Monday, September 15, 2014

Of Monsters and Men

Melanie McDonagh writes:
There are various pieties that politicians observe in the wake of some barbarity committed by Islamic fundamentalists and duly David Cameron observed them in his statement yesterday about the murder of David Haines. Of the perpetrators, he observed:
They are killing and slaughtering thousands of people – Christians, Muslims, minorities across Iraq and Syria. They boast of their brutality. They claim to do this in the name of Islam. That is nonsense. Islam is a religion of peace. They are not Muslims, they are monsters.’
I really wish he wouldn’t. It doesn’t add anything whatever to our understanding of Isis to say that they are not Muslims but monsters. They may not be our preferred kind of Muslims – my own preference is for the C of E sort you used to get in the former Yugoslavia – but they are, unquestionably Muslims of a particularly unattractive stamp. Calling them monsters is an impolite way of abnegating any effort to understand them...
Why must it be an either/or thing? Why can't they be monsters and Muslims? In which case it would not be inaccurate to refer to ISIS, which along with spearheading today's jihad are also successful oil entrepreneurs, Monsters, Inc.


Sully is cuddly...
 



...Al-Bagdhadi...not so much.


Who's the Pinocchio--Khamenei or Psaki?

Iran's Grandiose Ayatollah has made the astounding claim that the U.S. reached out and asked Iran to become part of the anti-ISIS coaltion. To which Foggy Bottom Gilmore Girl Jen Psaki, in major damage control mode (her default setting), responds that the U.S. did no such thing.

Since both sides have been known to practice taqiyyah for the sake of furthering their own interests and covering their own butts, it's hard to know who's being truthful here. However, given the Obama regime's history of reaching out to Khamenei over and over and over again, I'd be willing to bet money that it's Jen whose nose is growing.

Update: From a Reuters report:
In a rare direct intervention into diplomacy, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Washington had reached out through the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, requesting a meeting to discuss cooperation against Islamic State. 
Khamenei said that some Iranian officials had welcomed the contacts, but he had personally vetoed them.

Jen looks good in orange, don't you think?

Justin Trudeau's Lead in the Polls is His to Lose

That's unlikely to happen, however, as long as the Ceeb and the rest of the old-fangled leftist media keep blowing smoke on behalf of this pea-brain.

Here's how I would describe the evolution of Liberal leadership in recent times: Stephane Dion was no sizzle and no steak. Michael Ignatieff was all steak and no sizzle. Justin Trudeau is all sizzle and no steak. Conclusion: the Liberals who lust for a return to power--as they see it, their natural and rightful place in the scheme of things--may have finally hit on a winning formula. Alas, it is one that is likely to turn the country into the equivalent of ground round.


What we'll look like after future former
prime minister Justin Trudeau gets through
with us.

“We are Muslim by Choice and We are Canadian by Accident.”

So says "accidental" Canadian Imam Bilal Phillips, now back in Canada after being purposely expelled from the Philippines (where he was up to no damn good).

Sunday, September 14, 2014

You Gotta Love It When Barbara Amiel Lambastes UN "Human Rights" 'Roo William Schabas

I do, I do (hat tip: FK):
You’ve gotta love Anne Bayefsky. Don’t know her? Well she’s a Canadian unlikely to ever get an Order of Canada. Those go to chaps like William Schabas, OC, a fellow Canadian. Both Anne and William speak about human rights, Israel and the United Nations. The reason Anne hasn’t got an OC might be for her plain speaking: “Why couldn’t the UN . . . sponsor a conference on combating global anti-Semitism?” she asked this week in a jammed meeting room in the United Nations. “Because,” she told the audience, “the United Nations itself is the leading global purveyor of anti-Semitism.” As for William, he’s a hired hand of the UN’s legal pogrom demonizing Israel. You can take a boy like William and make him a human rights industry pro, but you can’t take the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) out of the boy. 
Forty years ago William, a far left member of the New Left SDS, physically prevented the distinguished University of Pennsylvania professor Edward Banfield, an expert on urban poverty, from speaking at the University of Toronto. Many of us did things 40 years ago of which we are now heartily ashamed but I’m going to hazard a guess—and it’s only a guess—that in his heart William is not ashamed of his attempt to curtail free speech. He doesn’t sound like a person who knows the meaning of shame. 
In spite of the many comments Schabas has made—at meetings such as the Russell tribunal on Palestine in 2012—stating his deep animus to Israel and Israel’s record (in his view) of crimes against humanity, he won’t recuse himself from heading the new impartial UN “inquiry” on Gaza. Schabas joked that while Archbishop Desmond Tutu wants Tony Blair in the dock of the International Criminal Court, speaking for himself “ . . . my favourite would be Netanyahu . . .” Favourite? Not Bashar al-Assad, you understand, not Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe, not Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. Schabas thinks we’ve been a bit tough on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the unlamented former president of Iran, who spoke of Israel as “the stinking corpse of the Zionist regime.” Schabas dismisses him as “a provocative politician.” William’s not sure whether the terrorist group Hamas, who started the Gaza conflict by lobbying thousands of rockets at Israel, will be considered in his inquiry...
William's Tutu biased (and therefore the perfect man for this "human rights" assignment).

Hollywood Stars Condemn Hamas in NYT Ad

One wishes that more A-listers has signed up. Nonetheless it is nothing short of amazing that the following, which cites the most infamous anti-Jewry hadith, appeared in the New York Times:
We, the undersigned, are saddened by the devastating loss of life endured by Israelis and Palestinians in Gaza. We are pained by the suffering on both sides of the conflict and hope for a solution that brings peace to the region.

While we stand firm in our commitment to peace and justice, we must also stand firm against ideologies of hatred and genocide which are reflected in Hamas' charter, Article 7 of which reads, “There is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him!” The son of a Hamas founder has also commented about the true nature of Hamas.   

Hamas cannot be allowed to rain rockets on Israeli cities, nor can it be allowed to hold its own people hostage. Hospitals are for healing, not for hiding weapons. Schools are for learning, not for launching missiles. Children are our hope, not our human shields.

We join together in support of the democratic values we all cherish and in the hope that the healing and transformative power of the arts can be used to build bridges of peace.

Turns Out Middle East Christians Hate Jews, Israel Just as Much as Muslims (Who Have Brutalized, Killed the Christians) Do. What Gives?

Re the booing, hissing and heckling that erupted when Ted Cruz stood up for Israel in front of a crowd of Middle East Christians last week, Rabbi Aryeh Spero offers this comphensive explanation:
What is behind the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish attitudes of many Christians from the Middle East? It is because many are Arab and there is great anti-Semitism in the Arab world. Second: They live in Moslem dominated societies and are bombarded daily with anti-Jewish, anti-Israel propaganda. They soon accept the propaganda and begin purveying it themselves. While their religion is Christian, they, as Arabs and Middle Easterners, are culturally, attitudinally, and in ways of habit similar to Moslems in outlook. Many have family members married to Moslems. 
They also retain the original anti-Jewish attitude from the early Eastern Christian years, based on a Replacement Theology justified by claiming the Jews were sinful and therefore replaced by Christians. The re-establishment of the State of Israel was a theological blow for many Mideast Christians who were certain God no longer favored the Jewish people. They remain in denial regarding the existence of a Jewish state. They don’t want it. 
Many consider the Jews alien and European, since many Christians are Arab or partially Arab. They will not let themselves feel part of a Jewish state. So, when in the late 1960s the Moslems in the region began identifying themselves as "Palestinians," the Christian Arabs also began identifying as Palestinians as a way to distinguish themselves from Israelis/Jews. (Ironically, up until the 1948 re-creation of Israel, the Jewish residents were called Palestinians, a name originally given to them by the Romans.) 
Many feel part of the "Palestinian" rebellion and, like the Moslems, many would like to see the removal of the Jewish State. No doubt, many have been terrorized and threatened by local Islamic groups and have cast their lot with them so as to survive. 
Perhaps, the most important point is that they are not Americans. Americans, be they Protestant, Catholic or secular, are a very open, gregarious, and tolerant people. But, in the Arab/Moslem Mideast, much is based on tribalism, clan, ethnic or religious identity. These are not societies built on the openness and free-flow we have here. Americans are exemplary people when it comes to openness. In contrast, many European Catholics still remain anti-Jewish, as are many of the Latinos coming here from south of the border. Perhaps in a generation or so the Middle East Christians who have settled here may become less anti-Jewish. 
Finally, there is the envy factor. Many are jealous that Israel has produced a strong, independent country whereas Christians have not done so in the Mideast. Israel chose independence and great sacrifice, whereas the Christian communities allowed themselves to be subsumed under the Islamic majority. They made alliances with Moslem groups. Perhaps, their Christian ideals taught them not to fight, a form of pacifism. Whatever the case, their way to answer that failure seems to be condemning Israel. Israel, in their mind, is somehow foreign to the region and doesn't belong there; the familiar scapegoating routine of Jews being "too successful, too wealthy, too represented."  In other words, the Jews are guilty... because they are successful.

Diana West: It's Time to Stop the Madness of the Past 13 Years

I don't agree with her premise that America can, in essence, return to its old isolationist ways; in this day and age, I don't think that's desirable or even possible. Moreover, retreating from the jihad will serve only to empower the jihadis, and it won't keep the homeland safe. That said, I do agree with some of her thoughts about how Americans have been told to think about Islam (i.e. that it's peaceful and compatible with democracy) and the jihad (i.e. that it's a matter of "terrorism" and not the latest edition of Islam's ongoing holy war). And, as always, her ideas make for a riveting read:
For the past 13 years, it has been the flawed crux of U.S. foreign policy to micromanage “moderates” in the Islamic world by waging “counterinsurgencies” as a means of defusing the “extremism” of Islam. This failed effort has had the disastrous effect of calibrating America’s fate – as well as exhausting our military and emptying our treasury – according to the rise and fall of Islamic strongmen and blocs.
It gets worse. Now, President Obama plans to fight against ISIS in Iraq and to support ISIS-allied forces in Syria. This makes no American sense. Repel ISIS (or al-Qaida, or Hezbollah, etc.) at our borders, but don’t pretend there is an American “side” in Iraq or Syria. The United States’ fate is not Iraq’s fate, not Syria’s fate, not Afghanistan’s fate. Entangled, however, we have grown used to thinking in such terms. Maliki is causing gridlock in Iraq? An American problem. Abdullah is threatening to bug out of elections in Afghanistan? An American problem.
Why? Who cares? Cut the apron strings and the funding streams and learn from our leaders’ mistakes. Acknowledge publicly that “moderates” in the Islamic world are as common and/or as reliable as unicorns, and “extremism” is the basis of Islam, and formulate new policy. 
Remember “Islam is peace”? That was George W. Bush reaching out to the Islamic world right after 9/11 rather than sitting back and building a good, high and high-tech border fence to the north and south. It was also Bush, as some people (Fox News, for example) seem to forget, who presided over the redaction of the 9/11 Commission Report, and the stripping away of the language of Islam from government communications, making it impossible for officials to have a sensible discussion about Saudi Arabia or Islam ever since. 
Barack Obama has gone further still, for example, nullifying our borders and entering the so-called Istanbul Process with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to penalize criticism of Islam. Which does make me wonder: How can the administration that brought you Fort Hood as “workplace violence” now distinguish between an ISIS terrorist and a “vetted moderate”? 
Such hyper-foreign policy, not to mention such hyper-censored policymaking, would surely have stumped the Father of Our County and probably his next 30 or so successors. How, they might have asked, could it have been in the American interest to write Shariah-based constitutions for failed Islamic states across the globe? What, they might have wondered, was there to celebrate in Yourtown, USA, when Iraqis voted for Chalabi, no, Allawi, no, Maliki, no, what’s-his-name? How was our dangerously porous border with Mexico, with Canada, made any more secure if U.S.-protected Sunni sheiks were paid by U.S.-protected Shiite bureaucrats in Baghdad in the name of Iraqi security? How was American liberty safeguarded when U.S. soldiers risked life and limb (and intestinal health) to eat goat, drink tea and give stuff to far-flung Afghan tribal elders? 
While any American interest (or business) escapes me, such matters – and so many more – became the obsession of federal officials who really seemed to believe that U.S. security depended on “nation-building” on the other side of the globe. They waged their doomed “counterinsurgencies” by bidding for the favor of alien Islamic peoples with the blood of American soldiers and staggering sums of American money. Remember “courageous restraint” (self-restrictive rules of engagement)? Remember the beaucoup bucks distributed willy-nilly from the CERF (Commanders’ Emergency Relief Fund)? You give (sell) us your “hearts and minds,” your “trust,” the U.S. government told Iraqis and Afghans, and we’ll give you armies, generators, roads, hospitals, dams. We’ll teach our soldiers to handle the “holy Quran” as if it were “a fragile piece of delicate art” (Gitmo directive), and our Marines not to relieve themselves in the direction of Mecca (true story). We’ll soft-pedal the pederasts, “dancing boys,” child rapists and even killers of our own men among you. And don’t worry about bringing in that record Helmand opium harvest. 
It’s time to recognize what went wrong so we never commit such irresponsible folly again. 
After all, 13 years later, what do we have to show for everything? Was there method to this madness?
Okay, I have another quibble: the border with Canada isn't nearly as porous as the one with Mexico (as anyone who has ever been stopped trying to bring contraband Kinder eggs from Canada into the U.S. by car can attest to.)

A Loopy Lefty Double-Header: Ceeb Radio's "Sunday Edition" Hypes Justin Trudeau and Naomi Klein on the Same Show

You can listen to the gushing interviews (if you have the stomach for it) here and here.

Jihadis Beheading a Brit Leads David Cameron to Draw the "Obvious" Conclusion--That "Islam Is a Religion of Peace"

Time to wake up and smell the age-old jihad imperative, Dave.

ISIS Beheadings Part of Successful Campaign to Spark Jihad Recruitment

If you thought they were decapitating infidels just to piss us off, think again.