taliban,
took refuge and received medical treatment in Saddams Iraq and trained
al-Qaeda warriors at Iraqs Ansar al-Islam terrorist training base. A 16-page government memo provides convincing proof of the connection
between Saddam and al-Qaeda. The Weekly Standards Stephen F. Hayes has written volumes on the matter. The al-Qaeda affiliate terrorist group
Ansar al-Islam trained its terrorists in northern Iraq for years,
even before Zarqawi arrived. A Saddam insider has testified that Saddams secret police, the Mukhabarat, provided weapons and funds to Ansar.
Only diehard opponents of the war on terror, like the radicals at MoveOn.org
could ignore this evidence to make the claims they do.
The Obama
administration opposes voter ID on the grounds that it suppresses voting rights.
The administration has even sued states like Wisconsin, Texas and
North Carolina for requiring voter ID. After one of Holder's attempts
to do so Holder
said "This represents the department's latest action to protect voting
rights, but it will not be our last." Republicans argue that no requiring
voter ID opens the way for voter fraud. Holder said:
Let
me be clear: We will not allow political pretexts to disenfranchise American
citizens of their most precious rights, Holder said in the speech to the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I can assure
you that the Justice Departments efforts to uphold and enforce voting
rights will remain aggressive.
Holder received a standing ovation as the Houston crowd chanted Stand your
ground! and Holder, Holder! But the attorney generals remarks drew sharp
criticism from Republican lawmakers, who characterized the speech as a
political tactic aimed at bolstering President Obamas reelection prospects.
Its very telling that instead of making legal arguments in front of the
court, the attorney general is making political speeches more than a
thousand miles way, said Lucy Nashed, a spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Rick
Perry (R).
Does Holder really believe
that requiring voter ID causes discrimination against black voters or does he
want voter fraud to occur since he knows that illegal immigrants will vote
Democrat? Holder may have answered that question by
requiring anyone who attended meetings in Ferguson to present ID.
Where is Holder's concern that such a requirement will prevent black people from
attending? That requirement is a legal requirement of
CRS so I'm not sure it's
Holder's fault. Nevertheless preventing voter ID clearly paves the way for
fraud.
Obama
claimed to be for transparency in government when he ran for office but did he
do that to get elected or did he really mean that? Obama appointee Eric
Holder blocked anyone with cameras or recording devices from attending meetings
in Ferguson on the grounds that it would prevent people from saying what they
want to say. That doesn't match Obama's
calls for transparency.
On November 5, 2009,
U.S. Army Major Nidal Malik Hassan massacred 13 of his fellow soldiers in Fort
Hood Texas. Caroline Glick
wrote:
The
Obama administration has refused to acknowledged that the attack was a
terrorist attack. The Defense Department has insisted on covering up the
nature of the attack. The reports it released following the attack failed to
mention Hasan's Islamic motivations. Still today the Defense Department
insists on defining the massacre as a case of "workplace violence."
To advance this fiction, the Defense Department has refused to award Purple
Hearts to the families of the soldiers murdered by Hasan, or to those who
were wounded in his attack. It has refused to compensate the families of
those murdered or the survivors who were incapacitated at the level the US
military compensates the families of soldiers killed in the line of duty and
soldiers wounded by enemy fire.
This year Congress tried to rectify this obscenity by including Purple Heart
citations for Ft. Hood casualties in the Defense Appropriations Act.
Obama said he would veto the bill, (and thus deny the military funding), if
they didn't remove the clause about the medals. That is how far Obama is
willing to go to keep up this fiction, cover up the existence of enemy
forces within the US military, deny the threat posed to the US by radical
Islam, and in the process, punish and dishonor American soldiers who were
killed in the line of duty in an act of war against the US by a
self-proclaimed "Soldier of Allah."
Why would Obama want to do
this? One reason might be that he may wish to claim that he kept the U.S.
safe from terrorism while he was president so that people will reelect him for a
second term. If the massacre at Fort Hood was terrorism than he couldn't
say that.
After Muslims
complained that FBI and military training manuals were biased against them the
Obama administration issued an edict to scrub all law enforcement, intelligence
and military teachings on Islam. Mr. Emerson, who maintains back-channel
ties to law enforcement, said any slide presentation on Islamic extremism now
has to be submitted to a special Justice Department panel. He
said one slide that was required to be omitted showed the famous photo of
captured Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The photo of a disheveled
and unshaven Mohammed was deemed offensive to Islam, Mr. Emerson said.
When pictures are banned
denial of reality has risen to an extreme level.
Some Politicians try and make their policies more
successful than they really are in order to gain support. One example of
this is given by David Bedein who wrote in an article titled An Unquiet
Peace (frontpagemag.com 2/14/04)
despite
repeated statements of all Israeli government officials on tape and on the
record that no ceasefire had been agreed to in Sharm, the public relations firm
that works with the Prime Minister of Israel reported to every possible media
outlet that a ceasefire had been achieved.
Spreading this type of
delusion among Israelis is very dangerous for Israel because it gains
support for territorial concessions that strengthen a regime bent on destroying
Israel.
Said Aburish in his book: The
Rise, Corruption and Coming Fall of the House of Saud, writes about the
measures taken by Saudi Arabia to make themselves look good in the press.
He wrote how the first king of Saudi Arabia Ibn Saud and his successor King
Faisal dealt with Saudi newspapers:
Initially
Ibn Saud ordered their editors to promote his regressive policies and their
refusal to succumb prompted him to order members of his Committee for the
Advancement of Virtue and the Elimination of Sin (CAVES) to arrest the people
who read them in public. When this produced unsatisfactory results, he
confiscated their printing presses...
King
Faisal introduced strict local press censorship and forbade the ownership of
newspapers and magazines by individuals, families or groups...
Said Aburish also writes about
how the Saudis took control of the pan-Arab press and gained influence over the
Western press.
Saudi
ownership of the pan-Arab press started in 1979 with the newspaper Sharq Al
Awsat, which they edited in London and transmitted via facsimile to printing
presses throughout the Arab world. This was followed by the purchase of
an old Lebanese newspaper, Al Hayat, which they also edited in London.
Women's sports, business and political weekly magazines in London, Paris and
Beirut followed. The financial backing given by the House of Saud to its
own publications gave them an edge over the competition, which could not afford
news bureaux or modern printing presses, and made it easy for the Saudis to
pressure others into joining them in return for financial aid. It was a
choice between following the Saudi line or perishing...
Saudi
Arabia's decision to have its own pan-Arab publications was coupled with an
attempt to influence the press in non-Arab countries, through financial and
other pressures. Refusal to grant visas to foreign correspondents and not
inviting them to GCC or other meetings, threatening to cancel subscription to
wire services, and newspapers' and magazines' syndicated offerings or the
outright purchase of the loyalty of some British and American journalists who
covered the Middle East are the most obvious methods used by the Saudis...The
sinister, mostly secret activity of trying to influence Western publications
has been relatively successful and part of the reason the ugly deeds of the
Saudi regime have not received the press coverage they deserve is that major
news organizations do not want to alienate the Saudi Government and because
some Western correspondents covering the Middle East take bribes...
At
present the Arab press is divided into a Saudi -owned press, a Saudi controlled
press, a press controlled by the GCC and other countries friendly to Saudi
Arabia who are loath to offend it and a small number of publications which
oppose them and are fighting against huge odds. And the Saudis are still
buying the loyalty of an increasing number of Western journalists.
But
they have not stopped at the purchase or direct or indirect control of
Arabic-language newspapers and magazines and pressuring foreign publications or
bribing foreign correspondents. They have broadened their approach to
ownership to accomodate technological developments which affect their overall
purpose. They own Middle East Broadcasting Corporation, MBC, an Arab
language television station in London which serves the expatriate Arab
community and transmits to the Middle East via satellite; ANA, the Arab radio station
in Washington DC; and Radio Orient, the Arabic language radio station in
France. in 1981 some of their friends bought 14.9 per cent of London's
TV-AM through a highly circuitous financial route and businessmen beholden to
the House of Saud have bought into mainline London newspapers and are eager to
buy more. Recently they acquired United Press International for $4
million...The Saudi businessman Wafiq Al Said, a close friend of King Fahd
bought 35% of London's Sunday Correspondent. Saudi businessman Sulayman
Olayan owns 5% shares of the Independent and the Sunday Independent...
I
have ascertained that six well-known journalists who write about the Middle
East for major London publications are either directly or indirectly in the pay
of the Saudi Embassy. ..
In
addition to hundreds of individuals and corporations who promote the Saudi
image, universities and study centres have not proved immune to the influence
of Saudi money. The University of Southern California, Duke University,
Georgetown University and the Aspen Institute have accepted Saudi grants which
implied non-criticism of the House of Saud. Many Middle East experts at
American universities work in departments which are funded by the Saudis...
Nor
is having control of the press and placing inexperienced, incompetent Saudi
editors in charge enough for the House of Saud, for it has shown signs of
wanting to control book publishing (at least two London publishers of books
about the Middle East depend on them for their livelihood). Some of my
books failed to find Arabic publishers because of fear of Saudi reprisal and
one of them was bought by a publisher who, unbeknownst to me, acted for them;
he paid a lot of money for Arabic-language rights and then did not publish
it. More seriously in 1982 the Saudis objected to a book about the Mecca
Mosque rebellion by the Egyptian writer Ahmad Al Hamadi, and went as far as
threatening to cut off aid to Egypt in order to have both books confiscated by
the Egyptian authorities.
The
Saudis punish publishers of anti-Saudi books by banning all their products from
their country and get members of the GCC to do the same. No publisher can
afford the accusation of being anti-House of Saud and Quartet books suffered
for publishing God Cried, a book about the Israeli Invasion of Beirut, because,
according to the Saudis, God does not cry.
The
House of Saud also resorts to violence. Some of the examples given by
Aburish are the kidnapping of the Saudi writer Nasser Al Said from Beirut, the
assassination in Athens of the critical publisher of Al Nashua, Muhammad Mirri,
and the attack of a Syrian journalist by Saudi paid thugs who broke both his
arms...
In
summary, what we have is a situation where the Western press's ability to
report on Saudi Arabia is hampered by the House of Saud's power to control
journalists' entry into the country, and by the application of indirect
financial pressure on journalistic establishments. On top of that,
reporting which supports and approves the House of Saud is facilitated through
the Saudis' ability to buy into Western media, bribe journalists and exploit
their business and academic contacts.
The
ability to influence the Western press comes on top of total control of Saudi
internal media and the elimination of opposition within the pan-Arab
media. The combined effect produces a false picture which everywhere
overlooks, ignores or distorts the House of Saud's misdeeds. In prospect
is a world waking up to a country in flames and wondering why things have gone
so far without anybody knowing about them.
The control of Islam on the Western media
became alarmingly clear to me when I read about how churches were torched and
dozens of Christians burned to death in Kenya. I wondered if the
perpetrators were Muslim and this was some kind of Jihad but there was nothing
in any of the articles I read that answered those questions. Melanie
Phillips answered that question in an article titled
The Kenyan Jihad. It turns out the blood thirst women raping followers
of Raila Odinga whose murderous rampage burned the Christians are Muslims.
It turns out that Raila Odinga, had promised to implement strict Islamic Sharia
law if he received the Muslim vote and was elected president. The Christians
naturally opposed this. She also noticed that the media left the Jihad
part out. According to the media it was just tribal warfare.
The following is a quote from Robert Baer's
book See
No Evil a book which brings to light some of the shocking corruption in the
CIA and the U.S. government and how it paved the way for attacks such as the
one on the World Trade Center on Sept 11, 2001.
As
for me, both items added to a growing rage that I was having more and more
trouble containing. Whether it was Osama bin Laden, Yasir Arafat, Iranian
terrorism, Saddam Hussein, or any of the other evils that so threaten the
world, the Clinton administration seemed determined to sweep them all under the
carpet. Ronald Reagan and George Bush before Clinton were not much
better. The mantra at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue seemed to be : Get through
the term. Keep the bad news from the newspapers. Dump the
naysayers. Gather money for the next election -- gobs and gobs of it --
and let some other administration down the line deal with it all.
An excellent interview with Robert Baer can
be heard online.
1,400 girls have been sexually
abused by Asian men in the Yorkshire town of Rotherham,
England has taken another tawdry turn. Jessica, who was victimized as a
child, insists local politicians buried the truth to suit their own ends.
Ive said all along that this has been about two things money and power, she
explained. Girls like me were sacrificed because no one wanted the boat rocked
because they knew itd cost them votes if the finger of blame was pointed and
because they thought we were worthless.
The votes to which Jessica refers are those of the Asian community that
Britains Labour Party needed to maintain its power base in Rotherham. There
was an echelon of people who scratched each others backs, revealed Solicitor
Dave Greenwood, who is representing 38 victims in this burgeoning scandal. But
I think theres an X Factor at play here. Its quite apparent there was a
feeling of the need to maintain the Asian vote to preserve Labours majority in
the town, he added.
In 2008 one of the policing agencies having to do with sex
trafficking commissioned a 20-minute educational
video to be shown to school girls to show how the gangs operate, McLoughlin
told WND. They hang around schools and malls and use an attractive young man to
convince them he wants to be their boyfriend and he gets them to drink and do
drugs and then she has sex with him and later his brothers and his uncles
and whomever else he pimps her out to.
That video was never actually shown to
the girls, he said. And Britains homage to political correctness led police and
child-welfare advocates to cover up what was happening for fear of being called
racists.
After Trump
said that there were areas of London where people are afraid to go because
of Muslims the head of Londons police said, Mr. Trump could not be more
wrong, and London mayor Boris Johnson called Trumps comments utter nonsense.
Within days, however, scores of rank-and-file London policemen begged to
differ with their spokesmen, leading to the following headlines:
UK Daily Mail: TRUMPS NOT WRONG WE CANT WEAR UNIFORM IN OUR OWN CARS:
Five Police Officers Claim Donald Trump Is Right About Parts of London Being So
Radicalised They Are No-Go Areas
The Sun: THERE ARE NO-GO AREAS IN LONDON: Policemen Back Trumps
Controversial Comments
UK Daily Express: TRUMP IS RIGHT! Police Say Parts of Britain Are No-Go
Areas due to ISIS Radicalisation
So why did the mayor of London and the head of
London's police differ? Probably because it makes them look bad and they
are worried about losing their jobs.
Trump also spoke about the Islamization of Brussels.
The New York Times headlined a story on the interview: Donald Trump Finds New
City to Insult: Brussels. Indignant Belgians took to Twitter, the Times
reported, deploying an arsenal of insults, irony and humor, including images of
Belgiums beloved beer and chocolate. Rudi Vervoort, the president of the
Brussels region, rebuked Trump, saying, We can reassure the Americans that
Brussels is a multicultural city where it is good to live.
Boom,
34 killed and hundreds injured in Belgium due to a terrorist attack in Mar
2016.
There is an epidemic
of black on white violence in the United States. Here is a video of Colin
Flaherty speaking about it.
Colin said that Critical Race Theory contributes to black
resentment of whites. The question is why doesn't the media report on
this. Why do they try and hide the race of the mobs the same way they hide
the religion of Muslims who attack non-Muslims? Are they trying to prevent
people from becoming racist? This raises the question if creating delusion
can be good. Is it good to hide the truth about black on white violence to
prevent people from hating all blacks? Is it good to hide the truth about
Muslim on infidel violence to prevent hatred of all Muslims and Islamophobia?
Clearly there is a lot wrong with hiding the truth.
People can't take defensive measures if they don't know the threat they are
facing. So the question becomes can the good out weigh the bad if one
doesn't tell the truth. Can denial be good. Can creation of delusion
be good?
Who decides what delusion is good or not good?
Who are we to decide for someone else what truth they should
or should not know or that the conclusions they draw are wrong and are
conclusions are right?
It seems to me that one could tell the truth and still
discourage racism. One could tell the truth that hundreds of blacks
attacked a white man and also say that we must not conclude from that, that all
blacks are violent and hate whites. Now it's quite possible that some
people will hate all blacks after reading about the violence so many of them
perpetrate no matter how hard someone tries to convince them not to.
I think the good that will result from
telling the truth will outweigh the bad. If we look at historical examples
of deception we generally find negative consequences resulting from such
deception. A good example is the "peace in our time" delusion of Neville
Chamberlain and the silencing by the British press of Winston Churchill before
he became prime minister. The press wanted to keep England from fighting
Germany but the result of press deception was more casualties not less.
As
Deborah Schurman-Kauflin, a Ph.D. researcher of violent crimes, told
WorldNetDaily:
"It appears as if there is a fear that if
this is honestly discussed, people will hate all illegal immigrants. So there
is silence. But in being silent about the rapes and murders, it is as if the
victims never even existed."
Why
does the popular culture - including the movie industry - place such a powerful
premium on downplaying the obvious connection between international terrorism
and fanatical Islam?
Just
10 days before the government announced the detention of Jose Padilla (also
known as Abdullah Al Muhajir) on charges of plotting a "dirty bomb"
explosion on American soil, Hollywood unleashed Bad Company, its second
thriller in two weeks about nuclear terrorism in the United States.
But
in that Anthony Hopkins-Chris Rock box-office dud - as in its high-profile
predecessor, The Sum of All Fears - Islamic extremists bear no responsibility
for the deadly designs against our country.
The
Bad Company bad guys hail from Yugoslavia and wear colored scarves and nasty
scowls to make them identifiable as they plan to explode a nuclear device under
New York's Grand Central Station....
The
Sum of All Fears is an even more ridiculous distortion of reality. Its
producers changed the identity of the nuclear terrorists specifically to avoid
any imagery that might show Muslims in an unflattering light. In Tom Clancy's
best-selling novel, on which this film is based, Palestinian fanatics lead an
elaborate conspiracy; but the movie version's laughably caricatured Nazis,
complete with accents and overacting reminiscent of Hogan's Heroes, take over the
plot and make it look ridiculous.
This
same pattern applies to earlier movies about terrorist schemes against the USA.
In 1997's The Peacemaker, George Clooney and Nicole Kidman battled a chilling
attempt to blow up New York with a nuclear weapon. Again, the plotter came from
the former Yugoslavia...
Even
some schoolchildren understand the danger, but in today's climate must be
careful describing it. A friend of my eighth-grade daughter got into trouble at
their public school when a teacher asked why al-Qaeda hates us so ferociously.
The 14-year-old girl accurately observed that some Muslims have always
interpreted passages in the Islamic holy book, the Koran, to demand that
believers conquer or kill infidels who refuse to follow the prophet. Her observation
produced gasps of horror from fellow students and a stern reprimand from the
teacher for her indulgence in "hate speech."
Michael Medved writes that one reason for
this is fear that telling the truth will
encourage
the persecution of Muslim Americans, the overwhelming majority of whom obey the
law and honor our flag. But another even more powerful factor inhibits the
honest discussion of Islamic ideas and helps explain Hollywood's reluctance to
identify movie terrorists as Muslims.
Michael
Medved believes that there is another more important reason. He writes that for
secular people who believe in relativism:
The
idea that any one religious approach might be especially dangerous or
dysfunctional leads to unacceptable conclusions: If some religions are worse
than others, then some are better than others - and perhaps even more true.
Such
reasoning is a greater threat to secular relativism than any terrorist. The
politically correct position therefore suggests that it's merely coincidence
that most Islamic societies oppose Western ideals of liberty and progress, and
it's only an accident that nearly all mass-murdering conspirators pledged to
kill Americans take their inspiration from the Koran.
Ideas
- including religious ones - have consequences, and examining those
consequences is the best way to judge them. Americans are mature enough to
handle the inescapable truth that our daily dangers come not, as Hollywood
would have it, from freelance misfits and nostalgic Nazis, but from a serious
and frightening Islamic mass movement implacably devoted to our destruction.
One observation I have to add to Michael Medved's
conclusions is that Yugoslavia is being painted by Hollywood as a source of
terrorists when they actually fought with Islamic terrorist groups who were
trying to take away part of their homeland. That leads to the question
why isn't Hollywood concerned about creating hatred to Yugoslavs? Perhaps
there is no fear of the consequences of angering the Yugoslavs the way their is
of angering the Moslems.
Another observation is that any answer
to the teacher's question regarding why Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. is hate
speech. If the student had given the teacher the answer she wanted which
was probably that Al Qaeda attacked the United States because the United States
supports Israel and Israel oppresses the Palestinians that would have been hate
speech toward both the United States and Israel. Of course they
wouldn't get in trouble for that answer.
Another observation I have is
that hate is not always wrong if it is hatred of the guilty. There is a web page in this web site about anger that has excerpts
of articles that appeared after the attack on the World Trade Center that make
this argument.
One of the most egregious examples of denial and
delusion creation occurred after a Muslim terrorist took over a chocolate chop
in Sydney, Australia. Pamela Geller was interviewed about this and gave a
powerful summary of the delusion creation that occurred. Her interview is embedded
below:
Robert Spencer wrote an article
titled "Terror
Denial" in frontpagemag.com (5/6/05) about the extent to which federal
authorities will go to deny an attack is a terror attack even when terror
organizations claim responsibility. Daniel Pipes has written
about this as well (Denying
Islamist Terrorism, New York Sun, 2/8/05 ).
The biggest nuclear threat is
from Iran and North Korea. Sharon made a presentation about how imminent
the Iranian nuclear threat is: ("Will Israel Strike Iran?", New York
Post 8/13/03)
But
Sharon's presentation to Bush challenges the assumptions and viability of the
emerging U.S. nonproliferation strategy on Iran. U.S. intelligence estimates
that put Iran's covert nuclear weapons drive about four years short of being
able to turn plutonium into a workable nuclear warhead overstate the time
factor by at least 100 percent, Sharon argued. One to two years is his projected
timeline.
To be sure, Sharon would face formidable
logistical and political problems in trying to update Israel's successful
pre-emptive 1981 strike against Iraq's Osirak reactor. His Oval Office briefing
may have been designed to pressure Bush to move more forcefully on Iran rather
than to advertise an impending Israeli action.
Israeli leaders have consistently warned
Americans for two decades that Iran's Islamic regime is a mortal enemy for the
Jewish state and must not be underestimated. Sharon's account, while apparently
more urgent and dramatic than past presentations, fits a pattern of Israel
"treating a nuclear-arming Iran as an immediate existential threat,"
says one U.S. official, while Washington does not.
Daniel Pipes in an article called
"A War Against What?" (New York Post 10/1/02) wrote that the effort
to deny the Islamic roots of violence extends to the American and European
media. He wrote:
Paul
Marshall of Freedom House shows that American and European reporting on these
many massacres in Pakistan overlooks the militant Islamic dimension, instead
presenting the atrocities as vaguely anti-Western in purpose.
When it came to light that the Beltway sniper
was a Muslim, Stephen Schwartz wrote (New York Post 10/25/02)
U.S.
media and law enforcement have joined in what might be called a "reverse
rush to judgement": They have hurried to discount any suspicion that
Muhammad belonged to an Islamic extremist group or had links to al Qaeda.
If
he is indeed the sniper, John Muhammad fits a pattern:
*
John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban fighter.
*
Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber who tried to blow up a transatlantic flight.
*
Jos Padilla, another petty criminal trained as a terrorist.
*
And now John Muhammad
All
are marginal, misfit individuals who entered Islam in the West, heard the
appeal of the radicals, and acted on it.
They
may not be easily identified as "card-carrying" terrorists. But they
are still terrorists, seeking to fulfill the ideological dictates of the
Wahhabi death cult that rules Saudi Arabia and seeks to control Islam
throughout the world.
Like
Lindh, Reid and Padilla, Muhammad did not have to go to Riyadh to acquire the
violent, fundamentalist outlook of the Wahhabis: It came to them. The Wahhabi
death cult dominates 80 percent of American mosques.
Daniel Pipes also wrote about the unwillingness of the
media to even suggest that Islam might have been behind John Muhammad's
murdering spree. He wrote (New York Post 10/29/02):
a
friend who quoted John Muhammad, the senior alleged sniper, saying that the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks "should have happened a long time ago."
This
implies that Muhammad might have seen himself as a foot soldier in the jihad
(holy war) against the United States, and that he took up arms to terrorize
Americans.
Media
across the country as one, however, shut their eyes to this explanation. A Los
Angeles Times article proffered six motives for Muhammad (his "stormy
relationship" with his family, his "stark realization" of loss
and regret, his perceived sense of abuse as an American Muslim post-9/11, his
desire to "exert control" over others, his relationship with Malvo,
and his trying to make a quick buck) but did not mention jihad.
Likewise,
a Boston Globe article found "there must have been something in his social
interaction - in his marriage or his military career - that pulled the
trigger."
Unwilling
to specify the possibility of jihad as even part of his motive, media analyses
dismissed it by implication. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution merely reported
that local Muslims rue the snipers having "once again tarred the image of
a peaceful religion." All those interviewed by the Commercial Appeal in
Memphis "agreed that it did not matter that one of the suspected snipers
had converted to Islam."
Michelle Malkin in an oped
"The D.C. Sniper's Jihad" wrote in regard to the media's effort to
downplay the possibility that Islam played a role in the sniper killings that:
CNN downplayed Muhammad's reliigous
conversion calling him by his old name, John Allen Williams... Chicago Sun
Times columnist Richard Roper railed against conservative commentators such as
the indomitable Mark Steyn, who had taken note of Muhammad's Islamic
faith...
The authorities spent their time
looking for a white man in a white van. It turns out that Lee Boyd
Malvo, the teen assistant to John Muhammad was a Muslim as well (New York Post
12/5/2003). The following lines come from a poem he wrote:
"Fight
in the cause of Allah those who believe, Destroy the devil and infidels, fear them not (Crusader & zionist alliance) for Allah choose the humble And the despised, so fight ye with all your possessions and persons, fight ye and remember Allah will repay your loan of life and property 10 fold, give your life to Allah."
In prison Malvo drew sketches which revealed
his Islamic hatred of America. In one sketch he is dressed as a soldier
and carries an assault rifle. In the text he writes about the victims of
his sniping:
They
all died and they deserved it. I don't need your pity. We will not
stop. This war will not end until you are all destroyed utterly.
In another sketch the Whitehouse is shown in
cross hairs accompanied by the text:
You
will weep, moan & morn. You will bleed to death, little by little.
Your life belongs to Allah. He will deliver you to us. Sept.
11, we will ensure, will look like a picnic to you. You can count on the
above statement with every drop of my blood, being and soul... Welcome to the
new war. You are not safe anywhere at any time.
French hostility to the
United States has led them to downplay the role the United States has in saving
them from the Nazis. Before the 60th anniversary commemoration ceremony
of the allied D-Day landing in Normandy the U.S. press was full of personal
accounts of veterans of the D-Day landings, the only eye-witness report in Le
Monde recounted the horrifying tale of the forgotten casualties of D-Day the
French civilians who perished in the saturation bombing Nazi defenses in
strategic towns in Normandy such as Lisieux .
A French Web site
dedicated to the civilian victims of the Battle of Normandy
(unicaen.fr/victimes_civiles/), notes that 13,900 French men, women and
children perished in Normandy between April 1 and Sept. 30, 1944. It makes no
mention of the 6,000 American soldiers who died on June 6, 1944, at Omaha Beach
alone.
In Basse-Normandie, where the
allied landings occurred, two vice presidents of the regional council announced
they would refuse to take part in any ceremonies where Bush was present. (New
York Post 6/5/04)
I
read an interesting argument made in the comments section on an article in
Frontpage Magazine about how people will oppose a viewpoint because a group
they generally oppose has that viewpoint.Here is the relevant text of that comment:
Then there are those who would rather eat broken glass than be on the
same side as Republicans and conservatives on any issue. So they delude
themselves into thinking that Jihad really isn't such a big threat, but
rather just Right-wing bigotry made up by Republicans to justify war, and win
elections, etc.
School officials in Burlington,
NJ who wanted to stage a hostage situation drill did not portray the terrorists
as Islamic, instead they portrayed them as members of a right-wing
fundamentalist group called the 'New Crusaders'. Ironically this
was reported on April
3, 2007 by Worldnetdaily , shortly after Iranian Muslims seized British
soldiers and kept them as hostages. How much of the motivation was fear
to anger Muslims and how much was hatred of Christians or a desire to appear PC
and enlightened is unclear.
Fear silences those that would speak the truth and paves the way for
delusion.A government study in England
found that teachers
leave out the Holocaust for fear that the topic might offend or upset muslim
students.In addition they leave out
education about how the Crusades liberated Jerusalem from the Islamic invaders.
(Foxnews
4/3/2007)
Michael Medved in an article called Blaming
the Victim for Murderous Muslim Rampages, (Worldnet Daily 12/2/02) wrote:
Christian
authorities in the Middle East refused to blame Islamic killers for the murder
of American nurse and missionary Bonnie Witherall, shot dead at the age of 31
while opening the clinic in which she ministered to Lebanon's poor. At an
interfaith memorial service in her honor, Roman Catholic Bishop George Kwaiter
told the assembled spiritual leaders: "We told her she might be vulnerable
to insults, or even being hit, and she answered that she would consider it an
honor." Concerning her efforts to preach the Gospel and to convert Muslims
to Christianity, the bishop unequivocally declared: "We don't accept this
kind of preaching. We reject it totally."
Even
a Baptist pastor in Lebanon, Rev. Pierre Francis, fingered his fellow
Christians Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson rather than the Arab extremists who
murdered Ms. Witherall. Referring to harsh comments by the American evangelists
toward Islamic extremism, Pastor Francis observed, "I would not think that
this is our calling to say bad things about this religion. They just jeopardize
our safety."
Many Christians are afraid to speak up
against Islam because of what might happen to them or to Christians in
countries such as Lebanon who they fear are endangered by such comments.
According to an article titled Sins of Omission, (John Leo, City Journal
| March 1, 2007) Some of the press
in the United States fears saying a criminal was black if he was or someone is
a communist because then they might be considered McCarthyite.The North Carolina Observer omitted
information that a criminal was black and in response the
blogger Confederate Yankee ran the mock headlineRACELESS FEMALE RAPED BY RACELESS
MALE AT A PARTY HOSTED BY A RACELESS FRATERNITY IN THE SAME CITY WHERE RICH
WHITE BOYS RAPED A POOR BLACK STRIPPER.The media had not compunction about declaring the race of the
white boys accused of raping a poor black stripper and had no compunction about
painting them as guilty even though they later turned out to be innocent.
One of the reasons for
whitewashing appears to be to prevent racism. When Trump spoke about the
murder of white farmers in South Africa he was condemned for spreading a racist
narrative that wasn't true even though it was. A Boer speaks about it in
the embedded video below.
When Trump spoke about
no go zones in Sweden the Prime Minister of Sweden media said there weren't
any. That wasn't what the following reporter experienced.
In the first case the left wing media was trying to make Trump
look like a racist liar and perhaps also in the second case. In the second
case the Prime Minister of Sweden also denied the truth about the no go zones.
Maybe he was afraid that telling the truth would make him look bad or that it
would create racist sentiment. There seems to be a desire in the left to deny the truth if it may lead people
to be racist. This may stem from a desire to power which I think most
creation of delusion and paranoia stems from. The leftist message is that
the right is the greedy oppressor and you are the oppressed so vote for us and
we'll take care of you. There is a concept here that the truth doesn't
matter, power for the defender of the oppressed does. That is partly what justifies
silencing dissent. Denying the truth about what is happening to the whites in
South Africa is shocking. The left does not only silence speech that it is
concerned will create racism, it also denies the truth even when people are
being murdered.
Here is a video of Malema, a member of the South American Parliament
encouraging South Africans to kill the Boer. Notice how his audience
supports the idea.
Faith Goldy is an independent conservative reporter
who is hated by many on the left. When she was assaulted by Antifa the
leftist media that filmed the assault did not show it. So in addition to
silencing "harmful" speech and denying the truth the left hides the truth. Here is a video
about this that exposes the extreme bias and indecency of the media.
Feb. 26 2012, neighborhood watch captain George
Zimmerman shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla..
Sanford Police Department (SPD) investigator Chris Serino,
said publicly of Martin, This child has no criminal record whatsoever. He
called Martin a good kid, a mild-mannered kid. Trayvon did have a
criminal record. The department was trying to divert offending studnets
especially black ones from the criminal justice system. Department members
were told to falsify reports Perhaps the police department did this to
look good to the Obama administration which did not want more blacks arrested
than whites.
In an article titled Creation of
Paranoia I discuss the paranoia of the extreme right. The extreme left
suffers from paranoia as well but also idolizes evil regimes.
Humberto Fontova
author of Fidel, Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant was asked in a frontpage
magazine interview (5/17/05) what his explanations were regarding
this leftist mindset. He said:
I used to ponder it often. I've read Paul Hollander, Malcolm
Muggeridge, James Burnham, Arthur Koestler, David Horowitz, Robert Conquest,
Paul Johnson, Jean Francois Revel, etc-- I've read an entire library on the
Leftist mind-set. But I finally resolved that life's too short to concern
yourself with what motivates lunatics. Now I leave this strange study to
competent psychiatrists (if any exist.) You finally get to a point where you
regard it as a form of mental illness -- at least I do.
What gets me about these people is that the MORE murderous and
repressive a regime the MORE popular it becomes with them. Think about it. The
Soviet Unionwas never as popular with leftist intellectuals as during
Stalin's blood-drenched reign. Chinawas the
Leftists' showcase Shangri-La precisely during Mao's mass butcheries during the
Cultural Revolution. In the 1960's and 70's Cuba had the highest political
incarceration rate on earth, (higher than the Soviet Union's) Castro and Che's
firing squads were piling up thousands of corpses a year--well, it was at that
very time that Western college kids like Christopher Hitchens and the
Venceremos Brigadistas made a fetish of flocking to Castroland to help
with sugar cane harvests and worship at the altar of the Maximum Leader. It was
at that very time that Norman Mailer hailed Castro as "The
Greatest hero to appear in our Hemisphere!" You finally give up on
expecting sense from such people -- at least I do. So you grab a brewskie, pop
it open and laugh at them as you would at a Chimpanzee in a zoo cage, or the
characters in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest."
One of the most outrageous
examples of whitewashing was the reaction of world leaders and the press to the
death of Yassir Arafat. The French had an honor guard carry his
coffin. Don Feder wrote in frontpagemag.com
(Will Arafat Triumph From Beyond the Grave? 11/15/04):
At its New York headquarters, the United Nations
(Thugapalooza) lowered its flag to half-mast, to honor its all-time favorite
political killer. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he was "deeply
moved" by Arafats passing.
The chief spokesman for the Vatican referred to the
man responsible for thousands of deaths in the past four years alone as
"the illustrious deceased." Just think, if hed killed ten of
thousands, hed probably be "renowned."
A reporter for the BBC confessed that when Arafat
was evacuated to France for medical treatment, on October 29th,
"I started to crywithout warning." Listening to such drivel, Im
close to tears myself. Previously, BBC documentaries had referred to the
illustrious deceased as "an icon" and "the stuff of
legends."
The New York Times outdid itself, with a 5,265-word
obituary that read like Antonys funeral oration...Once again, it was Jimmy
Carter whos become the lefts most prestigious propagandist who scaled the
heights of absurdity. In an op-ed piece in the Times, the worst foreign-policy
disaster to ever befall America remarked on Arafats "boldness" and
"clarity of purpose."
Much of the media whitewashed him as well. Tom
Gross wrote an article titled Arafat-mania (Jerusalem Post 11/14/04) about
this. He wrote:
For
the Guardian, Yasser Arafat was to be compared to "Moses." On CNN, he
was described as a "revolutionary romantic figure comparable to Ho Chi
Minh and Nelson Mandela."
For
USA Today, he "embraced" "sorrow and hope."
South
Africa's City Press described him as a leader who "marshalled freedom
fighters."
And
in the Toronto Sun we were told he was "murdered" by Israel.
In
scores of reports and interviews by dozens of correspondents on both BBC and CNN,
acts of terrorism were left completely unmentioned. Instead we were treated to
an almost endless stream of sanctimonious drivel.
Arafat
"embodied the peace of the brave"; he "saved the Palestinian
people from extinction"; his life was "marked by dignity."
Arafat,
we were reminded, was "a leader," "a politician," an
"inspirational figure."
So,
too, is Osama bin Laden, but it is hard to imagine anyone in the Western media
covering bin Laden's death with almost no mention of terrorism and virtually no
allusion to his victims.
Reading
much of the print media, watching BBC and CNN, listening to the even more
partisan coverage of BBC World Service Radio which attracts over 150 million
listeners daily it was as if these acts of terror had never happened.
It
was as though those Olympic athletes had never been killed, those airliners
never hijacked, those schools never bombed, those passengers in airline
terminals at Rome, Vienna and elsewhere never gunned down.
It
was as if the Ma'alot school massacre (of mostly 15-year old girls) had never
occurred, or a bazooka had never been fired into a school bus from Moshav
Avivim, wiping out an entire class and their teachers.
It
was as if an American ambassador and a Jordanian prime minister had never been
murdered, or a wheelchair-bound American pensioner had never been shot and
dumped into the Mediterranean because he had a "Jewish-sounding
name."
And
it was as if an eight-month pregnant mother, Tali Hatuel, hadn't been shot in
the head by Arafat's Fatah, execution-style, together with her four young
children, only last May.
Arafat's
terrorism was also omitted on the Web.
For
example, the timeline on BBC online, titled "Yasser Arafat: Key
dates," jumped straight from: "1994: Jointly awarded Nobel peace
prize with Rabin and Peres" to "2001: Israel blockades him inside
Ramallah headquarters."
The
timeline put out by the Associated Press, the world's biggest news agency, and
used by news outlets worldwide (titled "Key Events in Yasser Arafat's
Life"), also omitted all acts of terrorism. Indeed we can only wonder what
kind of terror AP's timeline says Arafat "renounced" on December 12,
1988.
After the Muslim riots in France
in November of 2005, the French Ambassador Jean-David Levitte said regarding
the Allahu Akbar shouting teenagers:
"It
was not about the role of Islam in France, We never saw any link, direct
or indirect, Religion played no role."
He probably said this
because the French want good relations with the Muslims especially oil
producing Muslim countries. (Ambassador
Says France "Back to Normal")Also because they are afraid of angering the Muslims.
Anti-semitic speeches that Morsi made before
becoming president of Egypt have been publicized including one in which he
said:
We must never forget, brothers, to nurse our children
and our grandchildren on hatred for them: for Zionists, for Jews, Mr. Morsi
declared. Egyptian children must feed on hatred; hatred must continue, he
said. The hatred must go on for Allah and as a form of worshiping him.
Obama spokesman Jay Carney condemned Morsis bigoted
language but reaffirmed official enthusiasm for the Egyptian president and
his pro-peace role. The so-called pro-peace role of Morsi was to negotiate
a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas when Israel was on the verge of sending
troops into Gaza and doing serious damage to Hamas. The agreement involved
concessions from Israel.
In late November 1999, U.S.
State Department spokesman James Rubin held a press conference regarding the
recent forced repatriation of the anti-communist Hmong hill tribes of Indochina
back to Stalinist Laos (James Rubin's White Lies and Damned Lies, WorldNetDaily
12/14/1999 ). The Hmong had served in the CIA's special forces
during the CIA's secret war in Laos during the Vietnam War. Rubin said:
We
have no -- found no evidence to confirm that the Lao government engages in the
systematic violation of the Hmong minority's human rights as part of a
nationwide policy.
Mr. Rubins statements are in
blatant contradiction to a book called, "Tragedy in Paradise," by
medical doctor Charles Weldon, who served with the Hmong for 11 years between
1963 and 1974 under USAID, a CIA front. Weldon witnessed many genocidal events
waged against the Hmong, and describes one of them on page 128:
As a Hmong
column of men, women and children attempted to flee from the town of Phou Nong
and escape the Pathet Lao forces in the southern enclave of Muang Moc.
The enemy began
firing at random into the mass of terrified people with automatic weapons and
mortars. The Pathet Lao soldiers physically blocked the trail to prevent the
people from escaping. They clubbed some with rifle butts, some were stabbed
with bayonets; women and children were thrown off the cliffs and their bodies
broken on the rocks below; infants were grabbed by the legs and their brains
bashed out as they were slammed against the tree trunks. The slaughter went on
for an hour.
One motivation for whitewashing
a group is to discredit a group who opposed them. For example the
American Indian is whitewashed to discredit the Americans who fought against
him. In my opinion the Americans were guilty of taking away the land of
the Indians and killing a great many of them That doesn't mean however
that the Indians were innocent victims which is how they were portrayed by the
LA Times. According to the the L.A. Times article (5/17/03) about
Custer's Last stand:
The
Plains Indians ... were not brutes and vicious killers.
The Advocate a historical
magazine responded:
Yes
they were. ... After a battle, including Little Big Horn, they smashed in the
skulls of the dead and wounded, gutted the living and gouged out their eyes.
This has all been documented. ....
The most common motive for
whitewashing the behavior of one's own group is to gain acceptance and power
for that group. An excellent web site by Abdullah al Araby called the Facade and the Facts
discusses how Moslem groups whitewash their religion to
be
accepted, included and involved in all activities; religious, social and
political.
According to Mr. Araby Moslems have actually
altered translations of the Koran so that it is more acceptable to the
West. He writes:
An
example is the new French translation of the Quran which has caused tremendous
furor among Muslim fundamentalists. The translation attempted to please Jews by
modifying some verses of the Quran that condemned Jews. An example is a verse
that used to read "The people of Israel, after sowing corruption twice on
earth for the purpose of dominating other people, will push themselves up into
a position of extreme power before being punished by God."
The new translation reads just the opposite: "The people of Israel
will be twice destroyed as an innocent victim, and God will reward them by
elevating them to great heights."
Moslem leaders in the United
States argue that they are moderate. For example Ibrahim Hooper,
spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), says that his
group only seeks
justice
and accommodation for the Islamic-American community so we can practice our
faith in a multiethnic setting.
Yet Mr. Cooper said in 1993
that:
I
wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of
the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.
Also Nihad Awad (executive director)
proclaims his "support" for Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group
while CAIR Chairman Omar M. Ahmad says that suicide bombers "kill
themselves for Islam" and so are not terrorists (Daniel Pipes,
"Islam's Image Problem", New York Post 7/29/03). Omar also told a
crowd of California Muslims in July 1998,
Islam
isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The
Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only
accepted religion on earth.
Given
the opportunity to condemn Hamas by Newsweek last December, CAIR
executive director and co-founder Nihad Awad refused, claiming that the
question was the game of the pro-Israel lobby.
Daniel Pipes points out that
CAIR's support of terrorism is not only verbal. He writes that
Two
of its (CAIR's) former
employees, Bassem Khafagi and Ismail Royer, have recently been arrested on
charges related to terrorism. And a member of CAIR's advisory board, Siraj
Wahhaj, was named by the U.S. attorney as one of the "unindicted persons
who may be alleged as co-conspirators" in an attempted terrorist assault.
The Philadelphia City Paper in
an article called Pipe's Dreams criticized Daniel Pipes for believing that
Muslims harbor such ambitions. An answer to the Philadelphia City Paper
is online and called What
the Philadelphia City Paper Didn't Write.
Pipes is attacked as anti-Muslim
when in reality he is just anti-Islamist. In the same article in which
he criticized CAIR he was careful to point out that:
Moderate
Muslims, of course, reject CAIR's representing them.
*
The late Seifeldin Ashmawy, publisher of the New Jersey-based Voice of Peace,
dismissed CAIR as the champion of "extremists whose views do not represent
Islam."
*
Tashbih Sayyed of the Los Angeles-based Council for Democracy and Tolerance
accuses CAIR of being a "fifth column" in the United States.
*
Jamal Hasan of the same organization discerns CAIR's goal as spreading
"Islamic hegemony the world over by hook or by crook."
The publishers of Islamic Voice
state that they do:
not
believe in being controversial sensational, grievance-minded or simply a
spokesman of the community.
They state their goal is to
combat malicious propaganda directed against Islam and Muslims. They
combatted the malicious propaganda that Moslems were behind the attacks of
September 11th by featuring a review of the book L'effroyable Imposture (The
Horrible Fraud) which dismisses the whole episode as "a loony fable"
patched together by the White House and the U.S. Department of
Defense." This is inspite of admissions of guilt by Osama bin Laden
and his people as well as acknowledgement by Islamic leaders such as Hosni
Mubarak that bin Laden and al-Qaeda were responsible fo the acts.
Islamic voice has a link to A
Chronology of Muslim History which is part of a Muslim produced website hosted
by the University of Southern California. That chronology instead of
highlighting Islamic accomplishments to civilization has an extensive list of
all the wars, destruction, violence and murder that Muslims have enaged in for
about 1,500 years. (The Jewish Press, Firday August 2, 2002)
School textbooks in the United
States whitewash Islam. For example the 7th grade textbook "Across the
Centuries" (Houghton Mifflin 2nd edition 1999) omits anything negative
about Islam and treats the Koran like a factual document.
The University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill requires new students to read Michael Sells' "Approaching
the Qu'ran: The Early Revelations" (The Buffalo News 8/15/02). The
book excludes passages that call for the death of non-Muslims or the rejection
of friendship with Christians and Jews. Sell's excuse for excluding those
passages was that they were "too complex" and would "confuse
those unfamiliar with Islam and the history of the Middle East".
Sells said that many Americans cling to the idea that most Muslims are eager to
exterminate Americans -- particularly Christians. He compares it to the
backlash of the Pearl Harbor attack that resulted in many Americans of Japanese
ancestry being sent to internment camps during World War II.
(Those
beliefs) can be really dangerous if we don't find out who the enemy is.
If we think the enemy is really Islam, we're going to be fighting on a thousand
fronts.
Is we are to believe Michael
Sells his motive is to prevent us from fighting on a thousand fronts.
This is a strange argument. The number of fronts shouldn't determine
whether we fight an enemy. To consider how ridiculous this argument is we
can apply it to the war against Nazi Germany. The United States had to
fight Germany on many fronts. The same argument could have been made
regarding Germany that we must not believe that the Nazis are the enemy or we
will have to fight them on many fronts.
Daniel Pipes in an article called Islam's Future made a similar
argument to that of Michael Sells. He wrote:
if
one sees Islam as irredeemably evil, what comes next? This approach turns all
Muslims - even moderates fleeing the horrors of militant Islam - into eternal
enemies. And it leaves one with zero policy options. My approach has the
benefit of offering a realistic policy to deal with a major global problem.
I
used to be a minor-league Beltway wonk and I remember hearing State Department
types using similar logic a decade ago the first time we were facing down
Saddam Hussein. The prospect of Saddam Hussein being an evil man was completely
ruled out because there would be no opportunity for dialogue--no options. The
unpleasant consequence of a premise doesn't mean it is not true and if Islam
really is irredeemably evil then, yes, we face a problem of much larger
proportions that will be terribly difficult to deal with in the future. We
shall have to find a way to shine the light of good in an otherwise dark world.
What will allow us to improve the
situation we face with Islam is whether we face the reality of it is, not try
and pretend it is something that it is not.
Michael Sells whitewashing of Islam
did not stop with his book. After Americans liberated Iraq in
2003, Iraqis looted their own museums, libraries and archives. Instead of
blaming Iraqis, Michael Sells blamed American political leaders saying that
they are "barbarians" whose "criminal neglect" makes them
comparable to Nero. Other "scholars" did as well. Hamid
Dabashi of Columbia University said that U.S. political leaders are
"destroyers of civilization" like Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and
Tamerlane. Said Arjomand of the State University of New York at Stony
Brook said that the U.S. government's "war crime" renders it akin to
the Mongols who sacked Baghdad in 1258. (An Iraqi Tragedy, New York Post,
Daniel Pipes April 22, 03)
Martin Kramer wrote a book
called Ivory Towers on Sand in which he critiques Western academia's illusions
about the benevolence of Islam.
There is a lot of whitewashing
of Islam in the American press, and in American Academia this is discussed in
detail in the web page, Why
is the Press So Anti-Israel?
One motive for whitewashing a
group who has done evil actions against another group is to justify more evil
actions against the victimized group. For example Iran's Ayatollah
Khameini said, "There are documents showing...exaggerated numbers relating
to the Jewish Holocaust were fabricated to solicit sympathy of world opinion,
lay the ground for the occupation of Palestine and to justify the atrocities of
the Zionists."
Egypt's leading newspaper,
Al-Liwaa Al-Islami, published an article titled 'The Lie About The Burning of
the Jews' that denies the Holocaust. According to the article:
"What interests us here is that this lie [about] the
burning of the Jews in the Nazi crematoria has been disseminated throughout the
world until our time in order to extort the West.
(Egypt Newspaper:
Holocaust a Lie, Wnd.com 8/8/04) Those who deny the Holocaust know
that the Holocaust elicits sympathy for the Jews, and that if they can convince
the masses that the Holocaust is a Zionist lie, they can turn that sympathy
into hate.
After Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denied the Holocaust, Hisham Abd Al-Rauf wrote in the
Egyptian newspaper Al-Masaa, that Hitler was not against Jews and that: (Official Egyptian
Paper Denies Holocaust, wnd.com 12/20/05)
"The
famous execution chambers were no more than rooms for disinfecting
clothing."
Another motive to whitewash a group is
to show them you are on their side so that they will like you. Mimi
Stillman and Daniel Pipes wrote an article The United States
Government: Patron of Islam (Middle East Quarterly Winter 2002) in which
they document how members of both the Clinton and Bush administrations
whitewash Islam. They explain the motive as follows:
This
exercise has a patently practical objective: it is designed to lessen Muslim
hostility to the United States. The chain of reasoning goes as follows: (1)
Many Muslims crave Western respect for Islam and recognition of its virtues.
(2) The U.S. government in turn yearns for acceptance by Muslims. (3)
Therefore, Washington gives Muslims the acknowledgment they seek. (4) Grateful
Muslims diminish their hostility to the United States. (5) Washington can
realistically demand that those same Muslims come to the defense of the United
States against the more radical Muslims who still oppose it. (In addition, some
of this rhetoric serves domestic purposes, to assuage the U.S. Muslim population.)
Jonathan Rosenblum in an article
"My Country, always wrong" (Jerusalem Post Dec. 21? 01), wrote how
Before Sept. 11, many American Middle East scholars poo pooed the Islamic
threat. John Esposito, head of Georgetown's Center for Muslim-Christian
Understanding and a past president of MESA, dismissed the fear of terrorism as
a throwback to Cold War paranoia and a form of thinly veiled anti-Islam
prejudice.
Prof. Paul Eidelberg in his
article "Wishful Thinking About Islam" (Freeman Center Broadcast Dec. 30,2001)
explained that Muslims portray Islam as peaceful when it is in their interest
to do so (when they are weak). He wrote that:
Even
after September 11 many American academics soft-peddled Islam as a peaceful
religion, and of course politicians hewed the academic line. This is not
to suggest that expressions of peace and benevolence will not be found in
Islamic sources. But such expressions are not distinctive of Islam, which
divides the world into believers and non-believers, and whose adherents are
theologically required to spread the faith throughout the world WHEN THEY HAVE
THE POWER TO DO SO. Until then, Muslims may engage in peaceful relations
with "infidels." Meanwhile it serves their interests to
be portrayed as "moderate."
The
press when it reports on atrocious Islamic behavior is usually careful to point
out that, real Islam doesn't condone it. For example Diane Sawyer in a
report from Afghanistan (I saw this on TV in NY on 2/27/02) spoke about how the
Taliban would club the knees of women in the street and said something to the
effect that real Islam doesn't condone this. Yet Sura 4:34 of the Koran
says, Men are the managers of the affairs of women . . . Those women who are
rebellious admonish them, banish them to their couches, and beat them.
Professor Fawaz Gerges accused those
who warned of the terrorist threat of "feeding irrational fear of
terrorism by focusing on farfetched horrible scenarios.''
After the first World Trade Center bombing, The New York Times featured an
article by Edward Said, a Columbia University professor and member of the
Palestine National Council, entitled "The Phony Islamic Threat.'' Said
attained oracular status among Middle Eastern scholars for his 1978 book
Orientalism, in which he argued that all Western scholarship on Islam was
inherently colonialist and that Westerners are incapable of understanding
Muslims or Islam.
Martin Kramer has written a book about the
distortions propagated in American Academia called Ivory Towers in the Sand:
The Failure of Middle East Studies in America.
Another motive to whitewash a
group is if it is in your interest to support that group. Serge Trifkovic
in what is my opinion the best book about Islam, The
Sword of the Prophet writes:
The
British, in pursuing their policy of divide and rule colluded to whitewash the
atrocious record of the Muslims so that they could set up the Muslims as a
strategic counterbalance to the Hindus. During the freedom struggle,
Gandhi and Nehru went around encrusting even thicker coats of whitewash so they
could pretend a facade of Hindu-Muslim unity against British colonial
rule. After independence, Marxist Indian writers, blinkered by their
distorting ideology, repeated the big lie about the Muslim record.
The British whitewashed Ibn
Saud, the first king and founder of today's Saudi Arabia probably because they
wanted his help against Turkey. Said Aburish in his book: The
Rise, Corruption and Coming Fall of the House of Saud, writes how the
British intelligence agent Philby, described Ibn Saud as:
the
greatest Arab since the prophet Muhammad.
Ibn Saud writes:
In
1915... the British gave him the title Sir...and again in 1935 he was awarded
the Order of the Bath.
and that:
There
is a disturbing absence of judgement, moral or practical, which ignores the
abuse of his wives, slaves and concubines. Overlooked are the fact that
he roared with laughter when he told stories about hacking his enemies to
death; his abuse of his personal drivers and domestic servants to the extent of
regularly using the stick on them in the presence of guests; how he squandered
his country's wealth ...
Ibn
Saud's political emergence begain in 1902 when he reclaimed Riyadh, the city
where his family had been local sheikhs in their own right or sheikhs appointed
by the local emirs. His first merciless act was to terrorize the population by
spiking the heads of his enemies and displaying them at the gates of the
city. His followers burned 1200 people to death. When conducting a
raid he and his followers were very much in the habit of taking young maidens
back to enslave them or make gifts of them to friends.
When the British gave Ibn Saud money he used
much of it:
to
mould the Bedouin into a bloodthirsty monster, to expand and subsidize the
loss-making colonies of soldier-saints of the Ikhwan, or 'brothers'. The
latter were fanatics of the Wahhabi sect to which Ibn Saud belonged, who were
to provide the backbone of his conquering forces and whose savagery wreaked
havoc across Arabia...
To
subdue the population of Ibn Saud's conquered realm, the fanatical Wahhabi
Ikhwan committed serious massacres in Taif, Bureida and Al Huda among other
places, but, when their brutal ways remained unchecked, they went further and
tried to destroy the tomb of the Prophet and remove the domes of major mosques
because of their anti-Wahhabi ostentation. For the same reasons, they
even desecrated the Mecca graveyards of the Sunni Muslims...
Between
1916 and 1928 there were no fewer than 26 anti-House of Saud rebellions by the
Bedouins and each of them ended with the Ikhwan-led forces of Ibn Saud
indulging in mass killings of mostly innocent victims including women and
children....
Ibn
Saud created the Ikhwan-run Committee for the Advancement of Virtue and the
Elimination of Sin (CAVES)...In the cities, CAVES ran riot. Equipped with
sticks to administer on the spot justice, its puritan Ikhwan members flogged
its victims at random. People were punished for wearing Western clothes,
gold, perfume or silk, for smoking and the men for not wearing a moustache or a
beard. Singing was completely forbidden, the work of the chief devil,
flowerpots were too decorative and were destroyed...Naturally nobody dared turn
down a proposal of marriage by a CAVES member, and as a result people took to
keeping their women indoors...
He
(Ibn Saud) confided to Philby and others that he had had several hundred
virgins and he was in the habit of deflowering young girls then giving them
away as presents. Philby was on the receiving end of this largesse; nor
did his Westminster and Oxford education stand in the way...
Not
a penny of the $400 million paid to Ibn Saud between 1946 and 1953 was used for
development. In 1946 the country's record of expenditure showed a mere
$150,000 for building schools and $2 million for the royal garage...Outside of
his immediate entourage the country remainded poor and there was at least one
incident when beggars who tried to accost his motorcade to ask for money were
beaten to death.
With the death of Ibn Saud, Philby spoke
of
the
passing of a brilliant chapter in the history of the Arabs.
Another motive to whitewash a
group is to make peace with that group. The following are paragraphs
from the Trends section of the International Bulletin of Political Psychology
2/16/01, Peace, Peace of Mind, and Mideast Mindlessness.
Clinton
administration's negotiator, Dennis Ross, in the Arab-Israeli conflict recently
has provided public guidelines for the Bush administration and other interested
parties. Unfortunately, the guidelines are characterized by language subverted
by wishfulness more than strengthened by a pathway to make wishes a reality.
Mr.
Ross states that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian National
Authority (PNA) President Yasir Arafat both want peace but define their
"central needs in a way that conflicts with those on the other side."
...
On what grounds does Mr. Ross
base his assumption that Arafat wants peace? Charles Krauthammer in his
article The New Middle East, the Return of Ariel Sharon, The Weekly Standard
2/19/2001 argues that the opposite is true. He writes that Arafat did
not reach an agreement with Barak knowing that it would bring in Sharon.
He writes:
Indeed,
the Palestinian Authority broadcast instructions to Israeli Arabs to boycott
the election, thus assuring Sharon's victory, even had the election been
close. With Sharon, Arafat will meet resistance. And that resistance may
spark international pressure on Israel and, perhaps better, a regional war.
As pointed out by Ehud Ya'ari, a leading Israeli journalist who has known
and studied Arafat for over 30 years, a regional war has long been Arafat's
fondest dream. He knows the Palestinians will always be too weak to fight the
Israelis head on. And he knows that the best he can get from any peace agreement
is a small Palestinian state, perhaps with part of Jerusalem. The only way to
achieve the real dream of conquering all of Palestine, which would make him
Saladin, would be to trigger a replay of 1948 with five Arab states invading
Israel, but this time with modern armies, modern weapons, modern leadership,
and massive oil wealth behind them.
Before the Israeli
"occupation" of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) Arafat tried to
ignite an all-Arab offensive to destroy Israel. In his book Six Days of
War : June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East, Michael Oren, writes
how on December 31, 1964, a squad of Palestinian guerrillas crossed from
Lebanon into Northern Israel.
Armed
with Soviet made explosives, their uniforms supplied by the Syrians, they advance
toward their target: a pump for conveying Galilee water to the Negev desert.
A modest objective seemingly yet the Palestinian objective is
immense....Their action they hope will provoke an Israeli
retaliation...igniting an all-Arab offensive to destroy the Zionist
state.
The Americans have
pressured Israel to whitewash Arafat. Senator Mitchell and CIA director
George Tenet both proposed confidence building measures (i.e. concessions) for
Israel to make to the Arabs in order to bring quiet to the region.
Sharon's prerequisite to any concessions was 7 days without Jews being attacked
by Arabs. Israel Television Channel One diplomatic correspondent Karen
Neubach reported on July 24, 2001 that the U.S. was seeking a "formula"
that would allow for the the current situation to be considered the 7 days of
quiet that Israel requires before moving down the Tenet/Mitchell timeline.
Neubach explained that the Americans are exasperated by the situation since the
continuing Palestinian violence has caused a stalemate.
It is clear that the Americans
wanted the Israelis to make concessions whether or not the Arabs stop shooting
at them. One possible reason is that the Americans were suffering from
the delusion that such appeasement would quiet the situation when as a general
rule appeasement in response to terror encourages more violence. In order
to get Israel to appease the Arabs, the Americans were trying to create another
delusion that the 7 days of quiet existed when it did not. Another possible
reason was given in an article in the Jerusalem Post online edition 7/27/01
called "US Pressing Israel to Begin Counting", which quotes an
Israeli official saying that:
Iraq
is at the top of the US's list of foreign policy priorities, and since its policy
of "smart sanctions" against Iraq has failed, the US is thinking
ahead to the need to rebuild an alliance with the Gulf States in the struggle
against Saddam Hussein. The US is under pressure from its Arab allies to give
something in return, namely to begin the Mitchell plan now.
The United States wanted Israel to count days full of
violence as quiet days so that they would make the concessions promised by the
Mitchell plan so that the Arab nations would ally themselves with the United
States once again against Iraq.
According to the Ashcroft-Salmon bill, passed by
Congress in November 1999 the State Department is required to deliver a reports
twice each year to Congress on efforts to capture Palestinian Arab killers of
Americans. As of November 01 it is 5 months overdue. A ZOA news
release (Oct 24, 01) reported that ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said:
The
State Department does its utmost to keep the issue out of public view, because
it fears publicity about Arafat harboring killers of Americans will make it
harder to put pressure on Israel to keep making concessions to Arafat.
Avi Davis, in his article Making Arafat Kosher
(Freeman Center Broadcast, Sept. 20, 01) wrote how in a speech after the World
Trade Center bombing President Bush:
Cataloged
obscure terrorist groups from Uzbekestan to Egypt but failed entirely to list the regime that has, over the past 12 months, perpetrated more terror than any other group in the world. Forgotten was the fact that during the past year over 7,000 individual acts of Palestinian violence, together with the deaths of 170 Israelis, have occured in Israel - which locates the Palestinian Authority as oscillating dangerously close to the hub of world terrorism.
Yet if Yasser Arafat ever had any fears that the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center were going to coat him with the same blanket
of grey ash, he neednt have worried. One of Colin Powells first acts following the bombing was to coral the aging chairman together with Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres, into observing a truce. Powell, of course, knew what was coming. The coalition that he expected to forge to combat Islamic extremists would require both the military and intelligence cooperation of several Islamic states. From his previous experience in the Gulf War, he understood immediately that there would be no such cooperation if the United States continued to be perceived as exhibiting partiality toward the Israelis or if there was no
further progress toward addressing Palestinian concerns. Bowing to U.S
pressure Arafat, whose own efforts to ameliorate the Americans had risen to the ludicrous heights of calling for the establishment of an anti-terrorism Arab coalition, declared a cease fire. The
ever-cautious Sharon responded with a pullback of Israeli troops. And so, President Bush was happy to report on Wednesday, Israeli-Palestinian rapprochement is the first signal that there is now actually something positive to emerge from the disaster.
Or is there? Anybody expecting a cease-fire to take permanent force, shouldnt hold their breath. On Wednesday afternoon Sarit Amrani an Israeli mother of three from the settlement of Nokdim on the West Bank, was killed in a drive-by shooting. Already some of
Arafats key lieutenants are disavowing the cease-fire altogether. Reports from
both Hebron and the Gaza Strip indicate that gunfire there has only intensified since the declared ceasefire and that Jewish life has become increasingly endangered...
Therefore, while the attempt to neutralize Arafats ability to disturb the status quo may give the United States some temporary tactical advantages, its represents an abysmally poor long term
strategy. Talk of involving either Syria, Iran or the Palestinian Authority in a broad international coalition will leave the United States with partners who pay lip service to American war aims while continuing to foment terrorism and harbor terrorists within their own borders. Under these circumstances, the United States own strategy against international terror may well be transformed from elimination to containment to inadvertent encouragement...
What will it take for the U.S. to learn that serving up Arafat as some kind of palatable dish only encourages and rewards a source of terror who may ultimately poison, not aid, efforts to rid the world of the terrorist scourge?
Moshe Feiglin in an article called
"Why America has Already Lost the War" (Freeman Center Broadcast
Sept. 26, 01) explained that the war being waged against Israel is not about
territories but rather about our very existence as a Jewish nation. He wrote:
This
is a war against our message and our mission. That is what our enemies are
fighting against, while we reply to them through our own subjective
interpretation of reality: we speak of security and of territories. We fail to
understand why they refuse to accept even all the territory.
"The Emperor has no clothes!" Arafat shouts at us, and murders
three people in Netanya.
"Do you want us to wear something else in your honor?", Peres
asks.
"He's naked!", shouts Arafat, and murders a young mother from
Alfei Menashe.
"Perhaps we'll wear red for you?", asks Beilin.
Arafat continues to attack us, and we continue to propose solutions that
fail to admit the naked reality.
It is no wonder we are losing the war.
Feiglin than continues to explain why
America has already lost the war against terror. He tells how he was
listening to George Bush's speech on the radio while in a store. He
wrote:
"Go
to church, to the synagogue, to the mosque, and pray", ended the President.
"Did
I hear right?" I ask the storekeeper. "Did he say mosque?" She
nodded.
"At this very moment you've lost the war", I say to the
astonished storekeeper, and start looking for what I need on the shelves.
America has lost the war. The Americans have made the same mistake as the Israelis, and just as Israel is retreating from one defeat to the next, so the Americans are now lined up on the track to disintegration.
When the black boxes of the hijacked airplanes are recovered, we will hear the pilots screaming "Allah Achbar" in the last moments before
the crash. They slaughtered you in the name of Allah, and now the President calls on
you to pray to him...
The
American President was busy running after the countries of the world, trying to set up a strange coalition against a few cave dwellers in Afghanistan, while senators explained on live television to the American people that "we must remember that the enemy is the terrorists, not
Islam".
America...is ... incapable of identifying the enemy and fighting it.
Consequently, America will lose the battle, in the same way Israel is losing
it.
Why
do the terrorists hate the US so much? Why are they prepared to commit suicide in order to kill Americans? After all, America has not conquered their country. On the contrary, many of them receive generous aid from the US.
How strange that even Arabs in New Jersey, who are actually living in the flesh-pots of America, and were liable to have suffered physically from the terrorist attack, rejoiced at the sight of the horrible massacre.
Why this hatred?...
"Why are they bringing their wars here?", a soot-covered broker
shouted into a CNN reporter's microphone. He didn't understand that he was conquering,
not territories, but the opposing culture, straight from here -- from the twin towers.
But every Moslem child understands it clearly. What the political commentators and senators in the US fail to realize is crystal clear to the other half of the world. America is not at war with a single individual
--Bin Laden, but with every child that will be born tomorrow in Cairo, Amman, Beirut, Gaza and, if he is a Moslem, even in New Jersey.
America will never admit that it is involved in a war of cultures, in fact
in a religious war.
They want a coalition with moderate Arab countries. They have to prove that neither Islam nor the Arabs, but terrorism, is their enemy. The situation
is so ludicrous that even Arafat is being wooed -- Arafat, who invented hijacking, Arafat, the father of 20th century terrorism. They want to make
a coalition with him, if only to avoid facing reality.
They
will in fact catch the wasps. Bin Laden doesn't stand a chance. He won't be able to escape the power of the US. And then what? Today
every Arab child wants to be a Shahid, a martyr for Islam. Bin Laden will enter the pantheon of the Shahids, but another million are waiting their turn, and
they are impatient. America is waging a physical war against a metaphysical
enemy. They are incapable of understanding what we in Israel witness every day -- overjoyed parents of suicide bombers.
In the coming months, we will see a lot of military planes take off and
land. We will see destroyers and missiles, and millions of tons of TNT exploding
in the Iraqi desert and in Afghanistani caves. They will kill thousands of innocent people, and in the end America will lose -- because it failed to identify the true enemy.
The New York Post wrote a section called
"Our Syrian Friends, Coalition Reality Check" in which they quoted
Ali Ursan, chairman of the Syrian Writers Association's piece in the Damascus
paper Al-Usbu' Al-Adabi, 9/15/01.
When
the Twin Towers collapsed ... I felt deep within me like someone that was
delivered from the grave. I felt that I was being carried in the air
above the corpse of the mythological symbol of arrogant American imperialist
power, whose administration had prevented the [American] people from knowing
the crimes it was committing...
My
lungs filled with air and I breathed in relief, as I had never breathed before.
Helen Freedman, Executive
Director of AFSI points out that, We know that the PFLP is based
in Syria, and Syria is on the U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism.
Despite that, we learn that Secretary of State Colin Powell sent a message to
Syrias Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa, expressing the U.S. wish to
cooperate with Syria under the patronage of the United States for boosting
security and stability in the world, and is looking forward to Syrias
constructive efforts in reviving the peace talks. Robert L. Pollock,
writing in the Wall Street Journal Thursday, Oct. 18, asks, Will the Bush
Doctrine Apply to Israel? He gives examples to show that there is an
appearance of hypocrisy increasingly raised by the Bush administrations
attempts to exclude terrorists who attack Israel from the U.S. war on
terrorism. He concludes that the Bush administration would be better served
by a consistent moral compass than a willingness to compromise for short-term
stability or ephemeral coalitions.
After the World Trade Center attack Bush told
the nation that the enemy is terrorism not Islam. He said that bin Laden
represents a
Fringe
form of Islamic extremism...rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority
of Muslim clerics.
In his article The Silent Imams
(11/23/01) Charles Krauthammer wrote:
President
Bush visits the main Washington mosque and declares Islam a religion of peace.
He urges Americans to publicly accompany and protect "women of cover"
-- Islamic faithful wearing the shawl. He encourages American schoolchildren to
find a Muslim pen pal. On Monday, he held the first White House Ramadan
dinner -- "a way for the administration to publicly make the case that it
is sensitive to Muslims." (CNN) Indeed, the administration has put
together an entire "Ramadan public relations offensive" to
"highlight its sensitivity to Islamic tradition." (Washington Post)
Now,
it is one thing for the president to affirm American religious tolerance and
speak out sternly against anti-Muslim prejudice, as he did early and often
after Sept. 11. That is honorable and very American. And in fact, one can only
be astonished how few acts of anti-Islamic bigotry -- and how many acts of
sympathetic understanding -- have occurred in a nation driven to grief and fury
by a monstrous mass murder. But it is quite another thing to protest so
much that, yes, we do respect Islam. Why the doubt? No country on earth has
been more welcoming to Muslim immigrants. Which is precisely why the Sept. 11
terrorists could spend a year and a half in America going about their murderous
business unmolested.
And
why must we constantly repeat that we are not at war with Islam? We never
declared war on Islam. It was Islamic fanatics who, killing 4,000 Americans in
the name of God, declared war on us. Why, then, are we the ones required to
continually demonstrate our religious tolerance and respect for others?
Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the Islamic world, of those in whose
name this crime was perpetrated? Imagine if 19 murderous Christian
fundamentalists hijacked four airplanes over Saudi Arabia and, in the name of
God, crashed them into the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, destroying the holy
Kaaba and killing thousands of innocent Muslim pilgrims. Could anyone doubt
that the entire Christian world -- clergy and theologians, leaders and lay folk
-- would rise as one to denounce the act? Yankee Stadium could not hold the
trainloads of priests and preachers, reverends and rectors -- why, even rabbis
would demand entry -- that would descend upon a mass service of atonement,
shame, ostracism and excommunication. The pope himself would rend his garments
at this blasphemous betrayal of Christ.
And
yet after Sept. 11, where were the Muslim theologians and clergy, the imams and
mullahs, rising around the world to declare that Sept. 11 was a crime against
Islam? Where were the fatwas against Osama bin Laden? The voices of high
religious authority have been scandalously still. And what of Muslim
religious leaders in America? At the solemn National Cathedral ceremony just
three days after Sept. 11, the spokesman for the American Muslim community made
no statement declaring the attacks contrary to Islam. There was no casting out
of those who committed the crime. There was no fatwa against suicide murder.
Instead, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, spiritual leader of the Islamic Society of North
America, offered that to "those that lay the plots of evil, for them is a
terrible penalty." Who are these plotters of evil receiving retribution?
Did he mean the terrorists? Or did he mean that America had it coming? He never
said.
Saudis are creating delusion in the American Educational System to whitewash
Islam. A video about that is embedded below.
XIVa Creating Delusions of Peaceful Intentions To Weaken
the Enemy
BECK (voice-over): On September 19 Iranian President Ahmadinejad addressed the
United Nations.
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD, PRESIDENT OF IRAN (through translator): We are all members
of the international community, and we are all entitled to insist on the
creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.
BECK: One month later, back in Iran, Ahmadinejad made another speech. This time
without the lights, the cameras and the worldwide media attention.
AHMADINEJAD (through translator): What is a Security Council anyway? The whole
world knows that America and England are the enemies of the Iranian nation.
------------------------------------
AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Our message is the message of peace and
brotherhood with all nations, with all people. We love the American people as
we love our own.
BECK: Just one month before that on Iranian news, he wasn`t talking about love
and respect.
AHMADINEJAD (through translator): If you want to have good relations with the
Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of
the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force
you to bow and surrender.
----------------------------------------
BECK: Back in the U.S., President Ahmadinejad was asked about Israel. And he
answered very carefully.
AHMADINEJAD (through translator): So what I`m saying is quite fair. We want
peace to be established there. We care for the Jews who live under pressure
there, as well.
BECK: But in his own language, the president seemed to have a much different
message.
AHMADINEJAD (through translator): I have said to the leaders of some western
countries, stop supporting these corrupt people. Behold the rage of the Muslim
people is accumulating. The rage of the Muslim people may soon reach the point
of explosion.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Death to Israel. Death to Israel. Death to America. Death to
America.
-----------------------------------------
AHMADINEJAD (through translator): We are no threat for anyone. The issue of
making nuclear weapons has no place in Iran`s policy. Making nuclear weapons is
not on Iran`s agenda.
BECK: But when speaking to his own country, the inferred threat from their
nuclear technology seems pretty clear.
AHMADINEJAD (through translator): Today the Iranian people are the owners of
nuclear technology. If some believe they can keep talking to the Iranian people
in the language of threats and aggressiveness, they should know that they are
making a bitter mistake. For if they have not realized it by now, they soon
will. But then it will be too late.
---------------------------------------------
David Bedein, wrote
an article about how Arafat spoke peace to Western audience while
instigating violence to Arabic audiences. After Arafat gave speeches
about how peace loving he was David Bedein asked him: if he would he get on the
airwaves of the Voice of Palestine and proclaim reconciliation with Israel in
the Arabic language to his own people? Would Arafat denounce any and all
murders of Jews on that same station, if future murders occur. Mr. Bedein wrote:
Arafat nodded his head and said that he "speaks about
peace all the time", to which I responded that we have no such record. "You
will see," Arafat said and finished the meeting in a cordial manner.
What the participants thought and felt after the meeting was that Arafat
would deliver his answer through actions, not with words.
Arafat's "answer" was not long in coming. Exactly two weeks later, on the
seventh night of Chanukah, a dimly lit drizzly evening near the Israeli
community of Beit El, three Palestinians shot up the car of the Tzur family
of Beit El, killing a mother and child in the car. The killers' smoldering
vehicle was found in one of the "safe havens" of the Palestinian Authority.
We called Arafat after the attack. So did all major media. He was nowhere to
be found.
However, the next morning, Arafat's PBC radio newsreel broadcast that an
"incident occurred on the settler road" where "two criminal settlers were
killed."
Two years later, on December 1st, 1998,
Mr. Bedein asked Arafat if he would stand by the commitment to preach
reconciliation in the Arabic language that he had given two years before, and
presented Arafat with the records of his speeches from the previous few weeks,
in which, among other things, Arafat had called the Jews "the Sons of Satan."
Arafat's response was to foam from the mouth and pound on the State Department
platform and scream that "I love the Jews, I love the Jews!
The Palestinian Arabs talk out of both sides
of their mouths as well and have even admitted that they pretend to be moderate
to the West but really arent.
It is interesting that Faisal
Husseinis deathbed statements agree very closely with Mahmoud Abbass entire
approach to the so-called peace process. In an interview he gave to the
Arab-language weekly Al Arabi shortly before he died, Husseini compared the
Oslo Process to a Trojan Horse, invented to make Israelis and Westerners
believe in the PLOs conversion to moderation, thus duping all sorts of people
into supporting terrorists whose objective was the extermination of the Jewish
people.
. . .Faisal Husseini, the top PLO official in Jerusalem[was] quoted as
likening the Oslo accords to a Trojan horse.. . .[T]he weekly Al-Arabi,[61]
quotes Husseini as calling the Oslo accords just a temporary procedure, or
just a step towards something bigger. . .the liberation of all historical Palestine
from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea, even if this means that the
conflict will last for another thousand years or for many generations.[62]
A few days after the UN
cease fire of 6/11/67, Abba Eban, Israels representative at the UN, made his
famous speech.He held out the olive
branch to the Arab world, inviting Arab states to join Israel at the peace
table, and informing them in unequivocal language that everything but Jerusalem
was negotiable. Territories taken in the war could be returned in exchange for
formal recognition, bi-lateral negotiations, and peace.
Israel wanted
peace.Israel offered land in exchange
for peace.As Lord Carendon, the UK
representative at the UN, noted with considerable surprise after Abba Ebans
speech, never in the history of warfare did the victor sue for peace -- and the
vanquished refuse
Rather
than respond to Israels invitation, the Arab states met in Khartoum, Sudan,
for a conference in August, 1967. They unanimously decided in favor of the now
famous three Khartoum NOs: No recognition, No negotiation, No peace.
XIVB The People are People Delusion
Julie Burchill of the Guardian said in regard
to the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001:
(the terrorist attacks) were a tragedy for
the people who died or were injured, and for their families and friends.
For the rest of us, they were a wake-up call as to what type of lunatics we are
dealing with. And sleepwalking our way back into ill-sorted dewy eyed
people are people personal politics is the last thing we need to set us up for
the fight ahead.
Pipes defines an Islamist as one who
believes Islam is the solution to every problem. "In America, an Islamist
would be somebody who wants to replace the constitution with the Qur'an.
It is a totalitarian movement that has much in common with fascism and
Marxism-Leninism." Daniel Pipe's estimates that 10-15 percent of Muslims
in the world are Islamists, which is tantamount to well over a hundred million
people. Pipes adds that the percentage is probably in the same order of
magnitude among U.S. Muslims (The
End Of American Jewry's Golden Era, An Interview with Daniel Pipes
Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs, 5/2/04).
I do not know how Daniel Pipes arrived
at this estimate. If we assume that he is correct then a remaining
question is how moderate are the other 85-90% of Muslims and how willing are
those who are moderate to stand up against the extremists? Daniel Pipe's
answer is that
There
are few voices of moderate Islam. They are often intimidated, not well
organized, and in retreat.
After American contractors were butchered
in Iraq on March 31, 04, President Bush in a speech reassured Americans
that most Iraqis are not hostile to the United States even though a crowd of
rejoicing Iraqis surrounded the burnt and mutilated Americans. When
terrorists set of bombs in Basra, Iraqis vented their anger at the
coalition. Crowds threw stones at the coalition forces as they were
trying to reach the sites of the blasts, a British military source told CNN
(CNN.com 4/24/04).
Inspite of the president's insistence
that America is not at war with Islam there are plenty of Moslems who insist
that America's war with bin-Laden is a war against Islam.
Mahdi Bray, the executive
director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, has called the U.S.
war on terrorism a "war against Islam." (Muslims Draw Line in the
Sand in DC, WorldnetDaily
5/17/03) Instead of appreciating the bending over backwards of President
Bush to avoid blaming Muslims for September 11, he organized a demonstration in
Washington DC to take place on 5/24/03) and said that:
The
time has come where we must draw a line in the sand, stand up for ourselves,
and demand an immediate and unconditional halt to the Bush administration's
profiling, harassment, and abuse of our community.
The chief Muslim cleric in New Delhi said on
Nov 9 2001 that he supports the Taliban, and called the U.S.-led airstrikes on
Afghanistan an attack on Islam. "Today I support the jihad,'' or
holy war, declared by Taliban leader Mullah Omar, said Imam Syed Ahmed Bukhari,
head cleric of Jama Masjid mosque. ``The target of America and its allies
is not Afghanistan ... but Islam,'' he told thousands of Muslims who gathered
for Friday prayers.
It is in the interest of
Al Qaeda to draw America into a war with Islam. Nasir Ahmad al Bahri, known as Abu Jandal, a former
Osama bin Laden bodyguard, interviewed by Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based,
anti-U.S. Arab daily, said last week (frontpagemag.com 8/13/04):
"The
plan is now to draw the U.S. into a confrontation with all the Islamic peoples.
...
In a speech to the armies
101st Airborne on 11/21/01 (Bush to al Qaeda: 'We will never tire' CNN.com
11/22/01) Bush said:
We
fight now because we will not permit the terrorists -- these vicious and evil
men -- to hijack a peaceful religion and to impose their will on America and
the world.
Two years later an American
soldier Hasan Karim Akbar, who was a Muslim convert, threw grenades at his
commanders tent. (WorldNetDaily 3/22/03). When the surviving officers ran
from their tent he shot at them.
A Time Magazine reporter
explained the Muslim soldier's actions as "part of his misguided interpretation
of his Muslim faith." Was it misguided though? Since when do
non-Muslim Time Magazine reporters know more about the Muslim faith than
Muslims?
Daniel Pipes wrote an OPED in
the New York Post (3/25/03) called Murder in the
101st Airborne about the willful self deception that occurred immediately
afterwards. He wrote that U.S. Army spokespersons explained Akbar's
behavior as due to an "attitude problem," a desire for "retribution"
and "resentment."
Daniel Pipes wrote:
This incident raises two issues.
First,
the U.S. government's initial response indicates that, once again, it is
ascribing violence by an American Muslim to purely personal causes. Here's its
take on prior homicides:
*
"A prescription drug for or consistent with depression" to explain
why El Sayyid A. Nosair in 1990 shot Rabbi Meir Kahane.
*
"Road rage" to explain why Rashid Baz in 1994 shot a Hassidic boy on
the Brooklyn Bridge.
*
"Many, many enemies in his mind" to explain why Ali Hasan Abu Kamal
in 1997 shot a tourist on the Empire State Building's observation deck.
*
"A work dispute" as why Hesham Mohamed Ali Hadayet in 2002 shot two
people at the El Al counter of Los Angeles International Airport.
Clearly the U.S. government is
bending over backwards to avoid identifying Islam with these violent
acts. Daniel Pipes ended his article with:
As
Sgt. Womack noted, the enemy has already managed to "get into our
camp." Do we have the will to stop him before he strikes again?
Jay Tolson in his article "Struggle For
Islam" that appeared in U.S. News and World Report Oct 15, 2001 writes
how:
Some
of the seemingly moderate voices heard in the immediate aftermath of the
attacks-including heads of Muslim organizations and mosques in this
country-have on other occasions voiced their approval of Muslim-inspired
terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.
Fox News on Friday Sept. 28, 01
showed a video of one of the Moslems who somehow was associated with
Bush as a peaceful Moslem lecturing an audience how "We support
Hezbollah, we support Hamas". Martin Peretz the publisher of the
New Republic wrote in the magazine's October 15, 01 issue, that:
It
is deeply depressing, for instance, that when the president traveled to the
Massachusetts Avenue Islamic Center in Washington last week, he could not find
a group of prominent Muslims to accompany him who were not in some way
compromised. Bush stood beside Nihad Awan, a longtime apologist for Islamic
terrorism.
One of the Muslim leaders the president invited to the White House on Sept.
26 was Salam Al-Marayati, who had already suggested that Israel was behind the
Sept. 11 bloodletting. (He had previously defended the 1983 bombing of the
Beirut Marine barracks, whic took 241 American lives, as a "military
operation". Also present was Omar Ahmed of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations, which is believed to have close ties to American front groups for
Middle Eastern terror cells.
The Bushies invited Hamza Ysuf to attend the prayer service at the White
House. But on Sept. 9 Yusuf had prophesied that a great disaster would soon
fall upon the United States because of its mistreatment of Arabs around the
world (how did he know?). In the same speech, Yusuf asserted that Sheik Omar
Abdel Rahman, who incited the first World Trade Center attack, was
"unjustly tried."
Linda Chavez in her column
"Enemies Within" (New York Post 11/7/01) wrote that:
Just
two days before the Sept. 11 attack, a popular imam from the San Francisco Bay
area, Hamza Yusef, gave a speech in which he predicted that the United States
"is facing a very terrible fate. And the reason for this is because
this country stands condemned." A year earlier, another nationally
renowned Muslim leader, Muzammil Siddiqui warned "America has to
learn. If you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will
come." Yet neither of these statements kept the White House from
inviting either man to meet with President Bush in a show of support for the
American Muslim community in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Nihad Awad was the public
relations directory of the Islamic Association for Palestine. Oliver
"Buck" Revell was the FBI's associate director in charge of
Investigative and Counter-Intelligence Operations from 1985 to 1991, in charge
of all FBI terrorism investigations. He told Capitol Hill newspaper "The
Hill" that "[The Islamic Association of Palestine] is an
organization that has directly supported Hamas military goals,...It is a front
organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants. It has
produced videotapes that are very hate-filled, full of vehement propaganda. It
is an organization that has supported direct confrontation."
Debbie Schlussel wrote (Bush's Scary CAIR
Friends Worldnetdaily.com 10/16/02):
Awad
was the gentleman with the neatly trimmed beard, sitting a couple seats from
Mrs. Bush at the president's big speech to Congress and standing next to Bush
at several events, including the D.C. mosque and National Cathedral services.
Sami Al Arian a University of Florida
professor was photographed with President Bush and his wife. Sami was
holding a little boy and everyone was smiling. Later Sami was caught on
tape saying: (A Jihadi in Florida New York Post 2/21/03)
Jihad
is our path! Victory to Islam! Death to Israel! Revolution until
victory! Let us damn America...until death!
Sami was indicted for running
the U.S. operations of Islamic Jihad and raising money for them. Islamic Jihad
is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israeli civilians and two
Americans. Arian hired
According to Philip Delves
Broughton (Daily Telegraph 3 11 01) Salman Rushdie said on 3/10 that
World
leaders were wrong to say that terrorism and the war against it were not about
Islam.
The author, who lived for years under threat of assassination after a fatwa
over his novel, The Satanic Verses, said Islam was being hijacked by political
fanatics - and needed its own Reformation.
He added that "paranoid Islam" was the most rapidly growing form
of the religion and needed to be challenged in the Muslim world and the West.
Citing the worldwide demonstrations by Muslims in support of Osama bin
Laden and the thousands of Muslim men declaring their readiness to fight for
the Taliban, Mr Rushdie wrote in the New York Times: "Of course this is
'about Islam'."
Mr Rushdie said the Western leaders' "mantra" that "this war
isn't about Islam" was not true. He wrote: "If this isn't about Islam
why the worldwide Muslim demonstrations in support of Osama bin Laden and
al-Qa'eda?
How moderate are moderate
Moslems? Bernard Haykel an assistant professor of Islamic Studies at New
York University answered that question in a CNN chat that was posted on October
11, 01.
CHAT PARTICIPANT: How does attacking the
towers, which is obviously a horrendous loss of civilian life, further this
movement's media campaign among anyone but the few thousand radicals that are
directly supportive?
HAYKEL: I have some distressing news to
relate. A recent survey of upper-class Saudi citizens was conducted, and the
question was whether they approved of bin Laden or not. 100 percent of the
women polled said they approved of bin Laden, and 85 percent of the men
approved of him. His appeal as a symbol of Muslim resistance to Western
domination is extremely widespread in the Muslim world.
For this reason it should not be
surprising that fifteen of the nineteen hijackers of Sept 11 01 were Saudi
Arabian. Saudia Arabia, has stymied any attempt by the FBI to place
traces on the hijackers who hailed from their country. Saudi Arabia said
that more than 100 of its citizens are in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay,
making Saudis by far the largest group of terrorist suspects detained (NYPost
1/29/02) The Saudis had the nerve to ask the U.S. to turn the prisoners
over to them for interrogation. According to the German daily, DIE WELT,
(February 6th 02) Saudi Arabia is funding the escape of 4000 followers of Osama
Bin Laden to Lebanon to join the Palestinian Authority against Israel.
According to Louis Rene Beres Saudi Arabia is financing the relocation of
thousands of Al Qaida terrorists to Judea/Samaria and Gaza. (Freeman Center Broadcast Feb 19, 02).
Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Edward Morse said in regard to the
Saudis
They
won't give us information, won't help track people down and won't let us use
our bases that are there to protect them.
Newsweek reported that (3/26/03
web exclusive):
EVER
SINCE the 9-11 attacks, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Saudi Embassy in Washington
has been providing top-flight defense lawyers free of charge for any Saudi
citizen detained as part of the Justice Departments crackdown on suspected
terrorists.
Before the 2nd anniversary of
the September 11 attacks a unnamed U.S. counterterrorism official told Time
magazine that investigators want to talk to a prisoner in Saudi Arabian custody
with knowledge of a plot to attack city subways but that the Saudis have
refused to let them meet with them (New York Post 9/8/03).
Saudi diplomats distribute hate
literature in the United States. This was documented by Stephen Schwartz
at www.defenddemocracy.org.
A Rand report released in
August? 2002 advised the Pentagon that Saudi Arabia is the:
kernel
of evil
and that serious thought should be given to
taking control fo the 25% of the world's known oil reserves on which the
kingdom sits. The Rand report said that
the
Saudis are active at every level of the terror chain.
Arafat's diplomatic envoy in
Riyadh wrote a letter to the Saudi official in charge of fundraising for the
Palestinian uprising, in which he complained that Saudi money was going to
Hamas and not to Fatah (New York Post 12/3/02).
In a column "Make the
Saudis Pay for Terror" (NYPost 4/15/02) Daniel Pipes wrote that:
U.S.
intelligence sources have concluded that Saudi princes are spending millions of
dollars to help large numbers of al Qaeda and Taliban members escape the American
dragnet. One source told Middle East Newsline that "the money flow
to al Qaeda continues from the Royal family.
Dr. Pipes also wrote that:
Recent
weeks have turned up some extraordinarily incriminating documents, such as a
hard drive seized by U.S. troops in Sarajevo from a computer at the office of
the Saudi High Commission for relief of Bosnia and Herzgeovina. An
operative was arrested carrying documents that proved Saudi funding of the
Hamas terrorist group to enable it to produce a short range missile called the
Qassam.
In August 2002, kin of 9/11
victims filed a $1 trillion lawsuit against members of the Saudi royal family,
Saudi banks and Islamic charities. Saudi Arabian princes paid Osama bin
Laden and the Taliban $200 million to spare targets in the oil-rich Gulf state,
according to court papers. The deal was hammered out in two meetings between
top Saudi princes, and officials from al Qaeda, Pakistan and the Taliban. The
first, in Paris, was reported by French intelligence agents, and lawyers claim
to have transcripts of the sit-down. The second powwow was in Kandahar in July
1998. (New York Post 8/25/02)
The money flowing to Saudi Arabia
could be reduced if America would drill in the Alaskan Wilderness
Reserve. This measure was killed by Democrats and a few eco-friendly
Republicans. Paul Sperry wrote: (Worldnet Daily 4/22/02)
With
the defeat of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling bill, Alaskan
caribou are safe. Question is, are Americans?
Dr. Pipes in an article in the New York Post
of 5/14/02 quoted an American hospital worker in Saudi Arabia reporting
"Saudi doctors and nurses around him celebrating on 9/11".
According to the New York Post (Those Sorry
Saudis 5/20/02) in October 2002
Saudi
Arabia responds to President Bush's call for a war on terrorism by banning U.S.
planes from using Saudi bases to launch attacks in Afghanistan.
According to the New York Post (Perfidious
Princes 5/20/02)
Prince
Abdullah of Saudi Arabia threatened to wage energy war on America - and to evict
U.S. forces from Saudi bases during the middle of American air strikes against
the Taliban.
A report issued by a task force sponsored by
the Council on Foreign Relations says (New York Post 10/19/02):
For
years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most
important source of funds for al Qaeda, and for years the Saudi officials have
turned a blind eye to this problem
Yet officials, including the president, have
lauded the Saudis for their allegedly cooperative role - even though, the
report says, "They know very well all the ways in which it is not."
As a result, the report concludes, al Qaeda
retains access to millions of dollars - making it a far more serious threat to
America and the world.
Panel member Stuart Eizenstat, a former
deputy Treasury secretary, put his finger on the problem, telling The New York
Times: "There's always been a tendency to treat the kingdom with kid
gloves because of its economic and strategic importance."
After Israel started Operation Defensive Shield
to rout out suicide bombers the Saudis ran a telethon to raise money for the
families of suicide bombers.(NYPost 4/16/02). The Saudis have denied
providing money for suicide bombers but Israel provided documents it found when
it raided Palestinian offices in Judea and Samaria, that list 102 dead
Palestinians whose families got paid which included suicide bombers.
Jonathan Foreman wrote in the
New York Post (3/25/02)
There
is no question that Saudi money, personnel and ideology played a key role not
only in the Sept. 11 attacks (15 out of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers were Saudis).
Saudi-funded
extremist religious schools or madrassas continue to whip up hatred and call
for fundamentalist violence all over the world.
And
a huge proportion of the young jihadi volunteers who go to fight in places like
Georgia, Bosnia, Indonesia and Afghanistan come from Saudi Arabia. Some 100 out
of the 544 Guantanamo Bay prisoners taken in Afghanistan are Saudis...
But
the Saudi government tolerates and tacitly fosters these activities as part of
an implicit bargain with the country's ultra-conservative Wahabi clerics. And
just as the Saudi government once obstructed the American investigation into
the Khobar towers bombing, it even now refuses to crack down on, or even supply
information about at least five terrorism-linked Saudi "charities,"
like the "International Islamic Relief Organization," which had ties
to the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya.
Still,
the delusion persists - most importantly among people like the Bushes - that
despite the repulsive bigotry of its laws and despite its key role in the
Islamo-fascist challenge to civilization, Saudi Arabia can be treated as a
trustworthy, valuable friend of the United States. It's a dangerous delusion
indeed.
Deroy Murdock in his article New
Saudi Snub (New York Post 9/5/02) wrote that:
Just
before he hosted Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan at his Texas ranch
on Aug. 27, President Bush phoned Crown Prince Abdullah to trumpet "the
eternal friendship" between America and the desert dictatorship. Two
days later, the Saudis reportedly returned the favor by choosing to free a
suspected al Qaeda comrade with possible ties to the 9/11 terrorists. And
they wouldn't let American anti-terrorists question him first...
Al-Hayat,
a Saudi daily reported on June 17 that the Saudi Interior Ministry released 160
Saudi al Qaeda members who had fled Afghanistan for Iran as the Taliban
collapsed... After a terrorist truck bomb killed 19 American GIs at Dahran's
Khobar Towers on June 25, 1996, Saudi authorities prevented a team of 70 FBI
agents from questioning suspects or eyewitnesses.
Daniel Pipes wrote a column
"Muslims Love bin Laden"(10/22/01 N.Y.Post) in which he quotes
a 10 year old Palestinian girl as saying that she loves bin Laden like a father
and a Palestinian woman as saying:
Everybody
loves Osama bin Laden at this time. He is the most righteous man in the
whole world.
Pipes quotes a U.S. diplomat as saying:
It'd
be nice if some leaders came out and said that the idea the United States is
targeting Islam is absurd.
They don't according to Daniel Pipes
because the Muslim world is bursting with adulation for the Saudi
militant. Pipes writes:
"Long
live bin Laden" shout 5000 demonstrators in the southern Philippines.
In Pakistan, bin Laden's face sells merchandise and massive street rallies have
left two persons dead. Ten thousand march in the capitals of Bangladesh
and Indonesia [in support of bin Laden]. In northern Nigeria, bin Laden
has "achieved iconic status" and his partisans set off religious
riots leading to 200 deaths...According to Hussam Khadir, a member of Arafat's
Fatah party, "Bin Laden today is the most popular figure in the West Bank
and Gaza, second only to Arafat."...Thewide and deep Muslim enthusiasm for
bin Laden is an extremely important development that needs to be understood,
not ignored.
In mid November 2001 Bin Laden was
videotaped talking about the attack on the United States of September 11, 01
with a supporter who is a Shaykh. The Shaykh told Osama about the support
for his actions in the Arab world.
The
elderly...everybody praises what you did, the great action you did, which was
first and foremost by the grace of Allah... People now are supporting us more,
even those ones who did not support us in the past, support us more now...
Osama asked the Shaykh:
What
is the stand of the Mosques there (in Saudi Arabia)?
The Shaykh replied:
Honestly,
they are very positive.
Later on in the interview the Shaykh
said:
Hundreds
of people used to doubt you and few only would follow you until this huge event
happened. Now hundreds of people are coming out to join you...I listened to the
news ... and all of a sudden the news came and everyone was overjoyed and
everyone until the next day, in the morning, was talking about what was
happening and we stayed until four o'clock, listening to the news every time a
little bit different, everyone was very joyous and saying "Allah is
great," "Allah is great," "We are thankful to Allah,"
"Praise Allah." And I was happy for the happiness of my brothers.
That day the congratulations were coming on the phone non-stop. The mother was
receiving phone calls continuously. Thank Allah. Allah is great, praise be to
Allah.
After Ayat Akhras, an 18 year old Palestinian
blew herself up in a Jerusalem supermarket, the Saudi ambassador to Britain
wrote a poem "The Martyrs" which was published in the Saudi owned
Arabic daily Al Hayat. He wrote (NYPost 4/16/02):
Tell
Ayat, the bride of loftiness...She embraced death with a smile while the
leaders are running away from death. Doors of heaven are opened for her.
How moderate are Arab Americans?
A poll by Zogby International reported that nearly 90% of Arab Americans
supported President Bush's response to the Sept. 11, attacks (New York Post Oct
12, 01). That doesn't mean they are moderate. The New York Post of
October 15, 01 had a story about Isanu Dyson, a fifth generation American who
joined Islam in 1998. Mr. Dyson said that he believes that Islamic laws
forbid the killing of civilians and that the hijackers were wrong to involve
innocent people. He also said said that he is prepared to join the jihad
against the United States. He told the Post it would be
"noble" to enlist with the Taliban and fight against American
soldiers in Afghanistan. He added that he had heard many Muslims in
Portland (Maine) say they were prepared to join the Jihad. Dyson backed
Osama bin Laden, by saying:
Osama
bin Laden says he wasn't involved-that is enough for me.
The New York Post had another
story about New Yorker Mohammed Junaid, who bought a one-way ticket to Pakistan
because he wants to sign up for the Taliban and kill Americans. (New York Post
Nov. 4, 2001)
He
left on his likely suicide mission just one week after his mother was led to
safety from the collapsing World Trade Center by the city's brave firefighters
and policemen, many of whom were among the more than 4,000 victims of the
terrorist strikes on the Twin Towers on Sept. 11.
"I
did not feel any remorse for the Americans [who died]," Mohammad Junaid
said in Islamabad, Pakistan, on Thursday as he waited to be taken across the
border into Afghanistan to join the troops of the Taliban.
"I'm
willing to kill the Americans. I will kill every American that I see in
Afghanistan. And I'll kill every American soldier that I see in Pakistan,"
Junaid boasted to British television correspondent, Jon Gilbert, in an
interview for the ITN Channel 5 network.
Until
he revealed his rabid and murderous intentions, Junaid said, he had been living
a typical life as a born-and-bred New Yorker.
The
26-year-old son of Pakistani immigrants said he went to elementary and high
school in the city and studied at a med school for two years before dropping
out to join a dot-com company. When that folded, he took a $70,000-a-year job
as a programmer for a Muslim-oriented company, a position he quit just days
before embarking on his self-appointed jihad.
"I
do have an American passport. But at the end of the day, I'm a Muslim,"
Junaid said last week...
The
American was interviewed by the newspaper, along with two other British-born
Muslims who also said they were returning to Pakistan to fight for the Taliban.
Former
civil engineer Abdul Salem, 25, of London's Brick Lane, told the (London) Sun,
"I have been waiting a long time for this - to kill British
soldiers."
Muhammad Amin Salameh, a
resident of California wrote the following in a
letter to Al-Quds Al-Arabi (London, July 5, 2002, translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute)
Sheikh
Osama bin Laden, who preferred Jihad and life in the mountains and caves to the
pleasures of [this] transitory world although he is a wealthy man, the son of
wealthy men - is one of our noble heroes whom history and generations to come
will recognize as restoring honor to this [Islamic] nation. No one can
monopolize history or distort the truth all the time. It is my right as an Arab
and a Muslim to choose my hero, as the Americans choose theirs."
"Therefore
I say to them, in the loudest possible voice, that Osama bin Laden is my hero
of this generation."
The radicalism of Muslim
Americans is well illustrated by the sentences they booed at a speech by Daniel
Pipes at the University of California at Berkeley on Tuesday 2/10/04.
Cinnamon Stillwell wrote about this in an article
in frontpagemag.com.
When
Pipes brought up the need to support moderate Muslims over those who subscribe
to militant Islam, they booed.
When
he brought up the need to improve the status of women in Islamic countries,
they booed.
When
he warned that peace in the Middle East would never be achieved as long as the
Palestinians continued to subscribe to a ''cult of death,'' they booed.
When
he mentioned Middle East Studies professors who have been arrested under
terrorism charges, they booed.
When
he discussed the need to combat Islamic terrorism, they booed.
When
he referred to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as subscribers to militant
Islam, they booed and shouted ''Zionism''--no doubt a reference to the myth
that Jews were behind the attacks.
A Detroit-area Islamic organization, the
Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, released a survey of Detroit
Muslims, written by Ihsan Bagby, associate
professor of Islamic studies at the
University of Kentucky, and conducted in mid-2003, whose results according to Bagby,
show that the mosque community is not a place of radicalism. Yet
according to the results of the survey, Muslims in the United States think
America is immoral by a ratio of 67 to 33,and 81 percent of respondents
endorsed the application of Sharia (Islamic law) in Muslim-majority
lands.
Videotapes calling for the
killing of Jews and non-believers were on sale in Islamic shops in
Britain. (New York Post Tuesday February 19, 2002) It's not clear
from the New York Post article if the videos were removed by British
Authorities.
The two British men, Asif
Mohammed Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, carried out a suicide attack on a tourist
restaurant-bar named Mike's Place in Israel on April 30, 2003 killing 3 people
and injuring 55 others (worldnetdaily
5/2/03). Sharif also attempted to detonate himself but the bomb failed to go
off. Married with two children, Sharif was a pupil at a British prep
school but converted to Islam while living in London, where he went to
college. Hanif, who died in the powerful blast, was 21, and a student at
a west London community college.
Hatred of the non-believer is
preached in American mosques. That topic is discussed on another page in this web site.
Daniel Pearl the reporter for the Wall Street Journal whose throat was slit by
Pakistani Moslem militants was lured into a trap when he tried to interview
Sheik Mubarak Ali Shah Gilani, head of the Jamaat ul Fuqra terror group,
which according to the New York Post (2/22/02) has an outpost in upstate New
York.
Gary Stern in his article
"Airstrikes rile local Muslims" (The Journal News Nov. 6, 2001) wrote
how many of the faithful at the Westchester Muslim Center in Mount Vernon are
using the term "terrorism" to describe the U.S. bombings against the
Taliban. He wrote:
They
scoff at American assertions that this war is against the Taliban and Osama bin
Laden's terrorist network, and not against any and all Muslims.
Many
who attended Friday prayer services at Westchester's largest mosque said they
were not even convinced that bin Laden was behind the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks. Speaking with a growing defiance that was absent only weeks
ago, they demanded proof from their government in Washington.
Dr. Hamed Quraishi of Harrison N.Y. explained
the Islamic suspicion of the West to Gary Stern as follows:
You
must understand, the masses in the Muslim nations are 80 percent uneducated,
which is not their fault but the effect of colonialism.
Mohamed Ali of Yonkers N.Y. told Gary:
Bush
closes his eyes and bombs everyone for no reason. Our brothers are killed
like chickens all over the world -- like chickens, We won't accept it.
Jack Kelly in his column
"Veiled Threats" (New York Post 11/28/01) wrote:
Farah
and Tarah are in the United States, but not of it. These two coeds at the
University of South Florida were part of a group of Muslim students interviewed
by the Tampa Tribune.
Farah
said ..."They don't have no proof, and they're just going to go and bomb
Afghanistan?"...
Tarah
goes further. She thinks Washington somehow orchestrated the attacks...
The New York Post on Dec.31,2001
reported that the Muslim Student Association of Ohio State University sent out
a call to holy war said to be from Osama bin Laden to thousands of young
Muslims around the country through the university email server. The
message said:
The
time has come when all the Muslims of the world, especially the youth, should
unite and soar against Kufr (non-believers) and continue jihad until... all the
anti-Islamic forces are wiped off from the face of the earth and Islam takes
over the whole world.
Robert Spencer, in his book,
Onward Muslim Soldiers wrote about two speakers at an MSA meeting at
Queensborough Community College in New York City. One of them, Abu
Yousuf, an American born Muslim, called the United States conflict with Iraq a
"Christian crusade to rid the world of Islam." He predicted,
like Sergeant Akbar, that American soldiers in Iraq would "starve, rape
and murder our brother and sisters." Robert Spencer points out that
brother and sisters means Muslims not Americans. The next speaker,
Muhammad Faheed, a twenty three year old Muslim born in Pakistan who lived in
America from the age of three, reinforced the idea that a Muslim's
allegiance must be to the Muslim umma (the Muslim community worldwide) and not
to the United States or any other nation. He told his audience "The
only relationship you should have with America is to topple it."
Several of the Al Qaeda captives at
Guantanemo were graduates of America's most prestigious universities (New York
Post 2/22/02).
Daniel Pipes wrote in the
November issue of Commentary that:
The
Muslim population in this country is not like any other group, for it includes
within it a substantial body of people -- many times more numerous than the
agents of Osama bin Laden -- who share with the suicide hijackers a hatred of
the United States and the desire ultimately, to turn the United States into a
nation living under the strictures of Islam.
According to Daniel Pipes 10-15 percent of
the Muslim population of the United States feel this way. On Thursday
July 4, one member of that population, a religious Moslem named Hesham Mohamed
Hedayet who lived in Irvine California, opened fire in an LA airport and killed
25 year old Victoria Hen and 46 year old Jacob Aminov before an Israeli
security guard killed him. An Israeli official said Irvine, a Los
Angeles suburb, had become a "problematic" center of anti-Israel
rhetoric recently. (New York Post 7/6/02) Although the United States
called his actions an isolated incident and not a terrorist act Hedayet was a
member of al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (the Islamic Group) a group engaged in
terrorism going back to the assassination of Anwar Sadat in October 1981
(Daniel Pipes in the New York Post 10/16/02).
An editorial in Investors
Business Daily (Dec. 17, 2001) says that on December 4th 2001, the U.S.
government seized the assets of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and
Development on the grounds that it raised money for Hamas, called by President
Bush "one of the deadliest terrorist organizations in the world
today". Muslim groups in the United States instead of condemning
the charity rushed to its defense. According to the editorial:
Under
an umbrella group called American Muslims for Jerusalem, major Muslim
organizations announced a nationwide call-in campaign to congressmen in support
of the foundation. They included the American Muslim Alliance, American
Muslim Council, Council on American Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North
America, Islamic Circle of North America and Muslim American Society...
One of the talking points included with the
groups campaign was:
We
consider President Bush's decision to freeze HLF assets furing the holy month
of Ramadan to be especially offensive and an affront to all American Muslims.
The editorial continues:
Sadly,
the groups that make up American Muslims of Jerusalem are the same ones Bush
invited twice to the White House as part of his effort to demonstrate
solidarity with the Muslim-American community and to point out that America's
war is not against Islam.
Robert Mueller the head of the FBI
scheduled an address for June 28, 02 to the American Muslim Council. His
spokesman Bill Carter explained that he accepted the invitation to speak
because the FBI regards the AMC as
the
most mainstream Muslim group in the United States.
At the very time of the Mueller
speech, AMC spokesman Eric Vickers appeared on Fox News and MSNBC and refused,
under questioning, to denounce by name terrorist groups such as Hamas,
Hezbollah and al-Qaida. Daniel Pipes in an OpEd in the New York Post
wrote that although the AMC presents itself as a moderate organization in its
public relations it is anything but. He wrote:
In
2000, Abdurahman Alamoudi, the group's longtime executive director, exhorted a
rally outside the White House with "We are all supporters of Hamas.
Allahu Akhbar!...I am also a supporter of Hezbollah." In January,
Alamoudi participated -- alongside leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad,
and al Qaeda -- in a Beirut conference whose communique called for a boycott of
American products...In addition, Alamoudi has vehemently defended Omar Abdul
Rahman, the blind sheikh now imprisoned for his role in New York area
terrorism. When President Bush closed Holy Land (Foundation) after 9/11
for collecting money "used to support the Hamas terror organization,"
AMC responded by condemning the president's act as "particularly
disturbing... unjust and counterproductive."...
"Let
us damn America," Sami Al-Arian, a featured speaker at recent AMC events,
has declaimed.
Al-Amoudi was arrested on
9/28/03 after arriving from a trip to the Middle East to the United States in
which he allegedly tried to transport $340,000 from a group tied to Libyan
leader Moammar Gadhafi in return for trying to persuade the United States to
lift sanctions against Libya. He also allegedly attempted to smuggle
hundreds of thousands of dollars to Syria for delivery to Damascus based
terrorist groups (New York Post 10/22/03). Islamonline.net noted
al-Amoudi, a naturalized American citizen born in Eritrea, previously worked
with the Muslim Students Association and served as a representative of the
Islamic Society of North America and a vice director of the American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee. According to testimony of Steve Emerson to the
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, Al-Amoudi said in regard to the
United States:
this
country will become a Muslim country. And I [think] if we are outside this
country we can say 'Oh, Allah destroy America,' but once we are here, our
mission in this country is to change it.
During a sit in in front of
the State Department in June 2001 American Muslim Council Director Ali Ramadan
Abu Zakouk said that the mass murder of innocent civilians in
suicide bombing attacks as a God-given right. (Cair's
Message of Violence, frontpagemag.com 3/18/04)
Randall Todd "Ismail"
Royer who most recently served as communications director for a fund-raising
effort sponsored by the American Muslim
Council pleaded guilty to serving as the leader of a Virginia-based
terrorist network that conspired to train on American soil for "violent
jihad." He allegedly trained in Virginia for holy war against the United
States and sent several members to Pakistan to join Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Kashmiri
terrorist group with reported ties to al-Qaida (worldnetdaily.com
4/14/04).
According to Debbie Schlussel
(New York Post 9/18/03) Mueller will give the FBI's Exceptional Public Service
Award toImad Hamad a man who promotes Hamas and Hezbollah and
supports terrorism on October 9, 2003.
CAIR, described by two former
FBI counter-terrorism chiefs as a spin-off of a U.S. front for the Palestinian
terrorist group Hamas, gives the FBI sensitivity training (CAIR trains FBI in
'Sensitivity', Worldnetdaily 12/2/04). It apparently doesn't occur to
the FBI that all their secret agents can be identified by CAIR this way.
The Army is investigating two Muslim
linguists for possible spying at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, where captured members of al-Qaida and the Taliban are being held and
interrogated.
The major security breach at Gitmo comes on
the heels of the FBI's own investigation of some of its Muslim agents.
Gamal Abdel-Hafiz, an immigrant Muslim, twice
refused on religious grounds to tape-record Muslim terrorist suspects,
hindering investigations of a bin Laden family-financed bank in New Jersey and
Florida professor Sami Al-Arian, recently indicted for his ties to the
Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group.
A fellow FBI agent, Robert Wright, said
Abdel-Hafiz finally explained to him that ''a Muslim does not record another
Muslim,'' after first claiming he feared for his life. Other agents said he
contacted Arab subjects under investigation without disclosing the contacts to
the agents running the cases.
Despite his divided loyalties, the FBI
subsequently promoted Abdel-Hafiz by assigning him to the U.S. Embassy in Saudi
Arabia, a critical post for intelligence-gathering. Three-fourths of the Sept.
11 hijackers were Saudis.
After Wright and another agent blew the
whistle in the media, however, Adel-Hafiz was put on administrative leave.
Then there's the case of Jan Dickerson, a
Turkish translator hired by the FBI last November.
In screening her for a clearance, the FBI
missed her ties to a Turkish organization under investigation by the FBI's own
counter-intelligence unit, according to another whistle-blower. ..
Dickerson left out information crucial to the investigation, such as discussion
of methods to obtain U.S. military and intelligence secrets. She had marked it
as ''not important to be translated.''
When
linguist Sibel Dinez Edmonds showed up for her first day of work at the FBI, a
week after the 9-11 attacks, she expected to find a somber atmosphere. Instead,
she was offered cookies filled with dates from party bowls set out in the room
where other Middle Eastern linguists with top-secret security clearance
translate terror-related communications.
She knew the dessert is customarily served in the Middle East at weddings,
births and other celebrations, and asked what the happy occasion was. To her
shock, she was told the Arab linguists were celebrating the terrorist attacks
on America, as if they were some joyous event...
"It's
about time they got a taste of what they've been giving the Middle East."
Sibel said that:
"During
my work with the bureau, I was seriously taken aback by what I heard and
witnessed within the translation department," she said. "There were
those who openly divided the fronts as 'Us' the Middle-Easterners who shared
certain views and 'Them' the Americans who were the outsiders [whose]
arrogance was now 'leading to their own destruction.'"
She
says such attitudes call into question "the integrity and accuracy"
of information Arabic translators are feeding agents.
Why did the FBI not hire the Jews.
According to frontpagemag.com
Off
the record, however, the bureau says there were loyalty concerns.
This brings up the question, whose
loyalty does one have to be concerned about Muslim loyalty in the war against
Islamic radicals or Jewish loyalty in the war against Islamic radicals.
According to frontpagemag.com (Jews Need Not Apply to Fight Terror 11/26/03)
another reason for rejection of Jewish applications was given by people
familiar with the FBI's foreign language program
They
say headquarters didn't want to offend Muslim translators, who would have to
work alongside Jews.
"There's already tension between the Hebrew and Arabic desks," an
FBI source said. "If they hired Arab Jews to translate Arabic, there would
be bloodshed. Arabs would never accept it."
Daniel Pipes wrote a piece "The Curious Case
of Jamil al-Amin" in the American Spectator (Nov., Dec. 2001) about
how CAIR, the AMC, ISNA and the Muslim American Society are supporting Jamil
al-Amin, formerly, H. Rap Brown, a man who has murdered many people
including a policeman. Pipes writes:
The
solidarity with Al-Amin shows the true nature of the leading Muslim
organizations-the very ones that are routinely invited to the White House,
sought out by the media for their opinions, and invited to engage in
interreligious dialogue. They praise Al-Amin's "moral character,"
rather than condemn his 35-year history of ideological extremism, political
violence and personal criminality. They collect money for his legal defense
fund, rather than for an educational fund to help pay expenses of the two young
daughters left fatherless by Officer Kinchen's death. They sponsor petitions
calling for Al-Amin's his release, instead of renouncing his actions and
calling for justice to be served.
This
also fits into a larger pattern, whereby Islamist organizations consistently
come to the defense of Muslims engaged in criminal activities. When Ahmad Adnan
Chaudhry was convicted of attempted murder in San Bernardino, California, last
year, CAIR scorned the court decision and set up a defense fund on his behalf.
Other groups have come to the aid of Mohammad Salah, who is accused of
financing the terrorist activities of the Palestinian terror group Hamas, and
of Musa Abu Marzouk, arrested in New York City on charges of murdering on
Hamas' behalf.
Eric Fettman (New York Post
7/5/02) wrote another story about Moslem support of criminals. He wrote:
In
April 1972, New York police received a call that an officer had been injured at
102 E. 116th St.
Patrolmen
Philip Cardillo and Vito Navarra responded, unaware that a) the call was bogus;
and b) the building was the Nation of Islam's Mosque No. 7, headed by Louis
Farrakhan.
Cardillo
and Navarra also didn't know about a secret deal in which mosques were deemed
"sensitive locations," meaning that cops would not enter with their
guns drawn.
All
Cardillo and Navarra knew was that a brother officer was believed hurt. So they
rushed into the building - where they were confronted and pummeled by a mob of
20 Muslims.
Other
cops soon arrived, but were forced back outside; Cardillo and Navarra remained
trapped inside.
Moments
later, shots rang out: Cardillo had been shot with his own gun at point-blank
range; he died six days later.
Cops
eventually gained control and isolated 16 suspects in the basement. But
Farrakhan successfully demanded that the cops let their prisoners go: "If
you stay, there is nothing we can do to protect you. There'll be rioting.
People will be killed."
So
the cops pulled out.
Islamic indoctrination occurs throughout the
West. Marsha Kranes (New York Post 11/8/01) wrote that investigators
believe that Zacarias Moussaoui would have been among the Sept. 11 hijackers if
he were not sitting in a Minnesota jail.
Moussaoui
became a follower of a strict form of Islam while studying in England in the
1990s his mother told the French magazine, L'Express.
She
described his conversion as a "real brainwashing," L'Express
reported.
Moussaoui paid $6,800 in cash to
train on a 747 flight simulator -- but only wanted to learn to steer the
airliner, not to take off or land. On Sept. 12, 2001 French authorities
told U.S. officials that Moussaoui had been identified as an operative of Osama
bin Laden. An FBI search of his computer turned up documents about
crop-dusters.
Richard Reid the man who tried
to blow up a plane with explosive hidden in his shoe attended the same London
mosque as Zacaraias Moussaoui (Dec. 26, 2001). The French newspaper La Provence
reported on Dec. 25, 01, that Reid had been an acolyte of Tabligh-i-Jamaat an
Islamic movement that has encouraged members to engage in anti-infidel
violence. U.S. media disclosed that Walker had been recruited by a San
Francisco cell of the same group. According to the New York Post (Jan 7, 2002)
Richard Reid was a follower of Sheik Ali Gilani whose organization Jamaat al
Fuqra is bent on "purifying Islam through violence". Richard
visited the compound of the Sheik in Lahore, California.
Abdul Hamid a Taliban captured
by the Northern Alliance is one of the survivors of a
vicious, four-day battle in the Northern Afghan fortress of Kala Jangi. He
supported the attack of Sept 11th on America. Hamid's original name was
John Walker Lindh. He grew up in and converted when he was 16 years old
to Islam. He told his parents at the time that Islam was a peaceful
religion. His parents say he must have been brainwashed and that he was a
sweet kid. According to the online version of Newsweek's article about
him "A Long Strange
Trip to the Taliban"
In his search for purity, Walker gravitated to the most extreme
expression of Islam, the Taliban.
He was influenced by
radical Islam in the United States however. According to the article
before he went to Pakistan, he fell in with a large missionary group in
California, the Tablighi Jamaat, which according to intelligence sources, is
sometimes used as a recruiting ground by extremist groups.
On September 14 2002
five American citizens of Yemenite
extraction from Lackawanna, New York were arrested. They were part of an
Al Qaeda cell that had been trained in Afghanistan. American Taliban John
Walker Lindh attended the same camp, al-Farooq, near Kandahar.
Law-enforcement sources told The Post that at
least three of the men also trained terrorist recruits at the camp.
The United States
actually exports Islamic terror. Two American-Arab men, Mohammad Osman
Idris and Mohammed El-Yacoubi flew from New York to Israel but were caught with
a martyrdom farewell letter from one of their brothers at the airport and
turned around. The text of the letter was:
When I heard what you are going to carry out, my heart was filled
with the feeling of grief and joy because you are the closest human being to my
heart. I ask God to love you and be your hearing with which you hear, and
your sight with which you see, and your hand with which you attack.
According to the New
York Post (3/27/02) the two men are free in Virginia.
There has been a surge of
protest rallies against Israel in the United States many of which have served as forums
for supporting violence and terror organizations, and for a proliferation of
anti-Semitic expression. A prominent theme at the recent pro-Palestinian
rallies is the equating of Zionism with Nazism. This insidious theme alleges
genocide of the Palestinian people, supposedly as part of an Israeli racial
program similar to Nazi Germany's attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe.
Another anti-Semitic expression that has been featured at various rallies is
the notion of Jewish control of the United States government and that somehow
America needs to be "liberated" from this "corrupting force."
Several signs at these protest rallies evoke the classic anti-Semitic canard of
Jews as Christ-killers.
According to uncomfirmed reports
hundreds of young British Muslims flew to Pakistan after Sept. 11 2001.
The Observer of October 28, 2001 reported that five of them who joined
mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan were been killed in a US rocket attack on
Kabul, the Afghan capital. Diana Muriel in her article "UK fights image as
terrorist haven" CNN.com 11/20/01 wrote that:
Abu
Hamza is wanted in Yemen on terrorism charges. Mohammed Al-Masseri is accused
by Saudi Arabia of advocating the overthrow of the kingdom's ruling family. Abu
Qatada has been convicted in Jordan for inciting terrorist acts.
Despite
what Middle Eastern courts say is clear evidence of links to terror, these men
have lived openly in London for years, denying all allegations of terror links.
They
either have been given political asylum or outright British citizenship -- over
loud objections from Middle East governments.
The
UK government was particularly embarrassed by claims that up to 15 of the
September 11 hijackers moved through London on their deadly mission.
It
has proposed tough new anti-terror laws that may restrict activities of, or
even imprison, men like 40-year-old Palestinian Abu Qatada, a preacher of
militant Islam.
Qatada
lives in a west London house and has received taxpayer income support.
But
the U.S. Treasury Department recently froze a bank account it has linked to
Qatada.
Tapes
of his speeches were found in the apartment used by suspected hijacker Mohammed
Atta.
And
associates of Zacarias Moussaoui, the would-be pilot arrested in Minnesota a
month before the September 11 attacks, told CNN he was also impressed with
Qatada and probably had gone to hear Qatada preach at a London community
centre.
Extremist muslim clerics will meet in London on
September 11 to celebrate the anniversary of al-Qaeda's
attacks on America and to launch an organisation for Islamic militants...
It will launch the Islamic Council of Britain (ICB),
which will aim to implement sharia law in Britain and will welcome al-Qa'eda
sympathisers as members...
The clerics claim that the ICB is funded by
Saudi-based businessmen...
Al-Muhajiroun claims to have secured a six-figure sum
for funding the ICB and said it would build a dozen Islamic centres, launch a
website and hold seminars and classes for Muslims...
The conference, to be held at Finsbury Park mosque,
north London, will be attended by followers of militant groups and chaired by
their Muslim leaders, including
Omar Bakri Mohammed, whose al-Muhajiroun group wants to establish a
worldwide Islamic state.
Two years after the attacks on New York and
the Pentagon, "Muslims worldwide will again be watching replays of the
collapse of the Twin Towers, praying to Allah to grant those magnificent 19
Paradise," says the group, Al-Muhajiroun, on its English-language website
((http://almuhajiroun.com)) (Worldnetdaily 8/23/03).
After the
space shuttle Columbia disintegrated on its way back to earth Abu Hamza,
Britains most prominent cleric, claimed the fate of the shuttle was Gods
punishment because it carried Americans, an Israeli and a Hindu, a trinity of
evil against Islam (Lets
Quit the UN by Mark Steyn, The Spectator 2/7/03 ).
According to Adrian Karatnycky
(Under Our Very Noses, the terrorist next door National Review Nov. 5, 2001
p43)
There
is significant evidence that he [Mohammed Atta] came to his fanatical beliefs
in Hamburg home to as many as 2,500 Islamic radicals in a community of some
80,000 Muslims. Another key terrorist Marwan al-Shehhi came from the
same Hamburg community where according to a terrorism export quoted in the
Boston Globe, "there is a lot of peer pressure" to embrace radical
Islam... Counterintelligence operations and arrests around Europe have
confirmed that other suspected plotters came to their radical views in the
West... Zacarias Moussaoui now being held by federal authorities in New
York became radical in 1991 under the influence of a Wahhabi group at his
university in France.
Mounir El Motassadeq a Moroccan living in
Hamburg and studying electrical engineering there controlled a bank account
that funneled large sums of money to the terror cell that attacked the United
States on Sept. 11, 01 (New York Post 11/29/01).
David Pryce-Jones in his piece
Islam in Action that appeared in the New York Post Nov. 18, 2001, wrote
that:
In
Britain, a poll reveals that four in ten British Muslims believe Osama bin
Laden is justified in his attacks of Sept. 11. Just over two-thirds
stated that their Muslim faith was more important to them than their British
nationality. Polls elsewhere in Europe show comparable findings.
Harris Whitbeck and Ingrid Arneson in their
report "Terrorists find haven in South America" (CNN.com Nov. 8,
2001) wrote:
In
Ciudad del Este, on the Paraguayan side of the Parana River, the commercial
district is a mosaic of businesses owned mostly by Arab merchants.
International and regional intelligence sources said those businesses and a
mosque in the city serve as a revolving door for Islamic extremists.
Across
the river in Foz do Iguacu, Brazil, two more mosques are suspected of
involvement in terrorist activity.
Outside
on of the biggest Swedish cities there is a suburb called Rosengard. Rosengard
is a Muslim town; there are extremely few Swedes living there. That suburb
faces the same problems as other Muslim areas; a lot of crime, unemployment,
etc.
Today,
in the newspaper, I read that bus drivers are afraid of going there, because
the Muslim kids of Rosengard obviously play a little game that could be entitled
"throw stones at the bus"...
As
the Muslim population of a country grows, their attitude against kafirs turn
more and more hostile. We see that in history, and I hardly think Europe will
be an exception.
A
Muslim group in Denmark announced a few days ago that a $30,000 bounty would be
paid for the murder of several prominent Danish Jews. ...Third-world
immigrants - most of them Muslims from countries such as Turkey, Somalia,
Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq - constitute 5 percent of the population but consume
upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending. Muslims are only 4 percent
of Denmark's 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country's
convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all
the female victims are non-Muslim...Anti-Israel marches have turned into
anti-Jewish riots. One organization, Hizbut-Tahrir, openly calls on
Muslims to "Kill all Jews ... wherever you find them."...Muslim
leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark's
Muslim population grows large enough - a not that remote prospect. If
present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of
Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.
They also wrote how a new
government was elected that promised to handle immigration issues but that it
did not address existing problems. They wrote:
Nor
did it prevent new ones, such as the death threats against Jews or a recent
Islamic edict calling on Muslims to drive Danes out of the Norrebro quarter of
Copenhagen.
Tuvia Book, the Director of
Israel and Zionist Education of the Board of Jewish Education of Greater New
York wrote a letter to the editor of the Jewish Week(9/20/02) about his
experience in Sweden. He wrote:
I
recently returned from a disturbing visit to Malmo Sweden where my wife and I
spent Rosh HaShanah with family. We felt like we were back in Europe of
the 1930s only this time the Jews were not in fear of the European fascist mobs
but rather of Islamic fundamentalist inspired violence.
Before
the holidays, concrete blocks were placed by the municipality in front of the
Jewish Community building...bulletproof windows were installed in the synagogue
and other security measures were taken.Jews told me they were fearful of
walking around the city with any Jewish symbols (such as a Kipa or a Magen
David pendant) due to frequent verbal abuse and threats by Arabs.
Adriana Stuijt in her article
"International Terrorist Support Groups Thrive
in Belgium and Netherlands"(Monday,
Sept. 24, 2001 Newsmax.com) writes how:
Moslem
gangs in Holland organize attacks against non-Muslims in shopping centers and
at sporting and cultural events. During these organized attacks, in which
youths spray people with insecticide and beat them with batons, the youths
specially target ethno-European girls and women, demanding that they wear head scarves
and start obeying the strict Muslim shari'a laws which require total
subservience to males.
A Dutch Politician, Pim Fortuyn demanded that the
Netherlands' borders be shut to immigrants, especially Muslims. He was
shot nine days before National Elections (New York Post 5/7/02).
On February 17, 2004 the Dutch
parliament passed laws under which up to 26,000 immigrants will be expelled
from the country.
Outpost, a publication of
Americans For A Safe Israel, reported in the Jan 2003 issue that:
According
to a report by the Dutch intelligence service AIVD, Holland, with 850,000
Muslims in a population of 16 million, has become a major Al Qaeda recruiting
ground. The report says "a violent strain of radical Islam is
stealthily taking root in Dutch society," with young Moroccans especially
drawn into a sub-culture of "jihad videos and internet chat rooms that
discuss holy war and Islamic martyrdom." With Afghanistan's terror
training grounds no longer accessible, these young people are secretly training
in Europe itself.
Meanwhile,
in Antwerp, two days of race riots were instigated by Lebanese-born Hizbollah
"militant" Abou Jahjah, known as the Malcolm X of Belgium. When
Prime Minister Verhofstadt told his parliament he was considering a ban on
Jahjah's group for inciting violence and disturbing public order, Jahjah
announced he was being demonized by manipulators in the Belgian government and
the "Zionist lobby." Sign of the future: Jahjah demands a
separatist system for Beligum's Muslims including seregated schools, Arabic as
an official language, and an end to "Flemish cultural terrorism."
John Rhys-Davies, the Welsh
actor who plays Gimli the dwarf in the Lord of the Rings movies pointed
out that
by
2020, 50 per cent of the children in Holland under the age of 18 will be of
Muslim descent. This is, just part of a demographic catastrophe happening in
Europe that nobody wants to talk about, that we darent bring up because we are
so cagey about not offending people racially...
Many do not
understand, how precarious Western civilization is and what a joy it is. From
it, we get real democracy. From it, we get the sort of intellectual tolerance
that allows me to propound something that may be completely alien to you...
I
do not want to see a society where, should I ever have any, my granddaughters
have their fingernails pulled out because they are wearing nail varnish. . . .
Do not brand me a racist because I am most certainly not. But I will stand by
this: Western Christianised Europe has values and experience that is worth
defending.
On 9/17/02, former Israeli prime
minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to Concordia University in Montreal to explain
why "there is no alternative to winning this war [on terrorism] without
delay." But he never spoke at Concordia - indeed, he never made it onto
the campus - because a thousand anti-Israel demonstrators staged a mini-riot to
prevent him from speaking.
The anti-Israel forces
physically assaulted the would-be audience. A female professor of religion at
Concordia recounted how some of them "aimed their punches at my
breasts."
They smashed a plate-glass
window and threw objects at the police inside. They hurled furniture at police
from a mezzanine. As Toronto's Globe & Mail put it, "By lunchtime, the
vestibule of Concordia's main downtown building was littered with paper,
upturned chairs, broken furniture and the choking aftereffects of pepper
spray." (NY Post 9/17/02)
Twenty five
months after they cancelled Netanyahu's speech Concordia banned Ehud Barak, a
former dovish prime minister of Israel, from speaking on the campus Oct. 19.
An editorial in the Canadian Gazette
(10/6/04) opined:
This time the mere
possibility of rowdiness caused Concordia to abandon the central tenet of a
university's intellectual life: free expression...
Arab antisemitism is making
itself felt on college campuses and in schools. The New York Post
12/17/02, reports about a girl who was taunted for weeks by a gang that yelled
"Jew Jew Jew" and who was then beaten up by an Arab girl.
Jonathan Mark (The Jewish Week 12/27/02)
wrote about Jihad in New York as follows:
Yes
we know "Islam is a religion of peace," but according to the American
Correctional Associaton, the number of Muslims in the federal prison system has
tripled in the last decade, and Muslims now comprise some 20% of all New York
prisoners...
The
New York Times had no coverage at all of the conviction of local Palestinians
who threw Molotov cocktails that failed to ignite a shul in the Bronx...
On
April 8, a caller to the ADL said he defended a religious Jewish woman on an N
train from two girls who were yelling obscentiies in her face. They had
Palestinian flags on their pocketbooks. Later that month, six young
Palestinian youths threw rocks at a chasidic man's car while yelling "All
Jews must die, we will get you." When the man stopped to make a
phone call, one of the Palestinians punched him in the head.
And
more: This summer, a Jewish medical student was hospitalized after being
jumped outside a Manhattan bar by five young Arab men, who prefaced the attack
with anti-Semitic remarks. In November, workers at a Lower East Side-deli
chased an elderly Jewish man with a broomstick yelling, "Jews are not
served in this store."
The title of this section was
How Moderate Are the Muslims. Obviously many of them are not moderate,
however it's important to recognize that there are
good and moderate Muslims.
Vice President Richard Cheney after the
terrorist attacks in Riyadh in 2003, said:
The
only way to deal with this threat ultimately is to destroy it. There's no
treaty that can solve this problem. There's no peace agreement, no policy of
containment or deterrence that works to deal with this threat. We have to go
find the terrorists
Yet the United States is
pressuring Israel to agree to a roadmap of dangerous concessions to the
Palestinian Arabs after years of terrorism which in addition to killing
Israelis killed Americans.
Essentially,
there are, on some planes, two different things. One is that there are
violent people trying to destroy societies, ours, many others in the world. The
world recognizes that, and we are going to stop those people. On the other
hand, there are issues and violence and political issues that need to be
resolved in the Middle East, Israelis and Palestinians.
State Department Spokesman
Bill Boucher excused Palestinian violence as "politically
motivated" violence. Max Boot in an OPED called A Single War (NYPost
12/2/02) wrote that:
This
attitude reached new heights of absurdity after the targeted killing of six al
Qaeda terrorists in Yemen by a CIA operated Predator unmanned aerial vehicle,
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher took pains to argue that there was
absolutely no comparison between this action and Israel's targeted killings of
terrorists, which the U.S. government continues to condemn.
Daniel Pipes in an article
titled "U.S. to Israel: Do as We Say..."(New York Post 7/1/03) wrote:
The
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher condemned Israel's September 2002
attack on Mohamed Deif: "We are against targeted killings". We
are against the use of heavy weaponry in urban areas, even when it comes to
people like Mohamed Deif, who have been responsible for the deaths of American
citizens."..
A
few weeks after this incident however U.S. forces deployed an unmanned plane to
drop a bomb on an al Qaeda operative, Ali Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, as he traveled
by car in Yemen. A Pentagon official praised this as "a very
successful tactical operation" to "keep the pressure on" al
Qaeda. No talk here about bringing Harthi to justice...
An
Israeli F-16 dropped a one-ton bomb in July 2002 on the residence of Salah
Shehadeh, the military chief of Hamas in the Gaza Strip whom the Israelis
accuse of being "directly responsible for initiating and directing dozens
of attacks," killing him and 14 others. The State Department
response was sever, calling it a "heavy handed action" that "does
not contribute to peace." But when an American B-1B bomber dropped
four two-ton bombs on a Baghdad restaurant in april, hoping that Saddam Hussein
might be there, the 14 innocent lives lost prompted no State Department
admonishment.
On Sept. 24, 2002, President
Bush issued Executive Order 13224 freezing the U.S. assets and blocking the
U.S. transactions of terrorists and those that support them (The Financial War Against
Terrorism). On 2/26/04 the State Department criticized Israel when
she seized NIS 40 million terrorist assets on the grounds that it would be
"destabilizing to the Palestinian banking system" (Surrealism vs.
Reality, Jerusalem Post 2/27/04).
The Bush administration also distinguished
between "good" terrorists (the Palestinians) and bad terrorists (the
ones who struck America) On September 27, State Department spokesman
Richard Boucher told reporters:
Colin Powell has asked Senators
Feinstein and McConnell to withdraw the Feinstein-McConnell Amendment. The
amendment would have taken away funding to the Palestinian Authority if the PA
continued to violate key sections of signed agreements from Oslo and Wye.
The United States when it froze terrorist assets did not freeze the assets of
Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the terrorist groups targetting Israel.
The U.S. State Department
condemns Israel's assassinations of terrorists. That did not stop when
the United States dropped massive amounts of bombs on Afghanistan.
According to Major Shawn Pine (Bush's capitulation The Jerusalem Post, March
12, 2002) "the United States has killed some 4,000 Afghan civilians in its
unfettered war against al-Qaida." According to Arutz 7 (Oct 17, 01)
a State Department spokesman on Monday October 15, 01
Condemned
Israel's policy of pinpoint offensive strikes against wanted terrorists.
The practice is part of Israel's self-defense policy of thwarting terror
attacks in advance and limiting collateral damage to innocent persons.
The spokesman added that the ongoing US offensive in Afghanistan cannot be
compared with Israel's response to terror attacks against it. He called
the Israeli policy a "provocation and a stumbling block to peace."
The fallacy of this kind of
thinking was pointed out by Sharon who in his speech warning that Israel will
not be another Czechoslovakia also said:
There
is no such thing as good terrorism and bad terrorism. Terrorism blindly
kills innocent people...
Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee on Thursday Oct 25, 2001 that Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda organization is a
clear case of a terrorist group but implied that Palestinian terrorists might
be freedom fighters. He said:
But
then you start to run into areas where one man's terrorist is another man's
freedom fighter, and that's where you have to apply judgment...These are
difficult calls to make... You can be quite challenged in explaining these
differences with respect to the Middle East.
Major Shawn Pine wrote that: (Bush's
capitulation, The Jerusalem Post, March 12, 2002)
The
US government is deluding itself if it believes that there is a moral or
fundamental difference between the US war against al-Qaida and the Israeli war
against Palestinian terrorism. The long-term strategic goals of both groups are
the ultimate destruction of Israel and the West. In this respect both Israel
and the US are engaged in an existential struggle.
According to Defense News - September 24-30,
2001,
State
Department officials hope to convince lawmakers to lift temporary restrictions
on at least four pending sales: Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-16 C/D fighter jets
to Oman; F-16 Block 60 fighters to the United Arab Emirates (UAE); the Lockheed
Martin 277mm Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) to Egypt; and another
unspecified sale to Egypt, government and industry sources said.
Meanwhile, the White House may exercise its right to temporarily lift arms
sanctions imposed in the early 1990s on Pakistan and Indonesia. Pakistan's F-16
fighters, C-130 transport planes and P-3 patrol aircraft - all manufactured by
Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin -- are in dire need of spare parts, which
the U.S. government stopped providing after Pakistan built nuclear weapon
components in 1990.
Evelyn Gordon, in her article
"The U.S. as Contortionist" (Jerusalem Post, Nov. 6, 01) wrote:
Lebanon, Syria and the PA all provide the terror organizations they host with complete freedom of operation. In the PA's case, Chairman Yasser Arafat has made no effort to arrest or disarm members of terrorist groups, nor has he in any other way tried to impede their almost daily attacks on Israeli citizens - despite having pledged to do so in no fewer than five signed agreements with Israel. On the contrary, these groups play an integral role in the PA regime: Arafat regularly consults with the leaders of Hamas, the "loyal opposition," on government policy, while the PFLP is an official member of Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization. Similarly, Lebanon has permitted Hizbullah to take up positions along the length of the Israeli border, from which the organization periodically launches attacks on Israel. This is in direct defiance of a UN Security Council resolution that required Beirut to impede such attacks by instead deploying its own army on the border following Israel's pullout from south Lebanon. The UN certified Israel's withdrawal completed almost 18 months ago, but the Lebanese army has yet to move into the area. YET NEITHER Lebanon nor the PA appears on the administration's list of state sponsors of terrorism - and Syria, which is on that list, is nevertheless being courted for America's anti-terror coalition. This is not mere passivity: With respect to the PA, the administration has actively opposed efforts to apply the doctrine of state responsibility. Not only did it sharply condemn Israeli incursions into Palestinian territory that were aimed at capturing terrorists the PA had refused to pursue itself - the precise justification America gives for invading Afghanistan - but it successfully fought a bipartisan bill introduced in Congress earlier this year that would have mandated sanctions against the PA should it continue to harbor terrorist organizations. The proposed legislation would seem to accord perfectly with the administration's stated policy of penalizing states that give aid and comfort to terrorists. Yet on September 28, the Senate bowed to a direct request by Secretary of State Colin Powell that it freeze the bill, which had passed the House and was expected to pass the Senate shortly.
If the enemy is Islam then
clearly America is arming her enemies because of unwillingness to face this
reality. Prof. Paul Eidelberg in his article "Wishful Thinking About
Islam" (Dec. 30,2001) writes that cultural relativism leads to wishful
thinking about Islam. He wrote:
Relativism
transforms black into gray or cruel enemies into "moderates" or
"peace-partners." It thus leads to wishful thinking, which,
among Israel's ruling elites spells disaster.
According to Lawrence Kudlow
(New York Post 11/26/01) high oil prices in 2000 were an important factor in
bringing about recession. During the United States war with Al Qaeda and
the Taliban the Saudi's attempted to curtail OPEC oil production and raise
prices. Lawrence Kudlow asks:
Whose
side in the battle against terrorism are the Saudis really on?
The State Department set up Visa
Express, a program of special visa privileges in Saudi Arabia that let in three
of the four terrorists who struck on Sept 11. They set up this program
this even though the visa refusal rate of Saudis without Visa Express is high
(about 23% according to Joel Mowbray in a column in the New York Post
7/18/02).
According to Michelle Malkin
(New York Post, Nov. 7, 2001), after the Sept. 11 attacks:
U.S.
officials have bent over backwards to assure touchy Saudis that we have made
absolutely no changes "in determining visa eligibility as a result of the
[9/11] attacks. Visa Express has been expanded. And State Deparment
employees remain banned from communicating with foreign governments about their
citizen's visa applications - making it virtually impossible to verify vital
information.
When asked about the Visa
Refusal rate by a Washington Post reporter the State Department lied and said
it was only 3%. Joel Mobray wrote that
a
government agency that willfully lies to the public to protect a foreign entity
should not - cannot - be trusted to keep our borders - and us - safe.
Jeff Jacoby in his article FRIENDSHIP AND THE
HOUSE OF SAUD (Boston Globe 11/18/01) wrote how:
Prince Bandar tell it, Saudi Arabia is
devoted to the United States.
"Our
role," the Saudi ambassador said in a CNN interview some weeks ago, "is to stand solid and shoulder-to-shoulder with our friends, the
people of the United States.... In 1990, when we needed your help, you came through
for us. And it's our turn now to stand up with you."
Jeff Jacoby continues:
When
terrorists slaughtered thousands of civilians in a horrific attack on Sept. 11, our friends the Saudis reacted with -- silence. Other governments welled up with shock, grief, and fury. Riyadh said nothing.
As it became clear that most of those who carried out the atrocities were citizens of Saudi Arabia and that the mastermind behind them was a member
of a leading Saudi family, one might have expected the Saudis to express great anguish and heartache. One might have thought they would be anxious to cooperate closely with the United States in rooting out those responsible
for the devastation.
But there were no words of anguish, and there was little cooperation. The US investigation had barely begun when Riyadh arranged a private jet to fly scores of its citizens -- including members of the bin Laden clan --
out of the United States. This meant, of course, that the FBI could not interview people who might have had valuable information about the
hijackers.
That was only the beginning of the Saudis' unhelpfulness. When Washington asked for background information on the Sept. 11 terrorists, the Saudis stonewalled. While 94 airlines agreed to identify passengers on planes flying to the United States, Saudi Arabian Airlines refused. A month after the attacks, The New York Times reported that "Saudi Arabia has
so far refused to freeze the assets of Osama bin Laden and his associates."
Of particular concern was Riyadh's unwillingness to shut down the Islamic "charities" that are Al Qaeda's lifeline.
As American war plans took shape, the Saudis barred the use of their military bases for attacks against the Taliban. Britain's Tony Blair set
off on a Mideast tour to build support for the war effort, but was denied entry to Saudi Arabia. And just days after the US bombardment of Afghanistan began, the Saudi interior minister denounced it. "This is killing
innocent people," Prince Nayef scolded. "We are not at all happy with the
situation."
According to 60 minutes (Nov.
18, 01) 42% of the inhabitants of Kuwait, the country that the United States
rescued from Iraq consider Osama bin Laden a freedom fighter and only 34%
consider him a terrorist. (These percentages are from memory after
watching 60 minutes and may be a little off).
According to the New York Post
10/1/01 President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan a key ally in the war on terror
is on the board of trustees of a "charity" The Rabita Trust for the
Rehabilitation of Stranded Pakistanis, which is a terrorist front. The
Bush administration dropped this charity from their list of terrorist fronts
because President Musharraf wouldn't quite Rabita. India claims that
Pakistan is arming and training Kashmiri rebels which Pakistan denies.
These rebel groups engage in terrorism. One, a Pakistan based militant
group Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility for the explosion of a car bomb
and then opened fire on security forces in the state assembly in Jammu Kashmir.
(New York Post Oct 2, 2001). In that attack they killed 25 people and
wounded 75 others. According to Rachel Ehrenfeld (U.S. Ignored Money
Trail, The Detroit News, Sept. 30, 2001)
A
"Black Network," a special enforcement unit supported by Abu Nidal
and other terrorist organizations, operated from Pakistan. The same Pakistan
that harbored bin Laden for many years while its officials told the United
States that they didn't know his whereabouts. And the same Pakistan that for
decades, even according to the State Department's annual report, had been a
major drug trafficking and money laundering center.
Since 1990, planned and organized secessionist-terrorism has
brutalized Kashmir, the valley of peace and exquisite beauty. Systematic
efforts have been made to destroy its syncretic culture, traditions, and
heritage, by an orgy of mindless violence fueled by religious fanaticism and
extremism, aided and abetted from across India's borders.
Terrorism has taken the lives of more than 2000 innocent men,
women and children; the terrorists have indulged wantonly in abduction, rape,
murder, arson, extortion and looting. Government officials, political leaders
and workers, members of judiciary, print and electronic press persons, and
prominent citizens have been threatened, attacked and killed. Religious
"codes of conduct" have been imposed on common people, and there has
been large scale destruction of public and private property including over 400
secular state schools. More than 350,000 people of the minority community have
had to flee their homes in the valley and today live as refugees in other parts
of their own state and country.
Brahma Chellaney, Professor of
Security Studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, and a
strategic-affairs expert, wrote (Freeman Center Broadcast Tuesday, October 16,
2001)
As
a frontline victim of terrorism, India is naturally concerned that US
policymakers may be forgetting the lessons of the past in their war on
terrorism and again being guided by short-term objectives and political
expediency. The array of frontline allies the United States has lined up in
this war ranges from regimes that bankroll militant Islamic fundamentalism overseas,
such as those of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to the tyrannical
Central Asian autocracies run by Soviet holdovers, and the terrorism-exporting
junta in Islamabad...
The
terrorist forces the US-led coalition is seeking to combat were unintentionally
reared by past American policy. Today the United States is tightening the noose
around the Taliban as part of its plan to dislodge it from power in Kabul. But
barely five years ago, the United States was the only international power to
hail the Taliban's rise to power. In fact, Laden was one of the 'holy warriors'
President Ronald Reagan proclaimed at a White House ceremony in the mid-1980s
as the "moral equivalent of the founding fathers" of the United
States, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson...
Today, there are deep-rooted links between the Kashmir terrorists, the
Taleban, Laden's Al Qaeda network, and the ISI . The United States, however,
wants to tackle the problem of terrorism by going after the child fathered by
Pakistan, the Taliban, but not the procreator.
The ISI referred to by Dr. Chellaney
is the The Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence of Pakistan. Drug
money was used by ISI to finance the proxy war against India in Punjab and
Kashmir and was used to support the Taliban in their fight against the Rabbani
government. A press release by the Kashmir Information Network
(Aug 31, 00) says:
Pakistan, along with
its surrogates the Taliban in Afghanistan, is now universally considered to be
the focal center of international Islamic terrorism (US State Department Annual
Report on Global Terrorism, 2000), ABC News, Aug. 31, 2000. Over a dozen deadly terrorist
groups are based in its territory (BBC Online, Aug. 10, 2000, numerous other
media reports) and have freedom and official aid to recruit, inspire and train
jehadis that are sent around the world to commit violent acts in India,
Philippines, Malaysia, Xinjiang region of China, portions of Russia, Central
Asian republics such as Tajikistan, Kyrgystan and Uzbekistan, Israel, Jordan,
Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the Mid-East, Algeria, Kenya and Tanzania in Africa,
Bosnia in Central Europe, the US, Canada and Argentina in the Americas. In
addition, British and US groups that run under legitimate cover but collect
funds to send to the training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan also reportedly
exist. Most of these groups believe in converting the entire world into a
fundamentalist Islamic state (Washington Times, Aug 14, 2000, numerous other
media reports).
On October 1, 2001, a suicide
bomber killed 38 people in India's Kashmir legislature building. The
Indians say that attack was due to Pakistani based Islamic militants. On
December 13, 01 terrorists attacked the Indian parliament. India
also says those terrorists were based in Pakistan and as a result of that
attack mobilized its forces on the Pakistani border and demanded that Pakistan
turn over members of Islamic terrorist organizations responsible for the
attacks . Brahma Chellaney (Wall Street Journal Europe, Jan 3, 2002)
wrote that:
But
for the exemplary courage of security personnel who foiled the terrorists'
effort to shoot their way into the halls of Parliament, political mayhem would
have engulfed India, which has no defined lines of succession.
and that:
India
is clearly signaling that it has had enough and will settle for nothing less
than a cessation of what is sees as Pakistan's proxy war through the use of
terrorist groups.
In May 2002 suspected Pakistan-based Islamic
militants raided an army camp in the Indian-controlled portion of Kashmir,
killing 34 people - mostly soldiers' wives and children (5/23/02 Associated
Press, Shells
Pound Indian Border Villages by
Neelesh Misra).
"India has accepted the challenge thrown
by our neighbor and we are preparing ourselves for decisive victory against the
enemy," Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said in a statement
after meeting with senior military and political leaders in Srinagar, the
summer capital of India's Jammu-Kashmir state.
"We will not let Pakistan carry on its
proxy war against India any longer."
Before the rebels gained control of
Afghanistan, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf is imposing the restrictions
that the rebels not gain control over Afghanistan. He said (New York
Post, Oct 9, 01):
The
Northern Alliance must not draw mileage out of this action.
The Northern Alliance doesn't
like him because president Musharraf supported the Taliban. Colin Powell
angered India by saying that America was open to expanding its military ties to
Pakistan. After Secretary of State Colin Powell visited the region
Jonathan Foreman wrote:(N.Y. Post 10/22/01)
By
the time he left the region shells were falling once again in the high
Himalayan passes as Pakistan and India mobilized troops on each side of the
cease-fire line in Kashmir. And everyone -- India Pakistan and the Afghan
Northern Alliance -- was more convinced than ever that America would somehow
betray or fail them while giving one of the others some special influence in
postwar Afghanistan.
This
is what happens when the means is mistaken for the end -- when
coalition-building becomes more important than the point of the coalition:
winning the war against terror.
Jonathan Foreman explains
another reason for American support of Pakistan is that:
The State Department will often
argue that Pakistan must be kept sweet because it has a small number of atom
bombs...An alienated Pakistan could conceivably supply nuclear devices to its
Islamic terrorist friends.
That is appeasement. Foreman writes:
Powell
should have told his interlocutors in Pakistan that Washington now has every
reason to become much, much friendlier with its rival India. India after
all, is a democratic pluralistic and secular nation with which the United
States has much in common -- including being a victim of terrorism, rather
than, like Pakistan, a consistent sponsor.
Amir Taheri in an OPED
"Afghanistan Aboil" (New York Post 7/2/03) wrote that:
the
remnants of the Taliban have rallied and set up a base close ot the Iranian
border village of Dost Muhammad... Taliban elements have started
attacking villages in the Nimroz and Arzangan provinces...The
mini-revival of the Taliban .. is largely due to support from Islamisst roups
in Pakistan, including elments in the Pakistani military. The Islamist
dominated provincial government of the Northwest Province in Pakistan is
providing more than a helping hand.
A
decade ago, Pakistan spent billions of dollars creating the Taliban and helping
them capture Kabul in 1996.
In addition two charities funded
by the Saudi government and allegedly used by bin Laden to finance his
operations were also excluded from the list to avoid embarrassing the Kingdom.
According to the New York Post (Oct 2, 2001) an official spokesman of
the Saudi foreign ministry warned that the U.S. led coalition had better not
target groups like Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas or the regional governments
that support them or else Saudi Arabia won't
participate.
In order not offend the
sensitivities of the 6 million Muslims living in the US, and mindful of our
dependence on moderate Moslem nations in building an anti-terrorist
coalition, the President advised that Americans should avoid describing
terrorists as "Islamic", stating "The people who did this
act on America, and who may be planning further acts, are evil people.
They don't represent an ideology, they don't represent a legitimate political
group of people. They're flat evil." Then both the Attorney
General and Secretary of Defense solemnly told the public that the attacks had
nothing to do with Islam. And when Italian Premier Berlusconi was so
insensitive as to state that the values of Western civilization , with its
tradition of respect for human political and religious rights, was
superior to those of Islamic countries, which lack that respect, his remarks
were treated with either shocked silence or righteous indignation and
denouncement by his fellow Europeans.
Although Bush says Osama bin
Ladin has nothing to do with Islam not everyone agrees with him.
According to Mr. Muhammad Khalid of the Jamiat-tul- Islamia seminary in the
Binori Town section of Pakistan:
Bin Laden is
Islam, He represents Islam.
Like many in Pakistan, he
reduces the confrontation after the World Trade Center bombing of September 11,
2001 as a political move by the United States to justify attacking Islam. (New
York Times 9/30/01)
Nasreen Jalil a former senator
of Pakistan who lives in Karachi and is a member of the powerful Muttahida
Qaumi Movement." (New York Times (9/30/01 Hatred of U.S. Burns in
Pakistan's Biggest City)said:
From the mosques, they
are saying that this is a war on Islam. They think bin Laden is a symbol
of Islam.
In a report called Pakistanis Leave
For Holy War (Associated Press Saturday October 27) Riaz Khan wrote:
In
buses and trucks, pickups and vans, more than 5,000 people rolled out of a
northeastern Pakistan village Saturday morning, bound for the Afghan frontier
and vowing to fight a holy war against the United States.
Hundreds
were reported crossing into Afghanistan over rugged mountains by Saturday
evening, Pakistani border police said.
Thousands
of Pakistani men, young and old, had massed in Temergarah on Friday night with
assault rifles, machine guns, even rocket launchers. A few even carried axes
and swords.
Their
mission, they said: to enter Afghanistan's Kunar province and help the
country's ruling Taliban defend against any ground incursions by American
troops. ``I am an old man. I consider myself lucky to go - and to face the
death of a martyr,'' said Shah Wazir, 70, a retired Pakistani army officer. In
his hands Saturday morning, he carried a French rifle from about 1920.
Organizers said similar-sized groups were massing in other towns across North
West Frontier Province, an enclave of ethnic Pashtuns with ties to - and deep
feelings for - neighboring Afghanistan. Volunteers gathered in scores of groups
of 20, sitting on the ground to be briefed on the ways of jihad - Islamic holy
war - by military commanders wearing black turbans and full beards similar to
the Taliban militia. One key rule: obedience to leaders. ``It is a difficult
time for Islam and Muslims. We are in a test. Everybody should be ready to pass
the test - and to sacrifice our lives,'' said Mohammad Khaled, one brigade
leader. Would-be warriors embraced and chanted anti-American slogans. Hussain
Khan, 19, a carpenter from the area, carried a Kalashnikov and stood with his
friend. He said he was leaving behind a fiancee and joining a just cause.
``Whether I come back alive or I am dead, I'll be fortunate because I am
fighting in the service of Islam,'' Khan said. The call for holy war came this
week from Sufi Mohammad, an outspoken Muslim cleric who runs a madrassa, or
religious school, in nearby Madyan. He exhorted ``true Muslims'' to mass and
prepare to go to Afghanistan - to repel any U.S. ground incursions. What they
will do upon arrival is uncertain. But hundreds of vehicles - more than 1,000
volunteers - rolled into the mountains that separate the two countries Saturday
night, said Himdallah Khan, a police official at Bajur Agency, a borderland
area. Many returned empty. Hundreds of other Pakistanis from different areas
were converging near Bajur.
In
this region of Pakistan, Mohammad's organization, Tehrik Nifaz Shariat
Mohammadi Malakand, or Movement for the Enforcement of Islamic Laws, has been
embraced.
And
the cleric's message - that, despite its insistence to the contrary, the United
States is waging war on Islam - hits home. ``This is a strange occasion of
world history,'' Mohammad said Friday. ``For the first time, all the
anti-Islamic forces are united against Islam.''
It
was impossible to verify how many supporters were actually en route to join
him. In recent weeks, many militants have claimed far more backing than rallies
eventually produce.
However,
the numbers in Temergarah on Saturday morning - and the people jammed into
trucks and on bus rooftops - suggested support was heavy. Mohammad's backers
say the number to enter Afghanistan will reach 100,000.
``We
are not worried about death,'' said Khaled, the brigade leader. ``If we die in
jihad, it is something much more greater than to be alive. And we will be taken
into paradise.''
The
night before, men had massed by the thousands in Temergarah and other
wind-whipped mountain villages in northeastern Pakistan's mountains.
Out-of-towners,
their conversation crackling with anticipation, roamed Temergarah's streets.
Pickup trucks patrolled town with loudspeakers attached, calling people to
assemble with a chant: ``Afghanistan will be a graveyard for Americans.'' Men
huddled around radios, listening for news about the conflict; most tuned in to
the BBC.
People
camped on porches, beneficiaries of local hospitality. Others slept on floors
of public buildings. Mosques lodged as many as they could, and supplied food
and blankets.
``I
cannot tolerate the bombing and the cruelty of Americans. I must go,'' said
Mamoor Shah, a medicine salesman who, at 18, already has a wife and child.
``Muslims cannot keep silent.''
For
many young men, this is no mere rite of passage. It is religion - and it is
blood, heritage and family.
``I'm
going. My mother sent me to fight for our faith,'' said Farooq Shah, 21, a
student from Buner, 50 miles away. When she told him to go, he had no
Kalashnikov. So she went out, sold her jewelry and bought him one.
Mohammad Atta the first pilot
who crashed into the World Trade Center saw himself as a good Moslem destined
to be among the angels. His last will and testament said:
Those
who will sit beside my body must remember Allah, God and pray for me to be with
the angels. I only want to be buried next to good Muslims, my face should
be directed east toward Mecca,...A third of my money would be donated to the
poor and needy. My books, I will give to one of the mosques.
A memo in Mohammed Atta's
luggage instructed:
Apply
the rules of the prisoners of war. Take them prisoner and kill them as
God said. The nymphs are calling out to you, come over here, companion of
Allah.
And Bush and others say this has
nothing to do with Islam? Daniel Pipes in an interview
with the Philadelphia Daily News (Oct 8, 2001) said:
I
believe he [Bush] made a mistake in identifying the threat as terrorism.
Terrorism is a means of fighting. The enemy is militant Islam. For whatever
reason, the president avoided saying that. We also must make clear that
the enemy is not restricted to Osama bin Laden, the Taliban or
Afghanistan. It's an international ideology, and the enemy is within our
country as well as outside. There are militant Islamic groups in this
country that need to be rooted out.
To avoid having to call the
enemy radical Islam Bush called the enemy the "evildoers".
Daniel Pipes (Commentary Jan 2002) wrote that:
euphemisms
in wartime can be beneficial, and all the more so when one is flying, so to
speak, in the dark. Entering emergency mode on September 11, the government
instinctively shied away from specifics lest they tie its hands. Targeting
"evildoers" and "terrorism," mentioning no names beyond
Osama bin Laden, offered maximum flexibility. By not insulting anyone in
particular, Washington could more easily woo potential partners for the
U.S.-led "coalition against terror." By the same token, the
administration could, at least theoretically, add or subtract targets as
circumstances warranted; today's partner-Syria, for example - could become
tomorrow's evildoer.
But
vagueness also exacts costs. If politicians impart imprecise or contradictory
goals to their military leaders, wrote Carl von Clausewitz in On War (1832),
their efforts will almost certainly run up against major difficulties. The
history of warfare throughout the ages confirms this iron rule, as Americans
have had occasion to note in recent decades (from Eisenhower's not traversing
Europe fast enough to fend off the Soviet advance in World War II to Norman
Schwarzkopf's not eliminating Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard in Operation
Desert Storm).
The risk of another suicide
airplane hijacking is higher because of the Bush administration mistaken
unwillingness to identify the enemy. Daniel Pipes wrote a column A Deadly
Error which appeared in the New York Post on January 21, 2002 in which he
wrote:
The
consequences of this mistake are practical and far-reaching. For example,
airline security is a casualty. U.S. Department of Transportation (DoT)
guidelines issued after Sept. 11 forbid airline personnel from relying on
"generalized stereotypes or attitudes or beliefs about the propensity of
members of any racial, ethnic, religious, or national origin group to engage in
unlawful activity."
Appearing
to be Middle Eastern, speaking a Middle Eastern language, or having a Middle
Eastern accent are inadmissible grounds for paying special attention to a
passenger, as are Islamic attributes such as a woman's veil or a man's beard.
The
government insists on what it calls the "but for" test. "But for
this person's perceived race, ethnic heritage or religious orientation,"
security personnel must ask themselves, "would I have subjected this
individual to additional safety or security scrutiny?" If the answer is
no, extra scrutiny is not just disapproved of, but illegal.
It's
like having reports of a tall, bearded mugger but requiring the police to
devote equal attention to short females...
And
woe to an airline that has the misfortune of stopping an Arab-American who
happens not to be a terrorist but who is politically connected! Rep. Darrell
Issa (R-Calif.) "caused quite a scene and . . . wasn't very polite"
when Air France delayed him a day, according to a company spokesman. A
presidential bodyguard named Walied Shater turned "very hostile" and
engaged in "confrontational behavior," in the words of the American
Airlines captain who denied him transportation.
(They're
not terrorists, but both of these two gentlemen do, interestingly, associate
with militant Islam. Issa has declared his "tremendous sympathy" for
the work of Hezbollah, a group the U.S. government deems to be a terrorist
organization. Shater rushed with his case of alleged bias to the Council on
American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based group with ties to another
designated terrorist organization, Hamas. The extra attention given them turns
out not to be entirely undeserved.)
The title of Linda Chavez's column in the
October 10, 01 New York Post is "Terrorism is Not the Enemy".
She wrote:
The
enemy is militant Islamic fundamentalism. The command structure is
made up of hundreds of mullahs around the world, including some living in this
country, who preach death to the infidels. Its troops include not just
the thousands of trained terrorists but the millions of others who support the
mullahs and finance the terrorists through their donations to radical Islamic
groups. To pretend otherwise risks not only our own defeat, but that of
the moderate Muslim world as well...
Despite
what our leaders keep telling us, Islam is not inherently a peaceful
religion...Islam can find explicit justification for its Jihad or "holy
war" within its sacred text.
The
Koran instructs believers to "slay the idolaters..make war on the leaders
of unbelief-for no oaths are binding with them...Make war on them: God will
chastise them at your hands and humble them." The Koran is filled
with elaborate instructions on the conduct of war, the methods of executing the
infidels, the rewards that will accrue to those martyred in a holy war.
Edward Alexander in a letter to the Seattle
Times 8/22/03 wrote:
It's
been a bang-up day for Islamic fascism: scores murdered and hundreds maimed in
Baghdad and Jerusalem. President Bush and the inimitable Colin Powell conclude,
after careful study, that the culprits are "against peace" and that
"we are at war with terrorism." This is as if, after Pearl Harbor,
FDR had said "we are at war with sneak attacks" instead of saying (as
he did) that "we are at war with the empire of Japan." If the
president and the incorrigibles of the State Department cannot even identify
the enemy correctly, how can they defeat it?
One reasons for Western
delusions about Islam maybe that it is difficult for the West to understand the
motives of Islam. Charles Krauthammer expressed this opinion in the Weekly Standard of Oct. 22, 01.
He wrote:
Europe's
great religious wars ended in 1648. Three and a half centuries is a long
time, too long for us in the West to truly believe that people still slaughter
others to vindicate the faith.
Thus
in the face of radical Islamic terrorism that murders 6,000 innocents in a day,
we find it almost impossible to accept at face value the reasons offerred by
the murderers.
Yet
Osama bin Laden could not be clearer. Jihad has been declared against the
infidel, whose power and influence thwart the triumph of Islam and whose
success and example - indeed whose very existence - are an affront to the true
faith...
To
Americans, who are taught religious tolerance from the cradle,.. this seems
simply bizarre...
This
idea is so alien that our learned commentators... have gone rummaging through
their ideological attics to find more familiar terms to explain why we were so
savagely attacked: poverty and destitution in the Islamic World, grievances
against the West, America, Israel...the wretched of the earth...rising against
their oppressors...
If
poverty and destitution, colonialism and capitalism are animating Islam explain
this. In March, the Taliban went to the Afghan desert where stood great
monuments of human culture, two massive Buddhas carved outof a cliff... They
[the Taliban] blew the statues to bits, then slaughtered 100 cows in atonement
- for having taken so long to finish the job.
Joseph Farah in an article called Are We At
War with Islam (WorldNetDaily 6/25/02) also argued that difficulty in
understanding Islam has led to Western leaders drawing the wrong conclusions.
The
truth is that western civilization faces perhaps its greatest test at the hands
of Islam today. We don't understand these people and, not understanding them,
we try to give them what we think they want, what we might want in a similar
situation. This is how Israel has been led down the primrose path in its
negotiations with the Arabs.
It's
a war. And, for Islam, the negotiating table is just another theater in that
war.
Every
day, around the world, if we look for them, we see disparate, seemingly
unconnected reports of attacks by Muslims on non-Muslims. We see them in
Israel. We see them in India. We see them in Indonesia. We see them in the
Philippines. We see them in Sudan. We see them even in the U.S. and Europe.
People
are dying lots of them. In fact, more Christians are being persecuted today
than ever before in the history of the world even under the Romans. Most of
those attacks come from Islam.
What
we need to understand is that these attacks are connected. They are
coordinated. Islam is on the march, again. The only question is whether we see
it, acknowledge the reality of it and figure out an adequate response before
it's too late.
After the bombing in the
Indonesian island of Bali which killed nearly 200 people, some authors wrote
that terrorism had come to Indonesia. Paul Marshall in an article
that appeared in the New York Post 10/15/02 explained that killing there has
been ongoing for a long time:
In eastern
Indonesia, on the islands of Maluku and Sulawesi, ongoing fighting between
Christians and Muslims has left more than 10,000 dead, and up to half a million
refugees. Attempts at reconciliation between the communities, which had lived
in peace and cooperation for many years, were succeeding until mid 2000, when
the Laskar Jihad, a radical Islam militia from the island of Java, intervened.
Using thousands
of trained and uniformed militiamen, often armed with automatic rifles, the Jihad
transformed local conflict into full-scale religious cleansing. It swept
through Maluku, burning villages and killing and driving out Christians (as
well as the few Hindus and Buddhists) while Indonesian government security
forces stood by.
The Jihad then
moved to Sulawesi. In July 2001, thousands of jihadists began arriving, after
officially informing the local governor of their coming. They said publicly
that their goal was to drive out all Christians and institute an extreme
version of Islamic sharia law. Violence is ongoing in Sulawesi, with sniper
attacks, bombings and church burnings. On Aug. 12, the village of Sepe, with a
population of about 1,250, was totally burned down.
Jack Kelley explained the likely
reason for the attack in Bali (New York Post 10/16/02).
It is more likely the Bali bombers were
motivated by animus toward Australia for its peacekeeping mission in
neighboring East Timor, where Australian troops intervened to protect the
Christian majority in that tiny country from Muslim extremists; because the
population of Bali is overwhelmingly Hindu, and Muslim radicals hate Hindus as
much as they do Christians; because Bali represents all that fundamentalist
Muslims despise (booze and scantily clad women are found there);
Zaid Shakir, a former Muslim chaplain at Yale
University, argues that
Muslims
cannot accept the legitimacy of the existing American order, since it "is
against the orders and ordainments of Allah." "[T]he orientation of
the Quran," he adds, "pushes us in the exact opposite
direction."
Daniel Pipes wrote (Fighting Militant Islam,
without Bias, City Journal Autumn, 2001) :
However
outlandish a political goal this might seem, it is widely discussed in Islamist
circles, and the events of September 11 should make clear just how seriously
U.S. authorities must take this ambition.
The fear of the coalition collapsing and loss
of allies was at least partly responsible for the United States leaving Saddam
Hussein in power. Colin Powell counsels a narrow focus on catching those
directly responsible for the World Trade Center attack rather than a broad
effort to topple the governments and kill or arrest the leaders who sheltered
them. According to Dick Morris (New York Post Oct 2, 2001)
Attacking
bin Laden and leaving the Taliban in power is like removing two-thirds of a
cancerous tumor. Going after Afghanistan and leaving Libya, Iraq, Sudan
and theFARC narco-terrorists in Colombia untouched is inviting a renewal of
terrorism from another quarter.
If
our global allies are unwilling to sustain us in the total removal of those who
spread terror in the globe today, we must be willing to go it alone, or with
those allies who are truly loyal. The only way to deal with terrorism is
to exorcise it totally and completely.
There is evidence that suggests that
Iraq aided bin Ladin and it is likely that the United States is turning a blind
eye to this (see the Facing Reality page of this web
site. According to USA Today, 10/2/01, The administration backed a
lifting of United Nations sanctions on Sudan because of that government's
intelligence assistance in tracking Osama bin Laden, the alleged mastermind of
the attacks Sept. 11. Sudan is one of seven nations on a U.S. list of terrorism
sponsors. The White House also raised concerns among conservative and
evangelical activists by pressing Congress to delay passage of the Sudan Peace
Act. The legislation, backed by Christian conservatives, seeks to pressure the
Muslim government in Khartoum to end a brutal civil war against Christians and
practitioners of native religions. "We've trotted out Sudan as an ally in
the war against terrorism. But they are, and have been, using the same
terrorist tactics," says Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., a sponsor of the
bill. "Our commitment to the war against terrorism can't take the form of
appeasement to terrorist regimes and the abandonment of their victims."
Leonard Greene in his column "Deals with the Devil", in the New York
Post 10/3/01 wrote:
Make
no mistake about it, the war against terrorism has already begun, and the first
casualties are proportion and conscience. We are making deals with one
group of terrorists in an attempt to capture another.
The members of the coalition are
making conditions for joining and are not particularly helpful. Saudia
Arabia won't allow the United States to use the Saudi airbase built with U.S.
funds for attacking the Taliban. The Saudis, for whom we Americans fought
and died in the Gulf War and since on bases set up for their defense, have
refused access to the new Command
and Control Center built with the most advanced American technology. The
tacit support given by Saudia Arabia according to Dennis Ross in his New York
Times OpEd "Bin Laden's Terrorism Isn't About the Palestinians"
10/12/01 is given because
They
understand that Mr. bin Laden's network is capable of committing atrocities
against them on the level of those against the United States. Their
support is not a favor to us; it is an act of self-defense.
There is a concern that the Saudi
Crown Prince Abdullah, who seems closer to Osama bin Ladens anti-American
ideology, is now in political control as well as military control over a
massive armory of American equipment. Since 1991, the fundamentalist Islamic
regime has received twice as much military armaments and equipment as the
second largest recipient, Israel. (Defense Daily (10-02-01), carried by
Arms Trade Newswire). Beyond the $35.5 billion showered upon the Saudis,
America maintains troops and round-the-clock air and naval patrols and stations
to protect the Saudis from their 'brother' Arabs, particularly Iraq. Egypt
doesn't help claiming fear that the Egyptian Jihad, which backs bin Laden might
rise against him. The U.S. is afraid launching an attack on the Taliban
from bases in Pakistan will start a revolution in that country since there is
so much pro-Taliban sentiment there. Pakistan's dictatorship played a
role not only in establishing Bin Laden and the Taliban but in creating the
BCCI that funded the PLO, PFLP, Bin Laden, Hezbollah Abu Nidal, -- the world's
most aggressive terrorist groups. As Rachel Ehrenfeld describes (most recently
in "US ignored money trail," Detroit News, 09-30-01), BCCI, seeded
with Saudi petrodollars, laundered of tens of billions from prostitution,
drugs, gun-running and extortion from entire populations. From such sources,
Yasser Arafat alone has an annual income (tracked for years by the British
National Crime Investigation Service) of nearly $2 billion. Primary
couriers of Taliban drugs into Europe are the Kosovar Liberation Army, much
assisted by NATO.
Clinton has been giving speeches (New
York Post 10/11/01) saying we need to provide money to the poor in countries
such as Afghanistan so that the despair arising from poverty doesn't turn them
into terrorists. Osama Bin Laden is a rich man. The Saudis who
fund the madrasahs that graduate terrorists are rich. According to
Adrian Karatnycky (Under Our Very Noses, the terrorist next door National
Review Nov. 5, 2001 p43)
Mohamed
Atta was the son of a moneyed Egyptian lawyer... Another hijack leader,
Ziad Jarrah, was the son of well-off Lebanese parents who subsidized his life
in the West, wiring thousands of dollars to support his academic studies and
pilot's training. Educated in Lebanon at exclusive private Christian
schools, Jarrah played basketball, drank alcohol, and while in the U.S. drove a
red Mitsubishi Eclipse.
Muslim suicide bombers come from
all different socioeconomic strata. Ironically before the attack on the
World Trade Center the United States was Afghanistan's biggest source of
humanitarian aid. The United States gives a huge amount of aid to Egypt
each year yet there is huge hostility among the Egyptian population toward the
United States.
In December 1992 the United States entered
Somalia to feed starving Moslems. Their response was to attack the United
States. Not only has the United States given Moslems aid it has also
fought for them. The two wars the United States fought before the attack
on America on Sept 11, 01, were in Kosovo and in Bosnia to protect Moslems from
non-Moslems. The U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia which bin Laden objects to
were put there to defend the Moslem Saudis from their fellow Moslems in
Iraq. Islam not poverty is the problem. Islam creates paranoia to
the non-believer so even when
they try and save Moslems they are considered to have base motives.
Whitewashing also occurred in
Christianity in which the Romans were whitewashed
in their role in the crucifixion of Jesus.
An article in Worldnet Daily called Bush
meets Putin by J. R. Nyquist, had the following about Western delusions
regarding Russia.
George Bush is heading for his Saturday
meeting with Vladimir Putin with the slogan, "Russia is not the enemy of
the United States."
If
Russia is not our enemy then why has Russia -- supposedly broke and
economically helpless -- developed the world's quietest submarine? Yes, that's
right, the Russians have launched a new undersea boat called the
"Gephardt," which has joined Russia's Northern Fleet. More stealthy
than America's Los Angeles class attack submarines, the Gephardt can avoid
detection by advanced U.S. sonar. This submarine is said to move faster, dive
deeper and hit harder than U.S. or NATO submarines.
Russia,
a country that lacks the resources to fund its civilian and consumer sectors,
yet remains willing to fund its military sector to the hilt. When President
Bush meets President Putin he should ask why this is happening. Why have they
built the world's best submarine? Why have they build the world's most advanced
nuclear missile? Why are they building deep nuclear-proof cities under the Ural
Mountains? Why have they formed an alliance with China, Iran, Venezuela while
renewing alliances with Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba?
Nyquist answers his question as
follows:
Oil
is America's vulnerable point, and oil is at the heart of Putin's strategy. By
consolidating Russia's strategic partnership with Iran, by allying with
Venezuela, by reviving its relations with Iraq, Libya and Syria, Moscow is
preparing for the day when oil may be used to either dictate policy or deliver
crushing economic blows. According to the Institute for Advanced Strategic and
Political Studies, "Russia could succeed in creating an anti-American,
anti-NATO regional grouping that would dramatically upset the regional balance
of power and place Western interests and regional Western allies like Turkey
and Israel in jeopardy."
Nyquist continues:
The
Russian-Chinese alliance, and the pulling together of the old communist bloc,
have left the liberal-dominated U.S. establishment confused and bewildered --
their preconceptions in shambles.
On 5/28/02 J.R. Nyquist wrote:
The
American people and U.S. leaders want to avoid a conflict with Russia. We
want to trust the Russians. We want to believe there will be peace. But there
cannot be peace as long as the Kremlin continues to fudge or violate existing agreements (chemical, biological and nuclear). There is no genuine
state of peace while the Kremlin uses criminal organizations as fronts for
subversion and sabotage across the globe. There cannot be peace while Russia
works to build up the nuclear and missile power of Iran, North Korea and (on
the sly) Iraq. As it happens, President Bush spoke to President Putin about
Russian nuclear technology going to Iran, and Putin rebuked Bush. This rebuke
tells us all we need to know about the Russian superpower. And yes, Russia is a
superpower because Russia can reduce America's cities to rubble in a matter of
hours. President Bush is fooling himself if he believes the Russian side
will keep the Moscow Treaty in good faith.
In an article about Russian and
Chinese support of terror Nyquist wrote: (2002)
U.S.
officials will not acknowledge Russian or Chinese involvement behind the
terror. They are too hopeful and "optimistic" in their strategic
assessments to accept the unpleasant realities of the situation. Better to wait
upon the Tooth Fairy for the guaranteed triumph of freedom and democracy. This
oblivious attitude courts a heavy loss of life from future terrorist attacks.
After these losses are sustained, the U.S. will destabilize.
In his monumental work, PEACE
AND WAR, Raymond Aron writes how wishful thinking led president Roosevelt, to
call Joseph Stalin his "good friend" and to view Russia as an
American ally.
Jonathan Tobin wrote an article called
Nobody
Took it Seriously which appeared in the Jewish Exponent 9/13/01, and
discussed how the warnings of Daniel Pipes and Steven Emerson about the threat
of the growing terror network in the United States were ignored. He
explained:
The
trouble with Pipes and Emerson is that they werent telling us what we wanted
to hear.
Instead
of pooh-poohing the threat of terror internationally and even on our own
shores, they pointed out the strength of the enemy and reminded us that we are
a target.
Ariel Pasko writes that (Prisoner Releases
From Hell, Freeman Broadcast 7/30/03)
In
1985, the then Likud-led Shamir government carried out a prisoner exchange with
the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, releasing over a thousand
Arabs incarcerated for terrorist activities against Israelis, in exchange for 3
Israeli soldiers. All the "Palestinian revolutionaries" had signed
agreements before their release, to foreswear any future violent
activities. Three days after release, one of these "repentant
activists" was brought into an Israeli Hospital's emergency room; he had
blown himself up - what is commonly called a "work accident" these
days - preparing a bomb for his next "revolutionary act" of murdering
innocent Israeli shoppers.
MK Rabbi Kahane had received a phone call from one of the doctors involved,
and tried to publicize the incident in the Israeli media. He spoke to several
journalists. He gave them details of the incident and waited to read about it
in the newspapers, and hear it on the radio and television in the next day or
two. When nothing appeared, he recontacted the journalists and was told, the
story won't appear because the media outlets weren't given permission by the
military censor for the release of the information. Rabbi Kahane,
flabbergasted, tried several more journalists, waited, and the same story
repeated itself. He then contacted the censor's office itself, where he was
told that they wouldn't let the story out, because the government didn't want
the public to know that the terrorists that were just released were returning
to "work".
Koran 4:34 tells men to beat their
disobedient wives after first warning them and then sending them to sleep in
separate beds (The "Hate Speech Smear" Jihadwatch.org 11/1/07). Robert
Spencer was accused of being incorrect and offensive for quoting this.
Numerous translations bear out Mr. Spencer. For example the following
translators all agree that the sentence says:
Shakir: and beat them
Arberry: and beat them
Asad: then beat them
Needless to say there are
Muslims uncomfortable with this command. They translate the verse as:
Yusuf Ali: (And last) beat them (lightly)
Al-Hilali/Khan: (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful)
Khalifa: then you may (as a last alternative) beat them
Laleh Bakhtiar, go away from them.
Spencer writes in regard to Ms. Bakhtiar: "her
impulse is understandable, as many Muslims today regard this verse with acute
embarrassment." Bakhtiar Ali Khan and Khalifa do not want to admit
that there is something wrong with Islam and so mistranslate (creates delusion
about) the Koran's text.
Muslim immigration to Europe has led to an explosion of rapes.
According to one
report "Rapes occurring in and around migrant camps are now so prevalent,
that authorities in Germany are covering up details of incidents so as not to
legitimize critics of mass immigration."
Carol
Tavris and Elliot Aronson wrote a book titled Mistakes Were Made (but not by
me) with a lot of examples of how people delude themselves to justify their
behavior and to confirm their beliefs.I quote one of their examples below:
Take a boy who goes along with a group of his fellow
seventh graders who are taunting and bullying a weaker kid who did them no
harm.The boy likes being part of the
gang but his heart really isnt in the bullying.Later, he feels some dissonance about what he did.How can a decent kid like me, he wonders,
have done such a cruel thing to a nice, innocent little kid like him?To reduce dissonance, he will try to
convince himself that the victim is neither nice nor innocent: He is such a
nerd and crybaby.Besides, he would
have done the same to me if he had the chance.Once the boy starts down the path of blaming the victim, he
becomes more likely to beat up on the victim with even greater ferocity the
next chance he gets.Justifying his
first hurtful act sets the stage for more aggression
A vicious cycle is
created: Aggression begets self justification, which begets more
aggression.
Ive drawn a
vicious cycle diagram of this below.
Paranoia/Delusion Cycle
Guilt Feel guilty that you
hurt an innocent person
Aggression
Attack
an innocent person.
Rationalization
Attempt to justify
ones actions to oneself by creation of Paranoia to the victim.
Creation of Paranoia
Convince oneself that ones
victim was bad and was a threat and deserved to be hurt.
Hiding Reality to Protect Civil
Rights
When Ashcroft was grilled by the 9/11 commission he
(New York Post 4/14/04) :
blasted the
"legal wall" put into effect in 1995 which stopped information
flowing between intelligence agents and criminal probers...
The simple fact
of Sept. 11 is this," Ashcroft said. "We did not know an attack was
coming because for nearly a decade our government had blinded itself to its
enemies."...
"Our agents
were isolated by government imposed walls, handcuffed by government imposed
restrictions and starved for basic information technology," he said...
In testimony,
Ashcroft specifically cited the FBI arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so called
"20th hijacker" in the months before Sept. 11.
"Agents
became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval
for a criminal warrant to search his computer," he said. "The
warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall."
"At that
time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, "Whatever
has happened to this - someday someone will die - and wall or not - the public
will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource
we had at certain "problems," he said.
XVIII Creation of Delusion to Create
a Better World
A classic example of this
is a statue commissioned by the Fire Department of New York modeled after a
photo of three firefighters raising the American flag, Iwo Jima style with the
smoking wreckage of the World Trade Center as backdrop. The FDNY ordered
the sculptor to render the faces of the firefighters thusly: one white, one
black and one Hispanics. Not only were none of the firefighters black,
only 3% of New York firefighters are black. (New York Post Jan 13, 2002 p28)
Joseph Farah was asked in an interview with Frontpage Magazine What
Makes the News Media so Biased?He
answered
I should know, because I was attracted to the news
media for the same reasons as most of my colleagues. I was inspired by
Watergate -- the idea of two lowly reporters for the Washington Post
overthrowing a president of the United States had great appeal to my
generation. You might remember that journalism school enrolments hit an
all-time high in 1973 and 1974, as a result of the scandal, the book
by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and especially the movie version of
"All the President's Men" starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.
As you know, I am a "second thoughter." I
was not a "liberal" in those days. I was a radical. I wanted to
change the world -- and especially the United States. That's what that
generation of reporters had in common. They didn't join the press because they
wanted to seek the truth. They joined the press because it seemed like a good
way to subvert the establishment.
Bernard Goldberg wrote a
terrific book called Bias:
A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News in which he tells how
the desire of the press to be compassionate and to create a better world causes
them to slant their stories. He quoted Peter Jennings as telling the
Boston Globe on July 4, 2001,
Those
of us who went into journalism in the '50s or '60s, it was sort of a liberal
thing to do. Save the world.
One example Bernard Goldberg gives is how the
press exaggerated the extent that AIDS was a heterosexual disease in order to
scare heterosexuals into doing something about it. Mr. Goldberg wrote:
AIDS
gave them a great opportunity to care, to show how compassionate they could
be. To these journalists, AIDS couldn't just be their disease -- it had
to be everyone's disease. Gay men along with blacks and Hispanics might
be segregated from other parts of society, but when it comes to AIDS, we're all
in it together. It was journalism by sentiment. ... They could
unite us all. By God, they could integrate America! As long as they told
us that AIDS was "now everybody's disease," that "now no one is
safe from AIDS," then all of us -- whites blacks Hispanics, men, women
gays, and straights -- would be equals. All of us would be equally
susceptible to the killer virus that, as we were so often told, "does not
discriminate".
It's
a good thing they were wrong. Or else we might all be dead by now.
Another example Mr. Goldberg
gives is the way the press selectively showed homeless people as white middle
class people down on their luck instead of showing people who were homeless due
to drug addiction or mental illness. Mr. Goldberg explains:
If
you want to arouse sympathy for the homeless, you do not put forward
off-putting specimens.
To prevent Americans from being
led from the right path by people they don't agree with the press labels them
as right wing or hard liners. Bernard Goldberg points out that you hear
the press prefix the name of people they don't agree with with the words
"right wing" but that they do not preface the names of people they
agree with as "left wing".
Newspapers and magazines which
have for years been giving Saudi Arabia wonderful PR do so because of the
ads the Saudis buy, the subscriptions they order, and the bribes they regularly
pay Western journalists (See Said Aburish's book: The
Rise, Corruption and Coming Fall of the House of Saud, pages
209-240). The New York Post (5/31/03) writes how Patton Boggs, a
Washington lobbying institution has a $50,000 a month contract to arrange
meetings between the Saudis and members of Congress and the Bush
administration. Qorvis Communication has a $200,000 per month p.r.
contract to promote the Saudis as friends in the U.S. war against
terrorism. According to the Post:
The
Qorvis p.r. blitz included pro Saudi TV ads that some cable networks, including
the History Channel and the Weather Channel, rejected as inappropriate.
Qorvis
also played a role in airing hard-hitting radio ads that called for Israel's
"withdrawal from the Palestinian land it has unjustly occupied for
years."
The
ads were promoted by the "Alliance for Peace and Justice," a group
that Qorvis helped create for a consulting fee paid by Arab-American
supporters.
Qorvis
executive Michael Petruzello said the ads were produced and placed by
Sandler-Innocenzi, a D.C. advertising firm run by two former top officials for
the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Petruzello
- who said he vetted the ads - said the financial backers of the
"alliance" include the Arab American Institute, the U.S.-Saudi
Arabian Business Council and the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee.
There are some very amusing
stories about creation of delusion to make money. Charles MacKay in his
book Extraordinary
Popular Delusions; the Madness of Crowds, writes how in the 1700s, a
ravishingly beautiful 25 year old woman by the name of Lorenza Cagliostro
claimed to have an elixir of youth and spoke openly of her eldest son as a fine
young man of twenty eight. He wrote:
The
trick succeeded to admiration. All the ugly old women in Strasbourg, and
for miles around thronged the saloon of the countess to purchase the liquid
which was to make them as blooming as their daughters, the young women came in
equal abundance, that they might preserve their charms, and when twice as old
as Nin de l'Enclos, be more captivating than she; while men were not wanting
who were fools enough to imagine that they might keep off the inevitable stroke
of the grim foe by a few drops of the same incomparable elixir. The
countess, sooth to say, looked like an incarnation of immortal loveliness, a
very goddess of youth and beauty; and it is possible that the crowds of young
men and old, who at all convenient seasons haunted the perfumed chambers of
this enchantress, were attracted less by their belief in her occult powers than
from admiration of her languishing bright eyes and sparkling
conversation.
The Jewish mystical Kabbalah has
been turned into a money making enterprise. The entrepreneurs behind this
enterprise have drawn in Ritchie, Madonna, Demi Moore and Sandra Bernhard to
the point where Madonna demands "kabbalah water" in all her hotel
rooms. (New York Post 8/12/03)
There is a lot of propaganda regarding the
scientific contributions of Muslims through history. Nir Shafir taught a
class called Science and Islam. He
wrote:
As I prepared to teach my class ‘Science and Islam’ last
spring, I noticed something peculiar about the book I was about to assign to my
students. It wasn’t the text – a wonderful translation of a medieval Arabic
encyclopaedia – but the cover. Its illustration showed scholars in turbans and
medieval Middle Eastern dress, examining the starry sky through telescopes. The
miniature purported to be from the premodern Middle East, but something was off.
Besides the colours being a bit too vivid, and the brushstrokes a little too
clean, what perturbed me were the telescopes. The telescope was known in the
Middle East after Galileo developed it in the 17th century, but almost no
illustrations or miniatures ever depicted such an object. When I tracked down
the full image, two more figures emerged: one also looking through a telescope,
while the other jotted down notes while his hand spun a globe – another
instrument that was rarely drawn. The starkest contradiction, however, was the
quill in the fourth figure’s hand. Middle Eastern scholars had always used reed
pens to write. By now there was no denying it: the cover illustration was a
modern-day forgery, masquerading as a medieval illustration.
Shafir says there are a lot of such fake miniatures and
included some examples in his article. Robert Spencer posted an
article
about the myth of Islamic science.
Pakistan harbored Osama bin Ladin. After American
Special Forces eliminated him, there were widespread protests all over Pakistan.
A doctor who helped the U.S. get Osama was imprisoned by the Pakistanis and
tortured. Rand Paul gave a speech calling for the Senate to cut off aid
until the doctor was freed after which John Kerry got up and said that would be
dangerous.
John Kerry has said that cutting off aid to Pakistan would be
unkind, when aiding a country who is torturing a friend of America is shameful.
Kindness would be sticking up for America's friends. John Kerry said
Pakistan helped the U.S. get bin Laden. Robert Spencer
listed some of the headlines that make obvious what an outrageous lie this
is. I include his links below.
There was a show about the sick relationship between the
U.S. and Pakistan in Australia on the History Channel called "Secret Pakistan",
it detailed in full how American $ goes to the ISI, who then funnel it to the
Taliban, who then kill Allied troops with the support money & equipment.
Basically any American money to Pakistan is literally killing it's own troops.
President Obama knows full well about Pakistan too, an expert on it was saying
how he briefed the President on Pakistan's betrayal for forty minutes onboard
Air Force One.
Jedediah Purdy in his book, Being America
wrote:
Fundamentalist
and nationalist histories are often fabrications. Muslim demagogues in
India recite a litany of violence against their population, neglecting that
these incidents are matched by atrocities against Hindus during centuries of
Muslim rule. Hindu nationalists offer to restore the unity and glory of
a Hindu nation that never existed...
A Soviet
dissident joke was:
"In the Soviet
Union, the future is known; it's the past that is always changing."
In 1989, Sami Hadawi, a Palestine Liberation Organization
representative, wrote in his history of Palestine that the Palestinians'
historical connection was not to the 'Islamic desert conquerors of 1,300 years
ago' but rather to 'the original native population.'[25] The Palestinians, he
argued, 'were there when the early Hebrews invaded the land in about 1500
B.C.'The political motivation for this
is to argue that the Palestinian claim to the area predates that of the Jews.This linkage claim was first made in the
1960s.
There is no archaeological evidence to support the claim of
Jebusite-Arab-Palestinian continuity. Eric Cline, an associate professor of
Semitic languages and literatures at George Washington University, cites
general consensus among historians and archeologists that modern Palestinians
are 'more closely related to the Arabs of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, and
other countries'[35] than the Jebusites of the ancient world. Assimilation,
annihilation, and acculturation undercut any significant connection between
Jebusites and modern Palestinians.[36]
Not one settlement in the Land of Israel has a name that is of Arabic
origin. Most of the settlement names originate in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin or
Roman languages. In fact, till today, except to Ramlah, not one Arabic
settlement has an original Arabic name. Till today, most of the settlements
names are of Hebrew or Greek origin, the names distorted to senseless Arabic
names. There is no meaning in Arabic to names such as Acco (Acre), Haifa,
Jaffa, Nablus, Gaza, or Jenin and towns named Ramallah, El Halil and El-Kuds
(Jerusalem) lack historical roots or Arabic philology. In 1696, the year
Relandi toured the land, Ramallah, for instance, was called Bet'allah (From the
Hebrew name Beit El) and Hebron was called Hebron (Hevron) and the Arabs called
Mearat HaMachpelah El Chalil, their name for the Forefather Abraham.
XVIIIC2 Creation of Delusion with Language
Mallory Millett was
interviewed about her views about feminism. During the interview she
discussed the distortion of language to support agendas. Here is what she
said:
I get a kick out of the feminists’ love affair with the word “empowerment.”
They have clever formulas for ensnaring hapless souls into their deceits. One of
their slicker moves is to create a vocabulary designed to get around long-held
beliefs, mores, taboos or fears. “Pro-choice” is their Newspeak euphemism for
the casual murder of an human being; “Dreamers” means illegal immigrants;
“Progressives” denotes a group dragging us back to the cave; “Sanctuary City”
means a place where no actual US citizen is safe. This “empowerment” thing makes
me especially crazy.
We need only go back to Eden in Genesis where God commanded Adam not to eat
a certain apple. Eve demanded he eat it. Adam obeyed Eve against the will of God
Himself. That’s not power? It only proves that man will do anything to please
woman even if it means going against the wishes of his Almighty Creator. The
point of the story is not that woman is evil but that woman is all-powerful and
definitely runs the show. Woman sets the boundaries. Man is lost if he is
surrounded by bad women. Mae West’s famous double entendre is so appropriate:
“When women go wrong men go right after them.” The Genesis admonition to women
is to be careful of your influence over others because you already, innately,
wield great power.
When Nelson Mandela died Obama made
speeches about how great he was. The American media eulogized him.
Countries all over the Western world sent representatives to his funeral.
Mandela
was no angel. Andrew McCarthy wrote an article titled Remembering Mandela
Without Rose-Colored Glasses. The article opens with:
Go safelyUmkhonto.Umkhonto
we Sizwe. We the members of theUmkhontohave
pledged ourselves to kill them kill the whites. These are lyrics from the
anthem of Umkhonto we Sizwe, or Spear of the Nation. The organization is
better known as the MK, the military wing of the Marxist African National
Congress (ANC). The MK was established by its commander, Nelson Mandela, to
prosecute a terrorist war against South Africas racist apartheid regime.
Obama
spoke of the "heroic" life of the South African anti-apartheid hero
describing him as the "last great liberator of the 20th century" as he addressed
thousands gathered for the memorial service to Mr Mandela in the FNB Stadium in
Soweto.
Mr Obama compared Mr Mandela's actions to those of Gandhi, Abraham Lincoln and
US civil rights leader Martin Luther King. This is good politics for Obama
and insures continued support from black people in the U.S.. Most of the
American media also
praised Mandela, not doing so might have made them appear racist.
When Hillary Clinton wore white to a debate, the
Times called the color an "emblem of hope" and a Philadelphia Inquirer writer
used words like "soft and strong ... a dream come true." But when Melania Trump
wore white, that same writer called it a "scary statement," as if Melania
Trump's white symbolized white supremacy, "another reminder that in the G.O.P.
white is always right."
A black man named Michael Brown was shot
and killed by a policeman named Darren Wilson in Ferguson Missouri.
Ben Shapiro
wrote:
In the immediate aftermath of the Brown shooting, grand
jury documents show, witness intimidation and lying became the order of the
day. Witness after witness told police that local thugs were intimidating
those who had seen the events. One witness told police, according to the St.
Louis Police Investigative Report, that threats had been made to the
residents of Canfield Green Apartment Complex. This witness said that
notes had been posted on various apartment buildings threatening people not
to talk to the police, and gunshots were still being fired every night.
The witness wasnt alone. Other witnesses stated that supposed witnesses
were lying to the media about events, that others who had seen the events
were embellishing their stories in order to convict Wilson.
Michael Brown was whitewashed as a gentle giant in order to villify Darren
Wilson. V.D. Hanson
wrote:
Michael Brown, the young boy and gentle giant and shy
college-bound student, tragically was not simply minding his
own business on his way to grannys as we were told. As in
the case of Tawana
Brawley, as in the case of the Duke stripper, as
in the
case of Trayvon Martin, the mythographies finally
were unsustainable: Brown had just committed a strong-armed
robbery and was lucky that he was not shot by an armed guard
or clerk. He appears on the video as a brutal thug, who uses
his size to intimidate and, in cowardly fashion, to bully a
much smaller clerk. The world of Michael Brown in that store
is the world of barbarism, where there is no law and the
strong dictate without mercy to the weak as they see fit.
And for that matter, the star eyewitness of the street Mr.
Johnson, with a criminal past, should have been arrested as
an accomplice in strong-arm robbery when he accompanied Mr.
Brown into the store as well as arrested for deliberately
filing (another) false witness report.
Brown was walking down the middle of the street under the
influence of marijuana and so he was lucky that he was not
hit by a car. He struck an officer no one denies that
which in itself is another felony. He was not shot in the
back as the community insisted and still dreams. All that
suggests many of the eyewitnesses fabricated stories, the
media misled the public, and the race industry likewise
serially lied. We are back to the doctored videos, altered
transcripts, and fabricated vocabulary of the treatment accorded
George Zimmerman or the
mythologies at Duke or of the O.J. trial.
A grand Jury determined that Darren Wilson the policeman who
shot Michael Brown should
not be indicted. This was followed by massive looting and destruction
in Ferguson and demonstrations all over the United States. If people were
logical they would have thought, the man is probably innocent, the Grand Jury
spent a lot of time analyzing the evidence and they know more than I do about
the case. There would have been no looting. The problem is that a
lot of people are delusion. No outcome of the Grand Jury case would have
changed their minds. If Darren Wilson had been found guilty they would
have felt guilty and gone on a violent rampage as well. When people refuse
to change their beliefs despite evidence, that is a sign of delusion, in this
case willful delusion. The blacks who looted wanted to loot.
They want to feel justified in doing so. They want to feel that they are
victims of white racism.
"But
the leftists who run the federal government need this. They want it badly. A
police officer has to be sacrificed to appease Democrats political base and to
help fend off an increasingly likely Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate in
November."
"Shakedowns are the name of the game for Sharpton and his group, National
Action Network, whose motto is the cry of the rioter, No justice, no
peace.
Every time a black person dies tragically, especially when it happens in a
newsworthy way, Sharpton sees dollar signs and his business partner,
Barack Obama, sees votes"
For Sharpton, the corpses of Michael Brown and Eric Garner are merely
props to be exploited for the purpose of advancing the singular agenda he
has had for more than 30 years, which isto
convince as many people as possible that America is, and always has been, an
inherently racist wasteland that needs to be fundamentally
transformedeconomically, politically, and socially. The facts of any
specific case are irrelevant to Sharpton. For him, everything is about the
larger agenda.
Nor is this anything new for Sharpton. Way back when this utterly pathetic
individual was immersed in his equally pathetic Tawana Brawley rape hoax,
one of his closest aides, Perry McKinnona former police officer, private
investigator, and hospital security directorrevealed the following:
Sharpton acknowledged to me early on that the [Brawley] story do sound
like bullsh**, but it dont matter. Were building a movement. This is the
perfect issue. Because youve got whites on blacks. Thats an easy way to
stir up all the deprived people and all [you've] got to do is convince
them that all white people are bad. Then youve got a movement.
Bachmann spoke about the 2016 massacre in by a muslim
terrorist of gays in a nightclub to WND editor Art Moore, co-author with former
Department of Homeland Security agent Philip Haney of See Something, Say
Nothing. Haney, who spearheaded investigations at the National Targeting
Center, specialized in uncovering Islamic terrorist networks. However, his
investigation was shut down by the Obama administration because of fears his
research showed a connection between terrorism and Islam. Since the Orlando
attack, Haney has alleged a connection between the terrorist attack in Orlando
and the attack in San Bernardino, California, in December 2016.
What Philips story is telling us is that were going down the
wrong road, Bachmann said. Innocent Americans have gotten killed by following
this false fantasy delusional view of Islam, that Islam has nothing to do with
terrorism. Not all Muslims believe it, but this radical ideology is subscribed
to by people who continue to carry out these terrorist attacks
The U.S. State Department
does not want the American battle with ISIS to be seen as a war of America
against Muslims for fear of antagonizing Muslims who are not in ISIS. For
this reason the speaker above refused to acknowledge that America is at war with
ISIS even though as a reporter pointed out ISIS has declared war against the
United States. This is even though America is dropping bombs on ISIS and
working on assembling a coalition to fight ISIS.
Obama's response to ISIS
violence was to state:
So ISIL speaks for no religion. Their victims are overwhelmingly Muslim,
and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents. No just God would stand
for what they did yesterday, and for what they do every single day.
Why does Obama say this? Does he really believe it? Is he trying to
convince Muslims to believe it?
Bruce Thornton wrote an excellent response to this. At the end of his
article he wrote:
"We in the West correctly find such views extreme, or savage and
barbaric, but they are not fringe anomalies conjured out of textual
misreadings by an extremist cult. They derive from the history and sacred
texts of Islam, the clear meaning of which is illustrated on page after page
of Muslim history. And they are being acted upon today across the Muslim
world, as evidenced by the nearly 24,000 violent attacks perpetrated by
Muslim terrorists since 9/11. Contrary to Obama, ISIL does speak for a
religion. Its called Islam."
Heres what else we cannot do. We cannot turn against one
another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam.
That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. ISIL does not speak for Islam. They
are thugs and killers, part of a cult of death, and they account for a tiny
fraction of more than a billion Muslims around the world -- including millions
of patriotic Muslim Americans who reject their hateful ideology. Moreover, the
vast majority of terrorist victims around the world are Muslim. If were to
succeed in defeating terrorism we must enlist Muslim communities as some of our
strongest allies, rather than push them away through suspicion and hate.
The problem with Obama's statement is 1) it isn't true, extremists
Muslims are not only a tiny fraction of more than a billion Muslims. 2)
Islam has defined the war as being against America whether we want to recognize
that or not.
One result of Obama's approach is that he
blocks the FBI from investigating Muslims and instead depends on Muslims to
report if their are dangerous people in their community. In
addition his
Department of Justice actively hides statements by terrorists who explain
they did it for Islam. The Benghazi attack probably would not have
happened if Obama hadn't relied on Muslims to protect the embassy.
In another example of this kind of reasoning a MUSLIM COP-SHOOTER said he
did it In the Name of Islam but PHILLY MAYOR SAYS NO, Does Not Represent
Islam
Voter fraud overall helps the Democrats in the United
States defeat their enemies the Republicans. Matthew Vadum wrote
"Conservatives think fighting voter fraud is important; liberals and
progressives dont care and many of them go further,
arguing that voter fraud is an imaginary problem.
Nowadays the Left unfairly influences election outcomes
by fighting electoral integrity laws in the courts, often enjoying great
success. On Sept. 9, a federal appeals court blocked a proof-of-citizenship
requirement on a federal mail voter registration form in Alabama, Georgia, and
Kansas. This year alone federal courts have blocked voter ID laws to varying
extents in North Carolina, North Dakota, Texas, and Wisconsin.
Voting by illegal aliens and other non-citizens
millions of whom are registered to vote is widespread, according to
a report released two years ago by Jesse Richman and David Earnest, two
political science professors at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Va. "We find
that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this
participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes
including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections," the professors
say, adding that non-citizens favor Democratic candidates over Republican
candidates.
"Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the
pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care
reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress," the
authors write. They
estimate that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008, followed by 2.2
percent of non-citizens in 2010.
Indeed, Al Franken (D) triumphed over incumbent Sen. Norm
Coleman (R) in Minnesota in 2009 by a mere 312 votes after a protracted,
suspicious recount presided over by leftist Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (D).
Illegally cast ballots may have put Franken over the top.
Dr. Rael Jean Isaac, in her
afterword, to "For the Record", a collection of Outpost pieces on Oslo,
(Obtainable from Americans for a Safe Israel)
wrote:
As this selection of articles makes clear, we at Outpost have been right about
Oslo. We not only forsaw the failure of the peace process, but its
specific disastrous implications including the radicalization of Israeli Arabs,
the erosion of support for Israel in the U.S., and the demoralization and
increased divisiveness within Israeli society.
Alas, we can now with equal confidence make further forecasts... The
decline and possible dissolution of the Jewish state, revealing weakness and
vulnerability precisely where Jews and Gentiles alike perceived Jewish strength
to be greatest, can only encourage latent anti-Semitic hostilities, making Jews
everywhere seem once again easy and ripe game...In sum, the influence and sense
of security of American Jews rests far more than they realize on the existence
of a secure Jewish state, which finally wrested Jews from their status as
powerless victims in history. As Israel's position further deteriorates,
and American Jews find their own status increasingly threatened, they will rue
the blindness they showed to Israel's interests -- and their own.
Politicians of the Western
World, many of whom believe the delusion that if only Israel would go away
their problems with the Arabs would go away as well are in for a terrible
surprise if that ever does come to pass.
The delusion that Islam is a
peaceful religion leads people with peaceful intentions to be sucked into the
religion and to become violent. Ali Sina in an article titled Let Walker
Walk Away, Put America on Trial wrote:
John
Walker is singled out as a traitor, the man who shook hands with Osama bin
Laden and conspired to kill his own countrymen. Yet John Walker is innocent.
The culprit is the society that is now condemning him and prosecuting him. This
young man did nothing wrong. He simply believed in the lies that the American
society, the American media and the American politicians told him. He was
looking for peace and everyone told him that Islam is the religion of peace.
The politicians lied to him, the media lied to him and the society lied to him.
He should not stand trial. It is this sick politically correct society that
should.
The delusion that Islam is not
responsible for the attack of Sept 11th leads Americans to ask, "Well then
who is?" In a comment
submitted by Greg Ofiesh to one of the forum's of Daniel Pipes he wrote:
The
reality today is that Islam is the basis for the Great Jihad- the third World
War today. And the danger of saying, "Islam is not to blame" is
already being seen in polls where Americans are under the impression that men
of Middle Eastern descent are our enemies.
There are many Americans of Middle Eastern descent who are not Muslim that
are patriots, not our enemy. Yet, they will be considered the enemy by those
who are not told the truth, while Persian, Pakistani, and Chinese Muslims
living our country walk free to destroy America.
Insane Policies
This web site also has a related page which discusses insane policies of the U.S.
government.
