I just do not understand it. When Spain capitulated to attacks from Islamic fascists and elected a socialist government who promptly pulled its troops out of coalition operations... a policy we have been told by many that the USA and UK should follow in order to stop provoking the Islamists... that should have been the end of Spain's non-Basque terrorist problems. Presumably the nice people from the Al Qaeda Global Franchise were utterly delighted by the developments in Spain and were certain to fulsomely reward this behaviour. After all, we are often assured by writers in both the mainstream media and paleo-conservative/paleo-libertarian circles that this is what governments in the West must do if we are ever to sooth Islamic sensibilities: we leave them alone and they will leave us alone, right?
Yet strangely, far from redirecting their efforts and assets to ply their 'trade' against the more active members of the coalition, Islamic militants continue to get arrested in ever so repentant Spain.
Gosh, one might almost think that leaving them alone is not enough! Surely some misunderstanding?
Posted by: Mike ||
01/21/2008 08:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They just settled for getting killed last is all.
This information was brought to my attention by the blog Snaphanen. As a part of the deliberate merger of Europe and the Islamic world that is the policy of the European Union at the highest levels, yet almost never debated in European media, 2008 will be a "Year of Intercultural Dialogue," which means that Europeans will be bombarded with propaganda about how good it will be to submit to Islamic rule, and some veiled threats about what happens if we don't. The visiting Grand Mufti of Syria threatened Europeans over the "misuse" of free speech to criticize Islam. This has been carefully left out of the official EU reports from his speech at the EU Parliament.
One of the EU Commissioners, or unelected pan-European Ministers, addressed the European press a while ago, hoping that they would participate in this brainwashing of the public. Not in those exact words, of course, but the journalists got the message, and disturbingly enough didn't seem to protest. This is the hallmark of a totalitarian state, where the authorities instruct the press on what to write and which ideologies to broadcast. That is what the EUSSR is rapidly becoming, as former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky has warned.
Perhaps the most shameful aspect of the history of Eurabia is how the supposedly critical media has allowed itself to be corrupted or deceived by the Eurabians. Most of the documents about the Euro-Arab Dialogue place particular emphasis on working with the media, and the Eurabians have played the European media like a Stradivarius. A conference on "Racism, Xenophobia and the Media" in Vienna in May 2006 was coordinated by the EU. By the end of 2006, the network of media practitioners involved in the Euro-Arab Dialogue had grown to over 500 (pdf). These included people, media and organizations from all 37 countries of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. European and Arab journalists produced dozens of recommendations on how to enhance their cooperation and promote "mutual understanding" between their cultures and religions in the media.
Benita Ferrero-Waldner, European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighbourhood Policy (read: Eurabian affairs), addressed the assembly of journalists. According to her, "we do not believe the media should be regulated from outside, but rather that you find ways to regulate yourselves. [...] 2008 is the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue, and I am determined that by then we will have made significant improvements in the level of mutual respect and understanding our communities have for one another. In the months and years to come we must reach beyond the elites to the man and woman on the street. That is a vital part of the fight against racism and xenophobia. And you will be the key to achieving that."
This document is available on the Internet, but I doubt most Europeans have heard about it. Ferrero-Waldner also stated that "Freedom of expression is not the freedom to insult or offend. Hate speech is always abhorrent." The EU has in numerous agreements with Muslim countries made it clear that "Islamophobia" is a form of racism and hate speech.
The EU is now practicing this media censorship. According to Dutch blogger Klein Verzet, the Grand Mufti of Syria threatened Holland: "Should it come to riots, bloodshed and violence after broadcasting the Quran movie by PVV-leader Geert Wilders, then Wilders will be responsible. This was said by the Grand Mufti of Syria, Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun, Tuesday in the European Parliament, where he gave a speech at the invitation of the fraction presidents. If Wilders tears up or burn a Quran in his film 'this will simply mean he is inciting wars and bloodshed. And he will be responsible', according to the Grand Mufti. Al Hassoun thinks it is 'the responsibility of the Dutch people to stop Wilders'."
If you read the official texts by the EU media, this threat has been totally removed. Euractiv.com, a website subsidized by the EU, reports today:
No 'conflict of cultures', Islamic leader tells EU Parliament
The Grand Mufti of Syria yesterday told MEPs that he did not believe in the conflict of cultures because "we are all building one culture", becoming the first religious leader to address the Parliament during the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. A series of eminent religious and cultural leaders are set to address the plenary session of the European Parliament on the subject of intercultural dialogue throughout 2008. The Grand Mufti of Syria, Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun, yesterday (15 January) told Parliament's Strasbourg plenary that perceived clashes of culture were instead conflicts of "ignorance, terrorism and backwardness".
He stressed that although religion gave culture its moral values, "it is we who build civilisation", arguing that "we must create states on a civil basis" rather than a religious one. Moreover, he said there was "no such thing" as a holy war. Meanwhile, around 400 Muslim groups signed a charter last week (10 January) outlining their rights and responsibilities in European society. The charter contains 26 points, among which are clauses aimed at dispelling myths surrounding the link between Islam and violence and clarifying the term 'jihad'.
In a separate development, a UN project designed to combat terrorism by promoting "cross-cultural understanding", particularly between the West and the Islamic world, began its first forum yesterday in Madrid. The 'Alliance of Civilisations' initiative, co-sponsored by Turkey and adopted by the UN in 2005, was proposed by Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero in the wake of the Madrid bombings in 2004.
José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero was brought to power by the Islamic terror attacks in Madrid in 2004 and has been appeasing Muslims through his "Alliance of Civilizations" idea ever since. He has pledged to drum up EU support for building an undersea tunnel physically connecting Spain and Morocco, and thus Europe and Muslim North Africa. Zapatero claims this project will "change Africa and Europe." He's certainly right about that.
Yesterday, the EU Commissions website for intercultural dialogue wrote:
Grand Mufti of Syria: a single culture unites us all
In a speech to MEPs on Tuesday on the subject of intercultural dialogue, the Grand Mufti of Syria, Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun, stressed the value of culture as a unifying rather than a dividing force. Dr Hassoun was addressing a formal sitting of Parliament as the first speaker in a series of visits by eminent religious and cultural leaders in 2008, which has been designated European Year of Intercultural Dialogue. Opening his address, the Grand Mufti stressed that "there is one single culture" in the world, the culture of humankind. Indeed, he said, "we are all building one culture, so I do not believe in the conflict of cultures". Closing his speech, Dr Hassoun praised Europe today as embodying "a miracle" in overcoming two world wars and bringing down the Berlin wall without bloodshed. Seeing the European Parliament as a model, he called on the EP "to help us build a universal parliament". And since Damascus is this year the Cultural Capital of the Arab World, he asked the EP, as a practical gesture, to hold a meeting there "to show that the world is one".
In his introductory speech, European Parliament President Hans-Gert Pöttering said "peaceful coexistence between cultures and religions, both in the European Union and in relations with peoples in all parts of the world, in particular on the other side of the Mediterranean, in the Middle East, is both possible and essential". He added "we must build an intellectual and cultural bridge across the Mediterranean, one founded on mutual enrichment and shared values".
In 2006, the above mentioned German Christian Democrat Hans-Gert Pöttering stated that European school textbooks should be reviewed for intolerant depictions of Islam to ensure they don't propagate prejudice. He suggested that the EU could co-operate with the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference to create a textbook review committee. Islamic countries are thus supposed to decide what is taught about Islam throughout the European Union. One would assume that "prejudice" against Islam will include any mention of almost 1400 years of continuous Jihad warfare on several continents, including Europe. This confirms my view that the only way to save Europe now, or even parts of it, is to totally dismantle the entire European Union.
#1
If Euros want to capitulate, let them do it rapidly, so Canadians and Americans can see how the end of freedom and the very demise of a civilized society creates a life not worth living.
#2
Our traitor left will be inspired by the death of civilization in its birthplace. I can almost understand the jihadists: their devil god promises them rewards and they believe they are doing good. Our academic, media and celebrity traitors desire their own negation and will not be happy unless they can take the rest of us with them.
#3
I posted an article recently that Damascus has been chosen as the "Capital of Arab Culture" for 2008. IMO that's a nice fig leaf for bringing in lots of Euro commissars (and euros, of course) to meet with, well, whoever one might meet in Damascus. All for the culture, of course.
Bouchira Ismaili, a Moroccan-born Labor party councillor from the city of Rotterdam, fired off a very angry email to a Dutchman, Jos Parbleu. It said in part: "Drop dead", "convert to Islam", "You are the migrants here", and "You are a miserable devil worshipper" (full text down below).
So what prompted the angry email in the first place? Jos Parbleu sent an email to Ms. Ismaili and hundreds of others about two worrisome quotes by Okay Pala, the local leader of the radically Islamist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir, and published in the Turkish-Dutch De Telegraaf (more on this at Islam in Europe). Mr. Pala had said: "We reject freedom of speech, because we reject democracy," and "What you need is a heavy bomb attack".
But instead of attacking Mr. Pala or those quotes, she went after Mr. Parbleu for telling us about it!
Here is the full text of her email and its formatting (translation from multiple sources)
Listen well, dirty madman, WE'LL STAY HERE, hahahahahahhahah, DROP DEAD. I am a dutch moslem, and I shall stay one until my death. I feel pity with your kind, you must live with hatred, really sad. My father and mother have worked hard to help build this country, and I have nothing to do with what others think or say. You are a miserable devil worshipper!!! You have sold your soul!!! Rather bizarre, to believe in the devil and his entourage, and to negate God the almighty and ruler over heaven and earth. Your kind are the worst terrorists, you have been terrorizing our lives for years here in Holland. But fortunately, you are few only, and most dutchmen are developed and tolerant. You are the migrants here!!!! With Allah by my side, I fear nothing and nobody. I AND MY CO-MOSLEMS ARE LIVING, your kind is being eaten up by hatred. A piece of advice, if I may, convert to Islam and find tranquility in your heart. Hatred eats you up and makes your heart stay empty. You have only a limited time in your life, go get a life and enjoyment, soon it's all over. We are living.......................You are trying to make something undone, to influence the lives and fates of others. Freemason hahahaha, you are not free, you are a slave of the devil. You think you're a kind of god, really sad, go and have yourself checked! If you're a man with BALLS, let me know who you are, let us talk. You can always talk to me. I know, you're empty inside, and sometimes you feel you wouldn't exist. You want to be seen and heard, but you're simply ORDINARY, a gray mouse and a pathetic little person, one of those billions walking around on this globe. But I hear your cry of emergency. I hear your cry for attention. I shall also have time for you, despite of the fact that I'm fully busy to make Holland a more beautiful, clean and safe country, where people can develop and live in freedom and democracy, no matter what color, origin or faith. Where, for all I care, even devil worshippers have a spot, for who am I ultimately to judge. This I leave to the judges' judge, ALLAH A RAHMAN OU RAHEEM!!! [Allah the most merciful]
The original text of the email in Dutch can be seen here.
Mr. Parbleu and others forwarded the email to Mrs. Ismaili's party head and Gates of Vienna has his response, in which he tries to dismiss the problem away and simultaneously change the subject:
Dear People,
I wouldnt give this too much attention.
Ms. Bouchras response is understandable but maybe a bit offensive to some, and we as PvdA would not like to be held responsible for it. For example, Jos Parbleu (the constituent in question - translator) posted on the blog mores-mores a reply to an article written by Alain Caruba, a US citizen, as he presents himself. He added an article supposedly written by a Freemason. This article is completely bogus. According to this article Freemasons are out to rule the world. Nothing is further away from the truth, as I, being a Freemason can testify.
Ms. Bouchra assumes in her response to Jos Parbleu that he is a Freemason. Wrongly, as he never suggested it.
Just let it rest.
Her "response is understandable" and "maybe a bit offensive"??
Anders Wellebeeke at The Dutch Daily points out something else:
I must admit that Ismaili is right about one thing: The ethnically Dutch are rapidly becoming foreigners in their own cities. Today, 36 pct of the Rotterdammers are of non-Western origin, i.e. Surinamese, Turkish or - like Ismaili - Moroccan. Under the age of 21, however, this percentage has risen to approximately 53 pct.
Since I believe very strongly in free speech, I'm not sure if she should be censured for her remarks, although they do sound very much like threats to me. But beyond this, there are two other things that disturb me: 1) If a white Christian politician sent out a similar email, Muslim groups would be up in arms calling for his resignation, and making death threats (but here they are rather silent), and 2) It disturbs me that this is not some anonymous phone caller or an imam during a sermon, but an elected official, which my most definitions would mean that she is supposed to be as assimilated as a immigrant could be expected to be.
Am I still considered an "islamophobe" or a right-wing alarmist if I say that the Netherlands really has a problem?
For some similar problems in the Netherlands in the recent past, look here and here.
#2
The last act of European democracies will be to use whatever is left of their armed forces to suppress their native populations before handing power over to the Dark Ages.
I hope Australia and America will respond differently when push finally comes to shove. I have hope for Japan, Singapore and possibly Thailand. India is arming itself to the teeth and looks ready to fight. As for Canada, Americans may have to start thinking about a fence for their northern border to match the one (hopefully) built to the south.
Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. . . . It took a president to get it done.
- Hillary Clinton, Jan. 7
So she said. And then a fight broke out. That remarkable eruption of racial sensitivities and racial charges lacked coherence, however, because the public argument was about history rather than what was truly offensive -- the implied analogy to today.
The principal objection was that Clinton appeared to be disrespecting Martin Luther King Jr., relegating him to mere enabler for Lyndon Johnson. But it is certainly true that Johnson was the great emancipator, second only to Abraham Lincoln in that respect. This was a function of the times. King was fighting for black enfranchisement. Until that could be achieved, civil rights legislation could only be enacted by a white president (and a white Congress).
That does not denigrate King. It makes his achievement all the more miraculous - winning a permanent stake in the system for a previously disenfranchised people, having begun with no political cards to play.
In my view, the real problem with Clinton's statement was the implied historical analogy - that the subordinate position King held in relation to Johnson, a function of the discrimination and disenfranchisement of the time, somehow needs recapitulation today when none of those conditions apply.
The analogy Clinton was implying was obvious: I'm Lyndon Johnson, unlovely doer; he's Martin Luther King, charismatic dreamer. Vote for me if you want results.
Forty years ago, that arrangement - white president enacting African American dreams - was necessary because discrimination denied blacks their own autonomous political options. Today, that arrangement - white liberals acting as tribune for blacks in return for their political loyalty - is a demeaning anachronism. That's what the fury at Hillary was all about, although no one was willing to say so explicitly.
The King-Johnson analogy is dead because the times are radically different. Today an African American can be in a position to wield the emancipation pen - and everything else that goes along with the presidency: from making foreign policy to renting out the Lincoln Bedroom (if one is so inclined). Why should African American dreams still have to go through white liberals?
Clinton is no doubt shocked that a simple argument about experience vs. inspiration becomes the basis for a charge of racial insensitivity. She is surprised that the very use of "fairy tale" in reference to Obama's position on Iraq is taken as a sign of insensitivity, or that any reference to his self-confessed teenage drug use is immediately given racial overtones.
But where, I ask you, do such studied and/or sincere expressions of racial offense come from? From a decades-long campaign of enforced political correctness by an alliance of white liberals and the black civil rights establishment intended to delegitimize and marginalize as racist any criticism of their post-civil-rights-era agenda.
Anyone who has ever made a principled argument against affirmative action, only to be accused of racism, knows exactly how these tactics work. Or anyone who has merely opposed a more recent agenda item - hate-crime legislation - on the grounds that murder is murder and that the laws against it are both venerable and severe. Remember that scurrilous preelection ad run by the NAACP in 2000 implying that George W. Bush was indifferent to a dragging death of a black man at the hands of white racists in Texas because he did not support hate-crime legislation?
The nation has become inured to the playing of the race card, but "our first black president" (Toni Morrison on Bill Clinton) and his consort are not used to having it played against them.
Bill is annoyed with Obama. As Bill inadvertently let on to Charlie Rose, it has nothing to do with race and everything to do with entitlement. He had contemplated running in 1988, he confided to Charlie, but decided to wait. Too young, not ready. (A tall tale, highly Clintonian; but that's another matter.) Now it is Hillary's turn. The presidency is her due - the ultimate in alimony - and this young upstart refuses to give way.
But telling Obama to wait his turn is a tricky proposition. It sounds patronizing and condescending, awakening the kinds of racial grievances white liberals have spent half a century fanning - only to find themselves now singed in the blowback, much to their public chagrin.
Who says there's no justice in this world?
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/21/2008 06:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Forty years later and some are still telling them to sit in the back of the bus. And in Bill's case, that would be white and southern. Insert irony here.
#2
Krauthammer nails em. I'd expect some uninformed PC asshat will focus on the phrase "denigrate King", since they can't argue the substance, and don't understand English
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/21/2008 8:37 Comments ||
Top||
This "Hillary cried, Obama died" story line is satisfying, but it overlooks an earlier moment played to a national television audience of 9 million that was even more revealing.
It showed a side of Barack Obama not seen before or since. And it wasn't pretty. Asked in the Saturday Democratic debate about her dearth of "likability," Clinton offered an answer both artful and sweet -- first demurely saying her feelings were hurt and mock-heroically adding that she would try to carry on regardless, then generously conceding that Obama is very likable and "I don't think I'm that bad."
At which point, Obama, yielding to some inexplicable impulse, gave the other memorable unscripted moment of the New Hampshire campaign -- the gratuitous self-indicting aside: "You're likable enough, Hillary." He said it looking down and with not a smile but a smirk.
Rising rock star puts down struggling diva -- an unkind cut, deeply ungracious, almost cruel, from a candidate who had the country in a swoon over his campaign of grace and uplift. The media gave that moment little play, but millions saw it live, and I could surely not have been the only one who found it jarring.
It is fitting that New Hampshire should have turned on a tear or an aside. The Democratic primary campaign has been breathtakingly empty. What passes for substance is an absurd contest of hopeful change (Obama) vs. experienced change (Clinton) vs. angry change (John Edwards playing Hugo Chávez in English). I can't believe Rantburg missed that Breck-Boy slam. More at link.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/21/2008 06:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
1) Main selling point is playing the role of an experienced person.
2) Her only real experience is failed health care
3) Won election based on sympathy (suppressed anger, humiliation)
4) Islamics terrorist would capitalize on an infidel female (or piss her off more).
5) Voted for Iraq but then downplayed it
6) Her campaign is full of smear then denile tactics and emotional performances (crying).
7) The world will be polarized into either "I love Hillary" or "I really really hate Hillary" categories.
8) Bill better not piss her off during a crisis!
The lieutenant has a way with words. Check out the linked entry on Sheikapalooza and then the later on on his unit's role in Operation Phantom Phoenix.
Huda al Husseini Beirut - In Lebanon, there is a foundation called Umm al Nour; its main aim is to rehabilitate drug addicts. In todays Lebanon, most politicians are addicted to destroying the country as long as their names remain in the limelight. What we need to do is admit all of these politicians to the Umm al Nour rehabilitation centre to treat them for this addiction. Their need for stronger doses of medication will increase simply because Lebanon is a somewhat rare drug that will soon run out. Therefore, they should either be treated or totally eliminated.
The Lebanese people, or at least some of them, are fed up of the exchanges of accusations and theories as well as the fact that their level of intelligence is insulted. Some say that they hope that Lebanon does not join the US-Saudi-Egyptian axis that some argue includes Israel. Others say that they do not want Lebanon to join the Iranian-Syrian axis. As a result of the numerous non-Lebanese affiliations, Lebanon has withered; President Hosni Mubarak was incorrect when he warned against the potential loss of Lebanon simply because Lebanon has already been lost and torn apart by political rivals. In fact, the strings of politicians are being pulled by foreign parties to the extent that it is difficult to patch up the major rift and it is from this rift that the Lebanese run away; whilst the competent Lebanese nation is running away from the future and stability.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the late Iraqi former president Saddam Hussein looked for a Kuwaiti with whom he could deal. Despite the fact that it is impossible that all Kuwaitis would be satisfied with their ruling regime, none of them were willing to greet the occupier. In Lebanon, few citizens refused to deal with Syria during its occupation of the country. Those few Lebanese citizens were persecuted by fellow Lebanese who supported the Syrian regime. Syria withdrew [from Lebanon] yet it kept within reach to ensure that Lebanon would not be able to rise without its help. When the Secretary General of the Arab League [Amr Moussa] visited Lebanon, he was asked about the role of Syria and answered saying, I believe that it has a positive role.
It is funny that the Secretary General would describe such role as positive. Let us summarize the issue: The solution to the Lebanese problem is present in Damascus and Damascus demands two conditions to solve the problem.
The first condition is to abolish the International Tribunal to prosecute the assassins of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
The second condition is to hold onto Hezbollah as a weapon and increase its accumulation [of arms].
If these conditions are met then Syria would be willing to allow even the Lebanese Forces leader Samir Gaegae or Dory Chamoun, head of the National Liberal Party to be nominated for the presidential post and will allow the supporting party to form the government. However, if this objective is not reached then Damascus will cause more problems for its Lebanese advocates to solve. Nowadays, there is talk about conducting new parliamentary elections or electing the president by popular vote.
Lebanese politicians know exactly what Damascus wants and seek to find a way around it however Damascus is much smarter. Arabs know what Damascus wants. Qatar knows this quite well and its foreign minister Sheikh Hamad Bin Jassim heard these statements and wanted to report what he had heard to the military commander Michel Suleiman who will remain only a candidate for the presidential post.
Lebanese politicians know somewhat well, and so should the Arab League Secretary General that those who visit Damascus return with the impression that the Lebanese presidential election will not happen anytime soon and that Damascus is setting plans in place to face what it will be subjected to regarding the International Tribunal for a period of two months at least. It had also informed its Lebanese allies that it would not allow the International Tribunal to encroach upon its regime.
It is for this reason that General Michel Suleiman should adopt a decisive and open decision before his name withers away along with the last legitimate institution in Lebanon. Syria is no longer enthusiastic about his nomination; and if General Suleiman had his own informers amongst Lebanese politicians, they must have informed him of this and told him that the opposition is no longer comfortable with his selection.
From Beirut to Damascus there is news that the military commander had secretly visited Riyadh and covertly met with Samir Gaegae twice as well as the Druze leader Walid Jumblatt three times in secret and that he frequently meets with the Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and head of the Future bloc MP Saad Hariri behind closed doors. Perhaps none of this is true, however rumours will intensify and continue to spread to the extent that news is fabricated and his nomination will be used as a tool to exert pressure whilst in fact the truth is something else. The truth is that Syria wishes to abolish the International Tribunal and hold onto Hezbollah.
Therefore, in order to protect the military institution, the military commander should demand that his name be withdrawn from the political marketplace; these are dreams that do not deserve a man to have to lose his dignity. Let the politicians decide what comes first in the Lebanese constitution: the egg or the chicken. If they agree on the military commander then they can only go back to him after getting the green light from Damascus. The Lebanese politicians, oppositionists and supporters, hailed the Arab initiative as though it entailed an immediate remedy with the arrival of Amr Moussa despite the fact that his assistant Hesham Youssef clearly stated that Moussa will submit a report on the results of his mission at the meeting of Arab foreign ministers due to be held on January 27. As for Moussa, he appeared as somebody calling for the Lebanese to help him draft a positive report thus his status would be consolidated and this was clear as he said, Solving the Lebanese crisis will have a positive impact upon the Arab status.
The real irony lies in the limited role played by the Lebanese parliament speaker Nabih Berri who keeps setting dates for a session to be convened to elect a Lebanese president and then cancelling them. He said, 22 Arab and Muslim foreign ministers in the presence of the acting Lebanese Christian Foreign Minister Tariq Metri stated that they openly and unanimously wanted a strong Christian president in Lebanon ( ). Arab unanimity in support of the president is a good sign and I support this decision. Perhaps the decision has surpassed the Taif Accords; however I support it as a way to end the Lebanese crisis, (Radwan Aqeel - Annahar Newspaper -13 January 2008).
Has the parliament speaker forgotten that Lebanon was established as a homeland for Christians, namely Maronites. Arab foreign ministers should be aware of this fact; there was no need for sectarian incitement. No matter how Iran tried to prevent the eruption of the Shia-Sunni conflict, Syrian control of the Lebanese public is no longer guaranteed simply because public congestion has reached its peak. Another question: where is the president? The post has been vacant since November 24, 2007. The Syrians had informed the French of their good will as they prevented former President Emile Lahoud from forming an alternative government.
It is as though the problem in Lebanon focuses entirely on ministerial composition. Nabih Berri told his guests that he had seriously adopted the 10-10-10 idea in support of the Maronite president. On January 13, 2008, Annahar newspaper quoted Berris assertion of his statement to Moussa: I swear to you Mr. Amr, I was going to start the parliament session in this case and over 95 MPs would have voted with me.
When honor is involved in the Lebanese issue, there are no surprises; however Berri swore with all his honour that he could convene parliament whenever he wishes.
And because the decision does not lie in Lebanon, Amr Moussa is asked to spare himself the time and effort and should travel directly to Damascus and tell Syria that it cannot achieve everything [it wants]. Lebanon and its people are trying to free themselves from it and Damascus must adapt to that fact and reconsider the suggestions made by the Jordanian King Abdullah II when he met with the Syrian President Bashar Assad. King Abdullah II suggested that Syria cut ties with Iran despite that Iran had paid off Syrias debts to Russia. The suggestions included benefits for Syria such as the retrieval of the Golan Heights, receiving international aid and slowing down the procedures of the International Tribunal. In return, Syria must sign a peace treaty with Israel (Syrian-Israeli meetings are running smoothly) and end its interference in Lebanon and its ties with Iran as well to stop supporting Hamas and Hezbollah. Amr Moussa should know that Syria is betting on the existing conflict between Washington and Tel Aviv. Whilst Washington is more in favour of establishing a dialogue with Tehran and isolating Damascus, Tel Aviv prefers negotiation with Damascus and continuing the state of animosity and pressuring Tehran. All that is left lies in one question: What exactly do Arabs want other than the Arab initiative?
Just as God protects the holy Kaaba, we pray that God protects Lebanon from its politicians and all foreign parties that are contending for the egotism of these politicians.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/21/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
TOPIX > SYRIA - A SERVANT UNDER INSTRUCTIONS [from Tehran = Iran?}.
The conservative movement constitutes an alliance of those who accept unchangeable facts rather than trying to wish fantasy into reality, remake human nature, or avoid economic tradeoffs. Traditionalists embrace timeless morals, even when they deny one immediate gratification. Libertarians embrace the sovereignty of consumer demand and the sometimes-disorienting effects of technological change, even when the result isnt to ones personal liking. And hawks embrace the reality that America lives in a dangerous neighborhood, one full of bullies, pirates, and fanatics who respond to gestures of good will with contempt, larceny, and brutality.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/21/2008 11:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A few other characteristics that might be relevant:
Dismisses the notion that new ideas are always better than old ones.
Believes in the concept of honor, moral absolutes and personal responsibility, and that they are not relative, situational or easily redeemed.
Applies judgement constantly, and rejects the PC notion that all cultures, political systems, religions or belief systems can be equivocated.
Believes that evil is real, and that it must be confronted, not accommodated.
Believes that the framers of the Constitution were brilliant and gifted men, whose world view established a contract between man and state that acknowledged both rights of the individual and limits of governance as the key to a successful society.
Understands that the guarantee of America is opportunity, not an income redistribution system.
Many more things, but most tellingly, that if we fail to assert the superiority of our culture, our values and our people, accepting our heritage from all the sources that created it, but NOT "celebrating diversity" at the cost of abandonment of our unique character, we are doomed to fracture the last, best hope of humankind.
Our people have become so slothful, so sated and uninformed, so poorly educated, that they cannot see the perils around them. My hope is that the returning veterans will reignite an awareness of how the rest of the world really is, and how much we have to protect and how much we have to lose.
Posted by: No More BS ||
01/21/2008 15:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Sad thing is there used to be a party where Conservatives were welcomed and listened to.
I have not left the Repbulcian party, it has left me.
No one is surprised when Republican Presidential candidates invoke Ronald Reagan like they're counting prayer beads, but perhaps a better measure of the Gipper's political legacy is the fracas it has kicked up among the Democrats. This week, Barack Obama had the blaspheming temerity to acknowledge that Reagan was a transformational President. . . . The obvious context of Mr. Obama's remarks was his case for "change" versus Hillary Clinton's "experience." But the Internet left went bananas, "DiNO!"
"Blasphemer!"
"Infidel"
and John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton ripped into Mr. Obama as well. Mr. Edwards cited the "extraordinary damage" Reagan supposedly visited on the country, "Heretic!"
"Apostate!"
"Lieberman!"
while in a conference call with reporters yesterday, Clinton surrogate and Baby Boom liberal Barney Frank said he was "stupefied" by Mr. Obama's "explicit endorsement" of the notion that the GOP is "the party of ideas." "Traitor!"
According to this paranoid style, the "excesses" Mr. Obama referenced were liberal emblems like the civil rights, antiwar and women's movements, the Great Society's social welfare programs and the like. Please. More likely, the Illinois Senator was thinking of the actual reasons for Reagan's 1980 success: double-digit inflation, marginal tax rates as high as 70%, high unemployment, Soviet Communism on the march in Afghanistan, hostages in Tehran.
Mr. Obama is trying to associate the present with these crises -- and thus frame his candidacy as the advent of a liberal Reagan -- though whatever problems we now face are several orders of magnitude removed from those that gave rise to Reagan. And unlike Mr. Obama, Reagan campaigned on forthright policy reforms -- substance -- and not merely a change in style.
It was less his "optimism" or what the country "felt," as Mr. Obama had it, than it was Reagan's ideas that account for his success. He shifted electoral coalitions and realigned the U.S. political center to the right because he governed with a genuinely new domestic agenda and approach to foreign policy -- and it worked. Still, we suspect Mr. Obama is smarter than his Democratic critics in evoking Reagan as the example he wants to emulate, and it says something about the breadth of his political ambitions that he would do so.
The episode is most telling, though, for what it says about the ancient mariners of the Democratic Party and how little they've changed. Supposedly Mr. Obama committed a grievous blunder by nodding at the achievement of one of the most consequential Presidencies of the 20th century. If the rest of the Democrats can't even recognize the same, it suggests that the change they have in mind is back to the 1960s and '70s.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/21/2008 06:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Funny. When I saw the words "Obama" and "apostasy" I was thinking of something else.
#2
Excalibur, me too. I keep wondering what will happen if Obama gets elected, and he visits Saudi Arabia. Then a bunch of Wahhabis decide he is an apostate and (at least try to) behead him.
#4
I don't care about his schooling. The Islamic code is that if one is born to Islamic father, then one is Muslim. Barry has admitted on campaign trail that his father and grandfather were Muslim. All his surviving relatives in Kenya are Muslim. Either he is Muslim or he is apostate. There are no grey areas in Muzz Death Cult. And there is only one way permitted to leave the cult. Death.
#7
JosephM, that just means Americans are more ready for Barack Hussein Obama than Hillary Clinton, especially with First Husband Bill already running amok off-message during the primaries. I heard an interview on NPR this afternoon with a New York Times editorial writer and a syndicated op-ed writer, and one of them forecast a Hillary Clinton Whitehouse after one year with his'n'her staffs pursuing opposing agendas.
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.
Bouchira Ismaili, a Moroccan-born Labor party councillor from the city of Rotterdam, fired off a very angry email to a Dutchman, Jos Parbleu. It said in part: "Drop dead", "convert to Islam", "You are the migrants here", and "You are a miserable devil worshipper" (full text down below). 
Beirut - In Lebanon, there is a foundation called Umm al Nour; its main aim is to rehabilitate drug addicts. In todays Lebanon, most politicians are addicted to destroying the country as long as their names remain in the limelight. What we need to do is admit all of these politicians to the Umm al Nour rehabilitation centre to treat them for this addiction. Their need for stronger doses of medication will increase simply because Lebanon is a somewhat rare drug that will soon run out. Therefore, they should either be treated or totally eliminated.
