This Sunday, Khalifa Sufyaan will open the doors to Perth's first Islamic cinema, hopefully ushering in both Muslims and non-Muslims to its first screening of a famous 1970s epic. The men will sit on one side and the women on the other, an arrangement he concedes will not be conducive to an afternoon of romance. "It is not like the Hoyts cinema where you go with your boyfriend and girlfriend," Mr Sufyaan said. The screenings, to run once a month at the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre in Thornlie, are designed to break down barriers between Muslims and non-Muslims and allay some of the fears and misconceptions that have been generated since the September 11 attacks in the US.
"We are trying to let the West Australian people know more about Islam and to live in harmony," he said. "People are scared of us. They see a Muslim walking down the street and think it is (Osama) bin Laden or something. It is such a stereotype. Muslims are very sad that we have been put in the spot as the people who are going to threaten the whole world. It is really hurting us as Muslims." The cinema has been floated for some time by members of the Perth-based Daawah Association, of which Mr Sufyaan is president. The association even hopes to produce some of its own films to show at the screenings. Until then it will make do with international movies, Islamic documentaries and cartoons.
First up for screening on Sunday is the 1976 epic The Message, which stars Anthony Quinn as a desert-dwelling Arab who leads the prophet Mohammed's followers into battle. Produced by Moustapha Akkad, who later produced the Halloween series, the film recalls a turbulent time in the Middle East and the birth of the Islamic faith. English-language cartoons produced in the Middle East, based on biblical and Koranic teachings, will also be screened at the cinema for children and young families. Mr Sufyaan expects the cinema will prove popular with Perth's relatively small, 25,000-strong Muslim community but also hopes many non-Muslims will go along. "Since September 11 especially, there has been a high number of people who are willing to watch these movies. People are keen to know what is going on, why some Muslims are doing these things," he said. "It has brought people closer to understanding Islam."
Posted by: TS(vice girl) ||
07/23/2004 1:21:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If you are in the mood for a blacked out, but mullah approved, movie screen, this is the place for you.
Posted by: ed ||
07/23/2004 2:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"We are trying to let the West Australian people know more about Islam and to live in harmony,"
What a giant step forward - inviting Australians to share the cultural benefits of sexual segregation and misogyny. What next, subsidised stoning holidays in Arabia for the curious kaffir?
#3
Segregation,yea thats the ticket,that will help people live in harmony(stupid ass).
I would never take my wife and daughter(they would gang-up,beat my ass and do a Bobbit on me)to such a travisty.
#4
"It has brought people closer to understanding Islam."
Right. People are becoming more informed about the reasons why it should be rejected. I have a long list of good reasons now to think its the worst religion of all where as before I learned anything about it, I thought it was pretty much the same as all the others.
This could be a good thing if it warns Australians about Islam.
This guy is really living in a dream world isn't he?
Posted by: Chris W. ||
07/23/2004 11:10 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The cinema is serving as an arm of jihad, aimed at:
1) seeking converts,
2) further defining/solidifying Islamic identity for Perth's Moslem community,
3) gathering funds for the jihad,
and 4) weakening the understanding/resolve of the Austrialians against the very real threat of their stated goal of Islamic world-domination.
And I'll bet the film OSAMA will be banned, and Michael Moore's film promoted.
Folks, this ain't a joke. Australians and Americans should continue to be VERY SUSPICIOUS of any and all "overtures" toward them from the Moslem community (BTW--it's not natural to Islamic culture to make overtures of this type), unless the Islamic group has made it public policy to DENOUNCE, CONDEMN, and PLEDGE TO ELIMINATE the threat of radical Islam from the face of the planet. Anything less is just smoke and mirrors. Their real plan is to:
Disrupt
Re-educate
Convert
Cause Panic
Take Lives
Diminish confidence in government and law
Assume greater power
Enforce control
And they don't care if it takes a thousand years.
Notice that Mr. Sufyaan only talks about how terrible it is that the Moslems in Perth--who have not renounced the actions of the jihadis--are met with suspicion by non-Moslems? This specific war tactic is to induce guilt and self-examination among non-Moslems, with the aim of making non-Moslems more compliant regarding the goals of an Islamic World State. "Muslims are very sad that we have been put in the spot as the people who are going to threaten the whole world."
Well, they already ARE threatening the whole world--except for China. (Hmmm. And why is that, I wonder.)
Hajibs, Islamic cinemas, living in non-Moslem countries when you're a Moslem, bombs, espionage at the FBI, attempting to bully your host country by using their culture of caring against them . . . it's all part of the same plan. They want to make everyone else subserviant to themselves.
#8
The men will sit on one side and the women on the other
This is actually a good thing for the girls and women in the crowd. They are out of acid throwing range of probably even the best muslim-p mens' arms. You never know when a woman or a girl may suddenly have lustful thoughts about Anthony Quinn, or some other fool thing.
The muslim-p man of the house will have to be content to wait to get home to beat them or throw acid in their face, or kill them...to save the muslim-p man's honor.
#9
#8-This is actually a good thing for the girls and women in the crowd. They are out of acid throwing range of probably even the best muslim-p mens' arms.
The problem is, women in southeast Asia use this technique as a sort of passive/aggressive lashback at husbands folling around and taking second wives. So there goes that theory (but I like the way you're thinking!)
Separated theatre-this religion is so petrified and shamed by sex that they have to physically separate people from one another. Apparently, if their bodies respond, they lose all will power and will do it like bunnies all over the place, including the theatre.
#10
And what happens when a woman shows up and demands to be seated in the men's section? Doesn't Australia have anti-segregation laws, or can other theaters make the "coloreds" sit in the back too?
#11
Anonymoose...there you go screwing things up again. Don't you know that this only works in dictatorial, muslim countries that are stuck in the 7th century that are enlightened???
Solana: EU has role in Mideast peace talks, like it or not
By Aluf Benn
The European Union will be involved in any Israeli-Palestinian peace process, whether Israel likes it or not, EU foreign policy chief [and noted apologist for Palestinian terror] Javier Solana said during a visit to Israel yesterday.
well since the EU has been subsidizing the terrorists, I guess they have a fiduciary interest in seeing their investment pays off
Posted by: mhw ||
07/23/2004 11:46:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Solana: EU has role in Mideast peace talks, like it or not
#2
Israel to EU: Involved in what? The talks are over, Israel did something, a whole bunch in fact, that worked and resulted in a LOT more peace (and fairness) than anything the EU has ever accomplished.
And, sure as a gun, as soon as the Palestinians couldn't actively continue to kill Israelis every day, they turned on each other, like animals.
Perhaps the EU should now insist that it has a role in bringing peace between the various Palestinian factions.
#6
#2And, sure as a gun, as soon as the Palestinians couldn't actively continue to kill Israelis every day, they turned on each other, like animals.
At least there's a happy ending to all this.
Memo to the EU: It's nice to see the formalizing of what was once unspoken European anti-Semitism. At least it's out in the open now so all right thinking people can tell you to cram it with walnuts and pound some sand afterwards.
Victor Davis Hanson
What exactly do we think is going on in Iraq? The Democratic platform hedges on the war, suggesting that reasonable people can argue over the need for last year's intervention — as if Dennis Kucinich and Joe Lieberman have only slight disagreements about our involvement. John Kerry and John Edwards voted for the war, but not for its funding. But they say that we must persevere — although they are still against it. They want more allies now, but do not tell us what Mr. Bush should do differently to get them. Their half war is like being half pregnant.
Meanwhile, emboldened paleoconservatives now talk about the war as a betrayal of old-fashioned republicanism. Even a few neocons seem to have bailed, sometimes blaming Rumsfeld for not following their grand plan of "nation-building," sometimes suggesting that the idea all along was to topple Saddam and then more or less leave. Bremer was acclaimed at first as more astute than Garner, then about the same, now worse — perhaps tomorrow he'll be thought better again.
What is going on? In two words: perception and politics. No one will bet the ranch on whether Iraq will descend into a Lebanon or be seen as a singular success that began to end the pathology of the Middle East. So they hedge, jump back and forth, and want to be on the "right" side — whatever that appears to be each morning. Backing a three-week war in 2003 that ended with less than 200 combat dead and the end of Saddam is one thing — that brought an immediate post-bellum gush from talking heads: "We are all neoconservatives now!" But right before an election, continuing that support for the intervention — through another 700 dead and a messy 15-month path to Iraqi sovereignty and constitutional government — well, that of course turns out to be something quite different.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Voting for war but not for military funding is not "anti-war" statement. It's more of a "thrifty-war" statement. Calling Kerry/Edwards thrifty-warriors (or another better formulated silly moniker) might accentuate the silliness of their policy position.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/23/2004 22:18 Comments ||
Top||
EFL - yesterday, the Post had a straight factual news article; today, its all anti Bush spin
More Revelations in Berger Inquiry
Wider Circle in Administration Claims Prior Knowledge of Probe
By Mike Allen and John F. Harris
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 23, 2004; Page A08
For the second day in a row, administration officials said yesterday that more of President Bush's aides knew about an investigation of former Clinton national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger than the White House originally acknowledged...
Posted by: mhw ||
07/23/2004 8:43:14 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
See? See? SEE?? BUSH KNEW ALL ALONG!!!!!!!!!!
[/clueless]
So f*cking what? Are these reporters so stupid they actually think that's the issue? Or are they so arrogant they think the American people are dumb enough to believe them when they concoct a "Bush Knew" scandal that doesn't even make sense?
It's one thing for the press to be biased; I can both understand and forgive bias. After all, we each have our own point of view, and our own catalog of things we've internalized as fundamental truths. I don't expect reporters to be perfectly logical, perfectly neutral, utterly disinterested spectators of the events they report: to demand that would be to demand more than I myself could deliver, were I in their position.
But this isn't bias; this is outright dishonesty, deceptiveness, and collusion between "news" reporters and the Democratic Party.
Where is all this going to lead? Sometimes I wonder if these assholes have sense enough to refrain from the kinds of abuses that someone, someday, might decide can only be solved by internment camps.
It seems to me that democracy can only work if we can trust one another to at least deal in good faith; when we can no longer trust in that, the whole thing is in danger of crashing down around our feet.
I think we're close to that now.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/23/2004 9:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Only in America can a Democrat commit a crime and it's the fault of a Republican. Good thing not everyone is as stupid as the LLL press. I can't find a single Democrat in my office (and there are tons) that wants to defend the 'Begerliar'. these are people who still think Clinton DID NOT lie.
#3
It seems to me that democracy can only work if we can trust one another to at least deal in good faith;..
Good faith and a large majority of today's Left are completely incompatible. They're remarkably similar to Arab terrorist organizations; any good faith gesture by the opposition is perceived as weakness and is to be taken advantage of appropriately, the end aim being the acquisition of power, with little or no regard to the consequences of their methods.
FBI warns of possible attack on media vehicles
There's a new warning of possible attacks at the Democratic National Convention next week in Boston. The FBI says the targets could be news media vehicles. And the attackers could be a radical domestic group. This is the usual Fed euphemism for right-wing "militants."
In a statement, the agency says there are unconfirmed reports that a domestic group will try to disrupt the convention "by attacking media vehicles with explosives or incendiary devices." TV stations were warned yesterday. Satellite trucks are already stationed at the FleetCenter, where the convention begins Monday. Media: "Why do they hate us?"
#1
The most likely explanation for this is that some arm-chair commando has cooked up an elaborate plan for this, complete with improvised explosives and personal derring-do then discussed it on the net with like-minded individuals, and now it has spread so much that the FBI can't track it to the source.
From the New York Sun, edited for the money quotes:
In June of 1999, another plan for action against Mr. bin Laden was on the table. The potential target was a Qaeda terrorist camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms. The commission report released yesterday cites Mr. Berger's "handwritten notes on the meeting paper" referring to "the presence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60-65 casualties."According to the Berger notes, "if he responds, we're blamed."
On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council's counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: "In the margin next to Clarke's suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, 'no.' "
In August of 2000, Mr. Berger was presented with another possible plan for attacking Mr. bin Laden.This time, the plan would be based on aerial surveillance from a "Predator" drone. Reports the commission: "In the memo's margin,Berger wrote that before considering action, 'I will want more than verified location: we will need, at least, data on pattern of movements to provide some assurance he will remain in place.' "
In other words, according to the commission report, Mr. Berger was presented with plans to take action against the threat of Al Qaeda four separate times — Spring 1998, June 1999, December 1999, and August 2000. Each time, Mr. Berger was an obstacle to action. Had he been a little less reluctant to act, a little more open to taking pre-emptive action, maybe the 2,973 killed in the September 11, 2001, attacks would be alive today.
It really doesn't matter now what was in the documents from the National Archives that Mr. Berger says he inadvertently misplaced. The evidence in the commission's report yesterday is more than enough to embarrass him thoroughly.He is a hardworking, warm man with a wonderful family, but his background as a trade lawyer and his dovish, legalistic and political instincts made him, in retrospect,the tragically wrong man to be making national security decisions for America in wartime.That Senator Kerry had Mr. Berger as a campaign foreign policy adviser even before the archives scandal is enough to raise doubts about the senator's judgment.
So, it may not be the draft documents Berger wanted lost, it may be the notes in the margin that he and others in the Clinton administration wrote. If they are like every other government document I've reviewed and commented on, there's a routing sheet or stamp you initial to show you've read it. The margin notes could be very revealing, which is why they had to be destroyed.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/23/2004 1:27:27 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The article's characterization of Berger's approach to foreign policy in terms of simply walking away from every problem explains a lot about that administration. It is probably possible to get away with walking away or papering over problems for a 4-year term, but into the second term, the problems start to pile up to critical mass. But by late in the second term, the Clintonians were set in their ways and decided to just ride out problems like the USS Cole, and leave it for the next administration. The question is will a Kerry adminstration try the same trick, or has the lethal legacy of the Clinton years made that impossible?
#2
I'd say that world events have made that impossible. Clinton and his team had a very difficult time with any decision involving the military, especially if there was going to be a real fight. My guess is that a Kerry team would be no different. People will see this, despite MSM efforts to cover their mistakes. If we are attacked again during a Kerry administration, then I think it will be the last Dem administration that runs this country for a long, long time.
Posted by: remote man ||
07/23/2004 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
camp in Afghanistan known as Tarnak Farms
Ah ha! I believe the answer lies in hermitcally sealed mayo jar on the front porch of Funk and Wagners beachhouse.
#4
The fact that Kerry was using Berger as a foreign policy advisor does not bode well for the possibility of Kerry breaking from the generally pacifist leaning of the Clinton years. However if Kerry does not distance himself from the pacifist approach, he would be, as you say RM, risking the burial of his party.
#5
I sincerely doubt that distancing himself from a pacifist leaning will be possible as this man made his career on pacifism and pulling the US out of Vietnam.
In this sense, 9/11 has taught us that terrorism against American interests "over there" should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against America "over here." In this same sense, the American homeland is the planet. But the enemy is not just "terrorism," some generic evil. This vagueness blurs the strategy. The catastrophic threat at this moment in history is more specific. It is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism —especially the al Qaeda network, its affiliates, and its ideology.
As we mentioned in chapter 2, Usama Bin Ladin and other Islamist terrorist leaders draw on a long tradition of extreme intolerance within one stream of Islam (a minority tradition), from at least Ibn Taimiyyah, through the founders of Wahhabism, through the Muslim Brotherhood, to Sayyid Qutb. That stream is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both. It is further fed by grievances stressed by Bin Ladin and widely felt throughout the Muslim world—against the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, policies perceived as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, and support of Israel. Bin Ladin and Islamist terrorists mean exactly what they say: to them America is the font of all evil, the "head of the snake," and it must be converted or destroyed.
It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common ground—not even respect for life—on which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated.
#1
It is not a position with which Americans can bargain or negotiate. With it there is no common groundânot even respect for lifeâon which to begin a dialogue. It can only be destroyed or utterly isolated.
I had that figured out on 9/12, figures the feds would by 3 years late on it.
#2
That stream is motivated by religion and does not distinguish politics from religion, thus distorting both.
I wonder how long Islam will take to realize that once it becomes identified as a political (and not religious) movement its lifespan will become very brief. They have a very short while to prevent this from happening. After that the gloves will be off for all Muslims and not just the Islamists.
Heard an amazing exchange on the Hugh Hewitt show last night. Hugh was interviewing Peter Beinart, the editor of the New Republic. Hugh wanted to talk about Sandy Berger cramming sheaves of classified papers down his codpiece. Beinart admitted that it could be a troublesome matter, but he reserved judgment; he was willing to admit that Sandy Berger existed, but whether he stole documents was a different matter. Time would tell. "Berger's one of us. We have to protect him."
Anyway, it was testy, but then it got harsh.
I was listening. "Harsh" is a Lileksian understatement; Beinart had a full-bore major-league AlGore/Howard Dean meltdown.
Beinart snapped that Hugh was getting his "marching orders from the RNC," which is lunatic nonsense. Even if I didn't know Hugh, I do know the talk radio business, and people don't get a daily briefing from Lord Rove, okay? It's the sort of thing said by people who do — not — understand — talk radio, and think it's orchestrated by chortling neo-cons smoking cigars with a Star of David on the band. Not to say Beinart believes that, but I'd never heard him put on the waders and head into the fever swamp before, so that was odd. "put on the waders and head into the fever swamp" -- I love that phrase!
But he followed it with a hissy-fit completely irrelevant to the topic, demanding to know if there were two issues where Hugh thought Kerry was better than Bush. Hugh couldn't think of any.
"Then you are a hack," Beinart spat. And he said it again, and again. "You are a hack."
It was the most uncivil exchange I've ever heard on a talk radio show between a host and a regular guest. Part of Beinart's frustration was Hewitt's unwillingness to marvel at the feet of the 9/11 Commission's report. I understand. There are few words that stir the blood of a Beltway wonk like "the Commission has issued its report." That means that those in the government must now react, importantly, and those in the media must now react as well — dissect, digest, explain to the benighted groundlings what it means, and issue Important Recommendations by way of reasoned editorials aimed at the corridors of power, but more likely received by a schoolteacher in Iowa who photocopies it off and puts it on the bulletin board in the staff lounge with yellow highlight-lines through the better parts.
The commission has issued its report! Mo better, the commission has issued recommendations! And the Washington press corps open their beaks, spindly necks trembling, waiting for the savory worm to be dropped from the blue-ribbon mother bird.
Unless you've spent some time in DC you can't imagine the tremendous self-importance that possesses the people who feed off the government. You can see the same phenomenon at work in state capitals and county seats, but DC is the championship arena for this sort of thing.
They're like people who live in the same town where NASA has a tracking station, and think that it makes them all astronauts. And so it comes to pass that a perfectly reasonable talk show host wants to talk about an out-of-power guy stuffing annotated memos in his garters, and because he doesn't want to talk about the two tablets handed down by A COMMISSION, he's a blind hack.
As Beinart said, re: Berger - "That's more important than the commission is calling for a reorganization of the intelligence community?"
Key words: "commission," "calling for," "reorganization," and "community." If those words don't make you swoon, don't go to DC.
Three things:
1. Lileks is one of the two or three best writers in the universe (the others being Peggy Noonan and Mark Steyn, IMNTBHO.
2. I love Hugh Hewitt, and I appreciate his desire to have a diversity of opinion on the show, but I wish he'd just cut Beinart from the lineup. Beinart's a twit who parrots the DNC's latest spin-memo, and he throws a temper tantrum every time Hugh challenges him.
3. There is no limit to the lengths the Left will go to defend one of its own. Sandy Berger could be caught red-handed taking cash from Osama, and Beinart would race to his defense.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/23/2004 12:36:01 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I would add to Lileks, Noonan and Steyn, the name of Victor Davis Hanson.
#2
and he (Beinart) throws a temper tantrum every time Hugh challenges him.
I must digress, Mike. I think Peter's temper tantrums are an excellent illustration of the left's inherent weaknesses when it comes to defending their positions with those quaint notions of logic and reason; all the more reason to keep him in the lineup. That's the premise behind your third comment, methinks.
Hewitt's homepage links to three of his affiliates who provide streaming audio. I listen to him on KTKZ, Sacramento, from my desk in Akron, Ohio.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/23/2004 14:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Mike-
I had a desk in Akron once - on Exchange, just west of Akron General, with a thoroughly depressing view of Glendale Cemetery.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
07/23/2004 14:36 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Hewitt's homepage links to three of his affiliates who provide streaming audio. I listen to him on KTKZ, Sacramento, from my desk in Akron, Ohio.
Don'tcha just love that? With the 'Net, stuff that was out of reach before is no longer. Oh, and I have a habit at work of listening daily to streamed broadcasts from a few select Australian radio stations.
#7
On the days when the receptionist orders Chinese carryout for the office, I listen to Hit-FM 97, Taipei. I'm also partial to FM-96 in Cork, Ireland.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/23/2004 16:17 Comments ||
Top||
#8
BAR
Any recomendations you'd like to make public? Is Tim Blair on the air downunder?
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
07/23/2004 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, according to the final report of the Sept. 11 commission.
Mohammed conceived the initial outline of the attack six years before its execution and brought the plan to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden because he thought he did not have the resources to carry it out on his own.
The Sept. 11 report, released Thursday, largely reaffirms what has been known about the basic overview of the attacks — much of it first revealed by the commission's interim reports — and contains no revelations about the plot to attack the World Trade Center and government buildings in and around Washington. But it adds fresh details about the people who conceived and executed it.
The report contains the fullest accounting of Mohammed's overarching role from original conception to supervision of details. Bin Laden, too, was fully involved, selecting all or most of the participants, ordering the substance and the location of their training, and contributing to the timing of the attacks and the selection of targets, the report says.
Two key al-Qaeda operatives apparently became acquainted in Tucson in the late 1980s, when the Islamic Center of Tucson admits it was a magnet for extremists.
Osama bin Laden's top agent for procuring weapons of mass destruction lived in Tucson during that time, according to the 9/11 commission's final report, released yesterday. In Tucson he became acquainted with Wadi al Hage, the report said. Al Hage is in federal prison for al-Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa.
The highly anticipated, 567-page report also refers to more than a dozen other people who lived in Arizona from the 1990s through Sept. 11, 2001, and who were targeted in terrorism investigations after hijackers smashed jetliners into the Pentagon and World Trade Center. A footnote alludes to "a number of important al-Qaeda figures" who "attended the University of Arizona in Tucson or lived in Tucson in the 1980s and early 1990s."
Some of the links to Tucson were already public. New references in the report direct readers to footnotes that say the information is based on intelligence reports, including 2002's "Arizona: Long- Term Nexus for Islamic Extremists," done jointly by the CIA and the FBI.
That report and other intelligence sources used to elaborate on the Tucson connection have not been made public.
by Matthew L. Wald, New York Times. EFL. LRR.*
The 9/11 Commission Report includes the most detailed after-action report yet on the "93rd Volunteer Infantry."
The idea of a hijacking on Sept. 11, 2001, was unbelievable, even to many of the people who could have responded in time to change the course of events. One of those was Capt. Jason Dahl of United Flight 93, which had taken off from Newark on a flight to San Francisco. . . .
I'm not sure that lead is fair to Captain Dahl; as you read on, you find out that he really didn't have time to do anything.
A United Airlines dispatcher near Chicago who knew that Flight 175 had been hijacked and crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center sent a message to the other planes he was following that morning, one of them United 93. In a text message, the dispatcher, Ed Ballinger, told Flight 93 at 9:23 a.m.: "Beware any cockpit intrusion two a/c hit World Trade Center."
At 9:26, Captain Dahl sent a message back, in quick, abbreviated and slightly mistyped language: "Ed, confirm latest mssg plz Jason." Two minutes later, the hijackers attacked Captain Dahl and his first officer.
Unlike the three other hijackings, Flight 93 continued transmitting over the radio during the struggle in the cockpit. The captain or first officer declared "Mayday," and 35 seconds later, one of them shouted, "Hey, get out of here get out of here get out of here." Later, passengers reported seeing two bodies outside the cockpit, injured or dead, probably the pilots.
Once the hijackers were in control, they knew that passengers were using cell phones and seat-back phones to call the ground "but did not seem to care," according to the report. Yet clearly what the passengers learned in those phone calls inspired their counterattack on the cockpit. . . . "It might not have occurred to [the hijackers] that they [meaning the passengers] were certain to learn what had happened in New York, thereby defeating his attempts at deception," the report said.
The report indicates that Mr. Jarrah, at the controls of United 93, did what many airline pilots have fantasized about since the hijackings: tried to maneuver the plane sharply, rolling and pitching, to keep control of the cockpit. It apparently did not work; the plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania.
The report does not clarify whether the hijackers' goal for Flight 93 was the White House or the Capitol, but indicates that the hijackers tuned a cockpit radio to the frequency of a navigation beacon at National Airport, just across the Potomac River from the capital, erasing any doubt about the region of their intended destination.
At three seconds after 10 a.m., Mr. Jarrah is heard on the cockpit voice recorder saying: "Is that it? Shall we finish it off?"
But another hijacker responds: "No. Not yet. When they all come, we finish it off."
The voice recorder captured sounds of continued fighting, and Mr. Jarrah pitched the plane up and then down. A passenger is heard to say, "In the cockpit. If we don't we'll die!"
Then a passenger yelled "Roll it!" Some aviation experts have speculated that this was a reference to a food cart, being used as a battering ram.
Mr. Jarrah "stopped the violent maneuvers" at 10:01:00, according to the report, and said, "Allah is the greatest! Allah is the greatest!"
"He then asked another hijacker in the cockpit, `Is that it? I mean, shall we put it down?' to which the other replied, `Yes, put it in it, and pull it down.' "
Eighty seconds later, a hijacker is heard to say, "Pull it down! Pull it down!"
"The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them," according to the report, which seems to indicate that the hijackers themselves crashed the plane. "With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes' flying time from Washington, D.C," according to the report.
*Feel free to use the following: login = nytisfishwrap password = dowdsucksSPAN>
Posted by: Mike ||
07/23/2004 6:56:15 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The commentators have it exactly wrong when they say the terrorists got through every line of defense. As this indicates, they failed in at least this one case to get through the ultimate defense, an informed and prepared citizenry. One would hope that the TSA and Norm Mineta would take this lesson to heart.
May God Bless the souls of all those heros on Flight 93.
#2
Gosh stories like this one just make me think that the 'slims have been getting a bad wrap. This really is a religion of peace. Or was it religion of piss? I can never remember.
#3
The Islamists' will never take over an American passenger plane that easily from that day forward. I don't ascribe any higher motivation to the passengers actions other than the will to survive, in doing what they did though, they gave 300 million other Americans an example of selflessness and heroism. I truly hate those murderous Islamist scumbags, I hope they are rotting in hell.
Well...since there isn't such a thing as "Hell", I doubt that they are. They, are merely dead. Small comfort for the lives ruined by their religion addled brains.
The Islamists' will never take over an American passenger plane that easily from that day forward.
And that is why they won't even try. The next time they use planes, it is going to be to blow them up. Imagine if they pulled off several within minutes of each other? They wouldn't need to target any landmarks in order to enrage and cripple us at the same time. Their ultimate goal of "terrorizing" is waning though as time goes on. Each atrocity blunts the terrorizing effectiveness of the next atrocity.
you'll forgive me I'm sure if I won't take your word for it.
By all means don't. I'm just guessing anyway, but it seems logical (in a muslim terrorist way of thinking). I wouldn't want to be on the plane in any case.
#8
#1, you're exactly right. Even if the terrorists in the first three planes met little resistance, it was because the citizenry was UNINFORMED. At that time, the assumption was that it would be a "normal hijacking/hostage situation", so doing nothing and following flight crew orders would be normal operating procedure.
No more. The fatal misbelief of the Terrorists is that the average American is as flaccid, placid, compliant, and fearful as the average Iraqui, easily cowed. The American left agrees, knowing that that fact is true for themselves.
#10
I don't care what the 9/11 Commission says, that plane was brought down in that PA field by brave heroes who had formed themselves into our first 21st Century militia and it didn't hit the White House or the Capitol!
While I believe quite firmly in Hell which is where the terrorist scum are, I equally believe our Flight 93 heroes and heroines are in Heaven where they should be!
May Light Perpetual shine upon them as their example shines on us here in the homeland!
Todd Beamer's "Let's Roll!" in the face of certain death still leaves me in awe.
#11
I don't think the Commission report takes anything away from the Flight 93 passengers. They came heartbreakingly close to recapturing the cockpit, and thanks to their heroism, the plane hit an empty field instead of a city full of people.
Anyone ever tries to mess with a plane I'm on, I know exactly what to do. We all do.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/23/2004 17:44 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I believe the passengers KNEW what happened to the other hijacked flights and KNEW they were dead men walking. Their lives were forfeit and only choice they had was the manner of their death.
I believe they resolved to stop the flight no matter what. They were NOT going to be sheep going to the slaughter. They were NOT going to allow that plane to make a devastating attack.
I believe when faced with certain death, these passengers decided to bring the plane down before the terrorists did. Choosing to die requires a higher calling. Their calling was their Love for America.
I believe they charged the front of the cabin knowing they would all die and the only unwritten chapter was how. They decided, for the greater good, to die bringing that plane down.
They are all heros, not victims. I think of them every day, hoping we other Americans can live up to their glorious actions in the opening battle of this great war of survival.
#13
Anyone ever tries to mess with a plane I'm on, I know exactly what to do. We all do.
The 9-11 atrocity forever changed my own hijacking protocol, Mike. I will snap the spine of anyone who ever tries to hijack a plane I am flying on, or die trying. I do not care if they are incapacitated, I will dance on their backbone until they cannot possibly present any further threat.
It is ironic that I am now no longer allowed to carry my folding hunting knife on flights. Had I been on any of the hijacked 9-11 flights, I would have made sure to bury it in at least one hijacker's neck.
Top al-Qaeda planners of the September 11 hijackings might have cancelled the attack had they known that Zacarias Moussaoui - chosen by Osama bin Laden as one of the pilots - had been arrested, the United States commission investigating the attacks said today.
The commission said news of Moussaoui's August 16, 2001, arrest did not reach bin Laden and top al-Qaeda planners like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed before September 11. "According to (attack coordinator Ramzi bin al-Shaibah), had bin Laden and KSM learned prior to 9/11 that Moussaoui had been detained, they might have cancelled the operation," the report said, using KSM to refer to Mohammed. Moussaoui, a French citizen, is awaiting trial on conspiracy charges connected to the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. He was arrested on immigration charges after he raised suspicions at a flight school in Minnesota.
In its final report, the panel called Moussaoui an "al-Qaeda mistake" and a "missed opportunity". The FBI has been criticised for failing to act quickly on suspicions about Moussaoui, which could have helped unravel the September 11 attacks. The panel gave the most detailed information to date of Moussaoui's importance in the plot. The commission's report said in the month before the attack Moussaoui was being primed to take part as a pilot, possibly to replace one of the pilots who was showing signs of wanting to pull out of the plot in the summer of 2001. Moussaoui denies involvement in the September 11 attacks but admits to being a member of al-Qaeda. The report said that though Mohammed did not approve of Moussaoui, he did not remove him from the operation because Moussaoui had been "selected and assigned by bin Laden himself."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/23/2004 12:03:03 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How many public defenders has this jihadi clown cycled through? How much have we paid to keep the circus running?
#2
No mention of how search warrants to search Moussaoui apt and computer hard drive were denied by the same judiciary that has so far had success sparing Mousaoui, even though he has confessed to being a sworn warroir for alquada
Posted by: an dalusian dog ||
07/23/2004 7:56 Comments ||
Top||
EFL
The United States summoned its ambassador in Manila to Washington for "consultations" yesterday as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell issued the Bush administration's strongest condemnation of the Philippines' decision to withdraw its troops from Iraq as ransom for a kidnapped truck driver. Mr. Powell said the United States was "seriously disappointed" by the decision of Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to bargain with terrorists. "When you negotiate in this manner, all you do is encourage" more terrorism, Mr. Powell said. Now, compare and contrast between spine, conviction and the cowardice of Arroya:
Mr. Powell spoke after meeting with Bulgarian Foreign Minister Solomon Passy, whose country has vowed to keep its troops in Iraq despite the kidnapping and murder of two Bulgarian workers by Iraqi militants last week. Thank you Bulgaria. Nota Bene: I will be visiting your fine country next year. I look forward to being around a people of courage.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher stopped short of saying there would be direct repercussions for U.S.-Philippine relations from the withdrawal, saying U.S. officials "are discussing the situation now." Discuss it? Ooooo, really scary! Ya' know what happens when the State Department discusses the situation, don't 'cha?
Posted by: Dragon Fly ||
07/23/2004 8:25:44 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
From DanielPipes.Org, an article by Daniel Pipes
I am sometimes asked to characterize the difference between the two leading American Islamist organizations, the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the Muslim Public Affairs Council. While they agree on many issues — impeding counterterrorism efforts and forwarding an Islamist vision of America in particular — they also differ in some ways: General Outlook .... Aggressiveness .... Funding .... Geography .... But the current crisis in Darfur brings out what is perhaps the key difference. Unlike the many cases around the world of Muslim violence against non-Muslims ... this one involves Muslims only ...
MPAC responded yesterday by issuing a press release, "Humanitarian Crisis in the Sudan," that decries that "the perpetrator of this crime is indirectly the Sudanese government" and calls on the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference "publicly and loudly" to condemn the violence in Darfur and call for a war-crimes tribunal. It also asks Americans "to write to the Embassy of Sudan, expressing concern about this terrible humanitarian catastrophe." In contrast, CAIR has stayed mum about the whole Darfur matter. When buttonholed by a reporter, its spokesman, Ibrahim Hooper, tersely replied "We don't have enough knowledge of the situation to make judgments." In brief, MPAC takes a public stance of wishing to protect ordinary Muslims from the Islamist furies; CAIR does not. As ever, CAIR is consistently more radical.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
07/23/2004 9:15:29 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is interesting information, I had thought the victims in Dafur were specifically Animist and Christian blacks. Pipes seems to be saying that black Muslims are also targets. This would seperate out CAIR as Arabist rather than Islamist.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
07/24/2004 0:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
As I understand it, the Darfur region in the West part of Sudan is primarily populated by Black Muslims. The Animist and Christian Blacks are in Southern Sudan.
EFL.
A ground-based missile interceptor was installed Thursday in Alaska's Interior -- the first component of a national defense system designed to shoot down enemy missiles. Crews at Fort Greely lowered the 55-foot-long, three-stage interceptor into one of six silos built behind a double perimeter fence reinforced by heavy barbed wire. "We're coming to the end of an era where we have not been able to defend our country against long-range ballistic missile attacks," said Maj. Gen. John Holly, who heads the Ground-based Midcourse Defense program for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency. Five additional interceptors will be installed at the 700-acre complex by the end of the year, along with another four at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. Ten more will be installed at Fort Greely by late 2005, launching the Bush administration's multibillion-dollar system. Cool.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/23/2004 4:28:45 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
now if we are attacked by nkor and we do intercept..will we retaliate?
Posted by: Dan ||
07/23/2004 16:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
No. We will shoot down they litter rocket pee on it and introduce cabbage virus number 3 to the pennisula. All the while broadcasting the Muppets 24 hours a day.
#3
Something sounds odd here. I wonder if much of this is a ruse from the real anti-missile system: air- and space-borne lasers and rail gun weapons?
That is, 747s that try and hit the missile just after launch; then spaceborne systems of whatever type that try to hit it enroute; and *then*, finally, an "interceptor", if the other two fail.
I suppose it makes sense to unveil your *last*
measure of defense *first*, strategically.
Via Drudge.
LIVERMORE - Linda Ronstadt's political message sent close to a hundred concert-goers home early Thursday evening. Really packing 'em in, eh, Linda?
What had been a mellow evening at Wente Vineyards, with the crowd even serenading her with "Happy Birthday" at one point, turned into a rush for the exits by some fans angry by her encore tribute to filmmaker Michael Moore. Oops, she did it again!
"She just had to do it," one fan steamed as he headed for the parking lot. "It was good until the end," another yelled to TV crews waiting outside the concert. "She's getting out of line; it's ridiculous," said Cindy Williams of Livermore, as she left during the last song of the evening. Ronstadt's encore dedication of the song "Desperado" to Moore, the controversial maker of "Fahrenheit 9/11" who she described Thursday as "a great American patriot," got her booted from a Las Vegas casino Saturday and drew cheers, some boos, and a few "traitor" yells from the Livermore crowd. Heh!
Until that last song, the concert had been an evening of good music and happy fans. There was no shortage of conflicting opinions among the baby-boomer crowd, a sprinkling of them dressed in patriotic colors, but it was no referendum on the war in Iraq, no pro- or anti-Bush lovefest, or even a meeting of the Michael Moore fan club. No, it was a concert, and should've remained that way. Nice way to keep pissing off what little fan base you have left.
Concert-goers, who paid from $99 to $249 each for tickets, were well aware of the controversy, but said they just wanted to enjoy the songs. "I love her music, but I hate her politics, and I hope she just sings," said Tina Uzelac of Livermore, who arrived wearing a flag sweater. "These tickets are pretty high-priced, and we're not paying to go to a political rally." Demand a refund, then. Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Raj ||
07/23/2004 11:55:05 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You must be a moonbat,
Talk just like a moonbat,
You must be a moonbat in disguise . . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
07/23/2004 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If you are doing "concerts" of less than 2,000 people,your career needs a serious boost.How about a little controversy,and maybe you can get some free press(did anybody here know if Linda was still alive,much less performing?)and some bigger shows.
Posted by: Stephen ||
07/23/2004 14:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Stephen: If you are doing "concerts" of less than 2,000 people,your career needs a serious boost.
She's still making enough money that she qualifies as a limo liberal. At $100 to $249 apiece, that corresponds to $200,000 for a single night's performance. Let's say she gets $50,000 per performance. If she performs once a week, 52 weeks a year, that's a grand total of $2.5m per year for working once a week.
#6
Zhang Fei,after taxes,agent,business manager,etc. she is probably netting $20-25,000 of the theoretical $50,000.Now you or I would be very happy to make $25,000 legally in one night,but we are not(at least I'm not)remembering a time when we were perfoming in front of 25,000-100,000 fans at a time,making that $2.5mil in a week.Further,Linda is reported as not wanting to perform in Vegas,yet she does(did?).
Posted by: Stephen ||
07/23/2004 16:31 Comments ||
Top||
Al-Qaeda's leaders have faced increasingly aggressive Pakistani military operations in June and July, a senior CIA official said as the agency came under attack for failing to combat the threat from Osama bin Laden before the September 11 attacks. United States intelligence officials think Bin Laden is hiding in Fazl's guest house somewhere along the rugged Afghan-Pakistani border. Military and intelligence agencies from numerous countries, but most significantly Pakistan as of late, have assisted in the search for him over the nearly three years since the September 11 attacks.
After Pakistan's spent two and a half years saying he wasn't there...
Acting CIA Director John McLaughlin has pledged recently that Bin Laden will still be caught.
At which point the lefties will turn themselves out demanding that he get a "fair trial." A "fair trail" will involve demands that he be tried by the ICC, rather than in the U.S. because we have the death penalty and that's nasty. A "fair trial" will involve a team of 57 Arab and French lawyers under the leadership of Ramsey Clark, and can be expected to last for 23 years or until Binny's dead of old age or the U.S. has forgotten about 9-11, whichever comes first.
Old age. We won't forget.
"We have pins on a map. We have reports," said a second senior CIA official, speaking of Bin Laden's whereabouts. The officials briefed reporters at CIA headquarters about a highly critical report released Thursday by the presidential commission investigating September 11.
A nice fix within, say, two or three square miles would be nice...
The commission's report detailed a series of strategic and tactical mistakes made by the intelligence community, including missed opportunities to go after terrorist operatives and thwart the attack. Even today, intelligence veterans have said the agency has no useful idea where Bin Laden is.
In that case, they should hire me. I come relatively cheap.
"It is the same as always. They have a general idea, but they don't have specifics. They can put a pin on a map, but that pin is going to cover 40 square miles, and there is no guarantee he is in the pin area," said Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counter-terrorism chief.
Carpet bomb the area, then defoliate using Agent Orange, and wait for more indications. Eventually there won't be any more indications.
Federal officials have warned of a heightened risk of attack leading up to this country's November elections. The first CIA official said credible evidence suggests that Bin Laden and other senior leaders called "al-Qaeda central" are thought to be currently planning attacks. And where might they happen to be residing? Iran, perhaps?
Other groups sharing the same militant ideology are plotting as well. "You're seeing parallel things going on. You're seeing the continuation of the remnants of the al-Qaeda that we began destroying over time," the official said. "At the same time, you're seeing organisations that took ideological inspiration, themselves trying to conduct attacks. That gives you a picture of the world."
Ideology's part of it, but not even the major part. Financing's the major part.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
07/23/2004 8:39:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...until Binny's dead of old age or the U.S. has forgotten about 9-11, whichever comes first.
I have a better idea...I'd gladly donate a kidney to ol' Binny, as soon as I'm 100% sure that our tissue types are completely incompatible...
By Pakistani writer Khaled Ahmed. EFL
The West is reacting against Muslim immigrants. In Europe more and more people are voting for far-right political parties promising a stop to the influx of immigrants, especially Muslims. In the United States there is much paranoia against Muslim Americans. After 9/11 the mosques are being watched and the Muslims have come under attack from 'patriotic' Americans. One has to admit that the presence of Muslims in the West brings out the dark side of Western civilisation. It has become tough for Muslims to live in the West, even in America, which was more 'free' with its rights for immigrants than any other state in the world. It didn't ask its immigrants to give up their cultural identity to be accepted as normal citizens. Now all that is changing. Khalid Hasan writing in Daily Times (20 June 2004) from Washington is worried about the way Islam is being blackened by a new publicist, Robert Spencer:
'Millions in this country believe that the Muslims of the world are on the warpath against the West in an attempt to destroy the Judaeo-Christian way of life. The tabloids, certain cable TV networks and a number of Christian evangelist groups have played a major role in spreading this myth. Every other day, there is something new on the "great Islamic conspiracy"âŠincluding such "startling revelations" as "details about the numerous footholds that jihad warriors have already established right here in the US," "radical Muslims' open contempt for our free society and their plans to destroy it" and the bad news that the "the clash of civilisations — which many would rather ignore — is already upon us."
Coming from Khalid Hasan, the plaint is worth paying attention to. He is not the kind of Muslim that the new brand of Islam would accept as a proper believer. He is a liberal modernist who fights for the underdog and breaks easily away from the new Muslim tendency of allowing feelings of compassion only for fellow-Muslims. He has been living in the United States and is aware that America did not burden its immigrants too much with the duty of assimilation. You could be 'separate' and yet have 'equal' rights, unlike continental Europe. The United Kingdom was more liberal than France but it could not beat America for the kind of freedom it gave to its immigrant population. At the social level, the UK did react negatively to the unassimilated immigrant communities. The US believed in absorbing the new faiths and cultures and making them American. After 9/11, however, things have changed and assimilation is being subliminally demanded.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
07/23/2004 12:16:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How many Muslims have have been attacked in ALL Western countries vs. the Muslim attacks, murders, jailing on fake blasphemy charges of Christians in just shitty little Pakistan? How many Christians have been arrested for plotting to blow up buildings, airliners, bridges, mosques, sports stadiums? How many Muslims have been attacked in Mosques, cafes vs Christians in churches and clubs? How many Muslims were bombed on a train by Christians? FOAD Muslim pig.
Posted by: ed ||
07/23/2004 0:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Perhaps you should read the rest of the article.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
07/23/2004 0:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Paul,
I didn't see the second page. I only read the first page complaining how Muslims are being unfairly put down. And as you can guess, I have no sympathy left anymore for Muslim complaints, seething and crocodile tears. What Khaled Ahmed writes on the second page is on the right track. I was wrong to attack him.
As for immigrants, esp. Muslim, assimilate or be deported.
Posted by: ed ||
07/23/2004 1:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Still seems like a bunch of mezmeriazied lunatics!
#5
One simple question for Khaled: How many freaking Islamic fascists have you turned in today? If none, shut the hell up.
Posted by: Capt America ||
07/23/2004 2:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I think the Westâs impatience with Muslim Immigrants is a rational response to current events. Members of radical Islamic groups take advantage of the blessings of a liberal democracy to destroy the very institutions that offer them a better life than is available their own country. While the Muslims communities in whose midst these radicals operate are not willing in many cases to notify the authorities of their presence. This is the greatest mistake of the Muslim community. When the next large scale terrorist attack against the American homeland occurs peaceful Muslims may be tarred with the same brush as the Muslim terrorists. Why? Because, since 9/11 the Muslim community has not taken the opportunity to demonstrate their loyalty to their adoptive country and its ideals by purging the radicals from their Mosques.
Posted by: Canaveral Dan ||
07/23/2004 7:47 Comments ||
Top||
#7
No sympathy here either. I will take issue with the idea that ehnic groups don't have to assimilate into American culture. No there is no law that they have to learn English, but if they don't they are hadicaping themselves in this country. they donlt have to shed their identity entirely but they have to become Americans first and then whatever subculture they want. Muslims want the protection of American cummunites but they don't return that by denouncing terrorism. They want it both ways and we are the ones that should adapt not them. Fat BLT chance.
Muslims cannot escape the responsibility of reform in their own religious attitudes. They have become intolerant at home and too aggressive in their host states
I don't think any Rantburger can take issue with that. On the other hand we all have different ideas on how to help Islam reform or even if reform is possible. Similarly we have different ideas on how to treat aggressive Islam in America.
#9
Other than Muslims, most (all?) ethnicities that settle in the USA tend to police themselves. Many Christians line up against extremist Christians. Jews tend to take all sorts of positions, from extremist liberal to neocon, arguing internally as well as publically. We can probably name groups and individuals in each group we hate, and agree with. There seems to be a sort of natural checks-and-balances system that emerges.
On the other hand, Muslims in the USA seem to at best, close ranks and remain mum in the face of their extremists. At worst, they are apologists and supporters.
There is something inherently different -- and dangerous -- about that culture.
What about blacks and Hispanics? The reaction to Bill Cosby's recent statements is proof that blacks have not self-policed their extreme elements.
It is indeed about culture. What these groups have in common is strong group self identification as victims. Until they start viewing themselves as individuals with control of their own destinies, things will not change much. Unfortunately, especially for Islam, this will take a lot of change, Allah willing.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
07/23/2004 9:49 Comments ||
Top||
#11
All we heard after 9/11 was how the West was ignorant of Islam, and that they we educate themselves.
Well? How do you like us now that we've studied you? Should have shut your mouths and left the planes alone. We see you now.
#13
From the Naturalization Act of 1795 (in response to the great comments by Canveral Dan and Cyber Sarge):
SECTION 1. BE it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that any alien... may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States...First, he shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the Supreme, Superior, District, or Circuit Court of some one of the states...or a Circuit or District Court of the United States, three years at least before his admission, that it was, bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject...that he will support the Constitution of the United States;...It shall further appear to their satisfaction that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same...
Note-original lists eligible aliens as free white men (I am assuming this has been updated).
Note-Let's hope that "sovereignty" as used in this oath would include (renouncing) fealty to religious leaders.
Culture A (the West, namely USA) is rolling along.
Culture A welcomes members of Culture B (Moslems).
Culture A continues rolling along.
Certain members from Culture B decide to try and disrupt/weaken/destroy Culture A, while mainstream members of Culture B affirm through silence.
Culture A stops rolling along, and turns toward Culture B with ? ? ? marks.
Culture B remains silent.
Culture A studies Culture B.
Culture B continues to stand by its "fringe" members who are bent on damaging/destroying Culture A.
Culture A knows that not all members of Culture B are bad guys, but since mainstream Culture B members won't differentiate themselves from their own bad guys, Culture A has no choice but to be suspicious of all Culture B members.
Culture B's fringe members continue to make war on Culture A.
Culture A decides to affirm self-preservation, and begins to make ready for war against Culture B.
Culture B "mainstream" continues to remain silent regarding "fringe" members.
Culture A is finally forced to assume that Culture B and Culture B fringe members are identical.
Culture B bitches and moans because Culture A is isn't being as "nice" as they used to be.
Culture A doesn't care anymore, considers the criticism to be just another tactic of war, and begins to eliminate Culture B from its social/political/economic landscape.
Culture B mainstreatm members scream and accuse Culture A of unfair treatment, but fail to separate fringe Culture B elements--and in many instances cooperate with them and help them in their efforts against Culture A.
Culture A targets the threat and eventually succeeds against Culture B because Culture A is morally superior, more intelligent, and has bigger guns.
Culture B is diminished and slinks back to its putrid nether-world existence in home countries.
#17
Can your average Muslim tell the difference between a Wahhabi preacher and a Suffi preacher or are they mindless automatons. If they stopped allowing Wahhabi preachers to take over mosques and preach hate there would be less Muslim terrorists in the west (and everywhere) and less problems for the rest of the Muslims.
but Culture A is not monolithic; there are people in Culture A who actively are anti-A, people who are willing to be allies of culture B for various reasons, people who desire peace so much they support appeasement, people who are so multicultural they can't believe that anyone in B is really evil, people with grievences against corporations in A, etc. -- these groups may win an election someday
Yes and yes. The Democrats have become the party of the victim. It is going to be interesting to see if they can resist the urge to adopt Muslims as a victim group for whom to run extortion scams to represent.
ex-lib
Agreed. It is interesting that another religious minority was locked out of the American power structure and discriminated against until it was agreed by all that it would play by the rules of the American culture. Unfortunately, as this post and comments indicate, some haven't found out about that settlement yet. Let's hope it doesn't take as long for the Moslems.
Fianlly, the Wahabbi's take over the mosques because they've got the money. Where, oh where do they get it?
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
07/23/2004 12:43 Comments ||
Top||
#20
mhw: " Culture A is not monolithic."
True. The anti-A's in Culture A, are actually part of the Culture B cohort, and it's frightening to think that we have a Culture B candidate running for office this election. And Culture B and their friends are bound to attract more to their side--what with every the conservative talk show host demonizing every officer of the court because of the bad ones. The Republicans blithely follow the same reasoning the liberals used regarding the Abu G prison scandal: "all military personel are bad." Or what about basing one's view of politics on Bill Clinton: "all American presidents are womanizing, irresponsible, corrupt, dangerous traitors."
So Kerry and Bush are running neck-and-neck. What do the mainstay Culture A people expect? If idiot conservatives are going to attack the legal system we have because of the failures present in it (at times), let's just do it across the board:
No more dentists
No more doctors
No more columnists or journalists
No more internet blogs
No more military
No more executive branch of government
No more teachers
No more car mechanics
No more movies or music
No more lawyers
No more rule of law
No more Catholic priests
No more pro football players
No more drivers of SUV automobiles
Sounds more and more like an Islamic world to me . . .
The all-out attack on trial attorneys this year, really amazes me. I guess the hundreds of years of common law that produced the foundation for the origins of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which protect the people's right to counsel, the people's right to trial by a jury of one's peers, the people's right to sound legal advice and analysis is JUST BUNK! Fuck 'em all! The founding fathers didn't know what they were doing. Dumb-shits. Let's just protect special interests, especially insurance business interests ourselves, and do away with these unecessary, pesky trial lawyers. Hell--I'm sure I'll never need one. And neither will you. We have so evolved as a society and as individuals, that we simply don't need them anymore. Now, every one will do the right thing and abide by the law because it's the nice thing to do.
Or at the very least, lets get some tort reform going. I mean, it isn't the fault of businessmen if they make bad investments that hurt their multi-billion dollar/year insurance organizations, and don't want to cover their insured clients because it cuts into profit. Hell no! Look--if some rat's ass doctor is out partying the night before my operation and fucks me up so that I'm in chronic pain, can't speak, can't have sex, am tube-fed, can't clean myself, and can no longer work, a mere $250,000 for the rest of my life should cover it just fine. Cheaper for the insurance companies, I can tell you that! And since I'm a conservative Republican capitalist, I gotta do my "duty" to the system and suck it up. Cap the awards, I say! The jury doesn't know it's head from a hole in the ground anyway. I trust the insurance companies that make up pretty true-sounding stories about rip-off clients and bad lawyers (which are never in the court records--minor detail) and lobby the Republicans into a "tort reform" swan song, and I trust the judges. They can decide for me. They can decide my fate.
Whether we're Culture A or Culture B, it looks like, one way or another, we're handing our world to the jihadis on a silver platter--one little parcel at a time. And it kinda makes it hard to know who to vote for, too: Do I vote for Kerry and contibute to the preservation of the people's right to legal help as our conservative (isn't that a trip) system intended--and screw everything else, OR, do I vote for Bush and contribute to destroying the best legal system in the world which keeps our culture intact?
A tough question for an ex-liberal like me.
Joe Islamic: "American lawyers are bad when they're not helping my cause. They are corrupt. Sharia law will save us and line my pockets. Islamic culture is superior. You will see. Vote for Kerry."
Joe Insurance: "American lawyers are bad when they're not helping my cause. They are corrupt. Tort "reform" will save us and line my pockets. Business culture is superior. You will see. Vote for Bush."
Evil is evil. And I hate being forced to choose between them because my culture is at stake. (And you thought I was off topic.)
#21
The reaction to Bill Cosby's recent statements is proof that blacks have not self-policed their extreme elements.
Wrong. This is, in fact, a great example of what I mean. It is exactly what a group does to self-police. They challenge each other. They debate. They air their dirty laundry. And hopefully, "right" will prevail.
But the Muslim community is deafeningly silent. The only voices I hear are groups like CAIR, blaming others (Joooooos) and explaining away the actions of their own.
#22
Ex-lib, like any business there are good players and bad players. Hell, it goes way beyond business of course, right back to culture A & B. Same thing for the plaintiffs bar. It has excesses. I assume you are a trial lawyer given your strong defense of same. I'm surprised that you can't admit that the excesses exist and are having a negative effect on our society. You sound like...oh yeah, the Muslims who can never admit that they or anyone/anything about their religion are wrong.
Posted by: remote man ||
07/23/2004 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Muslim religous culture has enormous problems holding critical dialog. It seems to be hardwired to escalate discordant views to the level of death threats. V.S. Naipaul referred to the fatwa against Salman Rushdie as "an extreme form of literary criticism". Sensible people are going to be very reluctant to stick their heads too far above the parapet in that environment. The fact that so few Muslims in the west are willing to protest radical Islam suggests the level of intimidation is extremely high and/or the sympathy very deep. Either way, I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion that the whole show is stuck in the dark ages.
I agree things are changing for the black community, but Cosby said little that Daniel Patrick Moynihan did not 40 years ago. Since DuBois prevailed over Washington, few blacks have had the courage to say what Cosby did and those who have have been marginalized. Only a black of Cosby's stature and maturity could say these things without fear of retribution. Kweisi Mfume said of Cosby, "'A lot of people didn't want him to say what he said because it was an open forum. But if the truth be told, he was on target."
So culture in the black community is beginning to change. But changing culture is a very slow process and while their will continue to adapt, blacks are decades ahead of where the Muslims in the US are now.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
07/23/2004 16:28 Comments ||
Top||
#26
The big problem is that Islam itself has made it all but impossible for Islam to change, even when it's fundamentally obvious that it needs to. There are parts of the Quran that are blatantly contradictory. There are parts of the Quran that any person with an IQ above the freezing point of water would have to question. But it's blasphemy to even THINK of questioning ANYTHING that's in the Quran. Mohammed, according to Islam, is the LAST Prophet - God CAN'T send another one - that would invalidate all of Islam. That in itself is proof enough to me that Islam is a fraud - God limiting Himself that severely. The entire Quran is full of such contradictions - as well as a constant effort to consciously refute every word in the Jewish Bible - God doesn't change His Mind that drastically, not after being internally consistent for more than 3000 years. Until the Muslim community takes a serious look at what they're reading, actually seriously studies what they profess to believe, and accept that there are some totally bizarre, faith-destroying passages in their "holy of holies", they will never be taken seriously by intellectually honest people.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/23/2004 22:17 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Ex-Lib, I've been on both sides of that issue. The answer is in the middle. And It needs to happen.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
