An interview at the Counterterrorism blog with Pierre Rehov, a French Filmmaker who's made six films on the intifada
What inspired you to produce âSuicide Killers,â your seventh film?
I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide bombers are all smiling one second before they blow themselves up.
Why is this film especially important?
People don't understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problemâshowing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has became their only certitude.
What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know?
I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil. Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution.
What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings?
It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth.
The man is a liberal asshat, but a MUGGED liberal asshat.
Here's how he distinguishes between a moderate and a extermist Muslim:
Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way?
All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and their is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their life time, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists.
snip
How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general?
Stop being politically correct and stop believe that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Nazism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat him in order to make peace one day with the German people.
I comment at my website. However muddled this guy is, I think his take on what transforms moderate muslims to islamists is on the money: a moderate muslim is one who doesn't see success in his lifetime. However, given the perverse, politically correct, appeasing behaviour of the non-muslim world in response to Islamist terror and wildass, unreasonable demands, would you blame the moderate for thinking, "Hey, these guys aren't as tough as I thought. Maybe we CAN take over the world in my lifetime!"
The moment he thinks that, and acts on it, is the moment the moderate Muslim becomes an Islamist.
#4
I don't think Pierre considers slaughtering innocents to be a victory. I think the *Muslim world* considers slaughtering innocents to be a victory. See the attitude towards 9/11 as an example.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/28/2005 21:17 Comments ||
Top||
Via Tim Blair
Australian 60 Minutes Interview with Sheikh Khalid Yasin, a US born convert and muslim leader, Sheikh Omran, and Geert Wilders.
INTRODUCTION:
Two things really struck us while working on this story. First, we're in the middle of the biggest population shift in more than 1000 years, as Muslim populations grow steadily in countries like Britain, France and yes, Australia. Secondly, the London bombers were home grown, seemingly ordinary Englishmen. Now, there's do doubt the vast majority of Muslims just want a peaceful life. But some don't. That's where the danger may lie. And that's why we've been into the suburbs of Paris and Amsterdam, Sydney and Melbourne listening to Muslims, seeing what they hold dear.
STORY:
SHEIKH KHALID YASIN: Our message is to young people, young brothers and sisters â trust is sacred, and how can you put a sacred trust in the hands of a non-Muslim that doesn't understand what that sanctity is about?
PETER OVERTON: My journey into the world of Islam began here â a suburban town hall in Sydney.
SHEIKH KHALID YASIN: I like to talk like one of you.
PETER OVERTON: These are young Muslims and they're Australian. Most of them were born here. But the message they were hearing was of a world that sounds so alien to so many of us.
SHEIKH KHALID YASIN: There's no such thing as a Muslim having a non-Muslim friend, so a non-Muslim could be your associate but they can't be a friend. They're not your friend because they don't understand your religious principles and they cannot because they don't understand your faith.
PETER OVERTON: Sheikh Khalid Yasin is not an enemy of the Western world but nor is he a friend. For him, Muslims and non-Muslims will be forever divided.
SHEIKH KHALID YASIN: Australians have to wake up and smell the coffee. To what extent do people expect that people assimilate to where it gets to the point where you actually want me to imitate?
PETER OVERTON: Khalid was born in America and was once a patriot. He served in Vietnam, but then converted to Islam. Now he's a true believer in the Koran, an uncompromising disciple of its strict justice system, travelling the world to spread his message. This is what he believes men should do to wives who disobey. Rest at Link.
It's not the culture, it's the religion.
Posted by: ed ||
07/28/2005 20:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
As I sat down to eat lunch and check my email, I found something rather unpleasant in my inbox. Spam. Supposedly from "John Glenn", the sender's address was "info@johnkerry.com". It was praising the Democrat candidate in a special election here in Ohio, one Paul Hackett, who is apparently an Iraq war veteran. No disrespect for his service -- he's done more than I can -- but for Democrats to try to sell a candidate as a vet is galling.
How many times have we heard Democrats say we shouldn't have gone to Iraq? That it's all lost? That we're doing more harm than good? That it's just a waste of good men and a distraction? And now they're trying to sell a candidate on his service in the war?
The only thing I know about Paul Hackett is that he chose to be in the party of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Dick Durbin, Cynthia McKinney, Sandy Berger, Michael Moore, Jimmy Carter, etc. ad nauseam. That's enough for me to question his judgement and fitness for office.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/28/2005 12:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He's also campaigning on the war was the "wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place."
#2
I got the same spam. I suspect it was because I once logged into JohnKerry.com to tell the story of my two uncles who were also Vietnam vets--they asked for vets... they didn't say specifically from Iraq--and urge Kerry to sign his '180.
#4
Hackett's a real charmer. He said Bush is a greater threat to US security than Osama:
http://tks.nationalreview.com/archives/071230.asp
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/28/2005 17:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I don't think he is a danger to the Republican candidate. Polls have him 17% behind but it is still very early. Did the spam mention that he is a lawyer? Enough said.
It's been a few weeks, and we still don't know exactly what John Roberts -- if that is his real name -- was doing when Roe v. Wade was decided. Working quietly in a college classroom? Playing pinball at the student union? Sitting in a darkened dorm mapping out escape routes for abortion clinic bombers? We just ... don't ... know.
Oh, sure: We've heard from the people who say they know him; we've heard about his charm and intelligence. (Like that means anything! Hitler was intelligent!) We've heard from both sides of the aisles about his temperament, rigorous sense of fairness and devotion to the Constitution. But other than that, and his previous extensive confirmation hearings, what do we know? NOTHING. Let's go through the objections.
1. There's something wrong with the way he looks. He doesn't have the scary mustache-dipped-in-flour like John Bolton; he doesn't have the dreaded Face of Bork, the scowl of which could strip paint from a battleship at 50 paces. Roberts looks mild, content, genial, at peace. What's he repressing? Well, as some high-profile lefty bloggers have noted, he attended an all-boys school; he wrestled -- with MEN; he participated in choir, and wore fashionable pants in the early '70s. Plus, his kids are ... adopted. Nudge nudge. Wink wink. Say no more (cough GAY cough).
Response: What is it with the fringe left and gay-baiting? They have this peculiar assumption that playing the gay card makes the faithful reel back in horror and shield the children's eyes. As if there's anything about wanting a lower marginal tax rate or a 500-ship Navy or a paste-the-jihadis strategy that says thou must also hate the sodomites. Nuance, people! Nuance.
2. There's something very wrong with the way Roberts thinks. For example, we need only turn to a memo he wrote while deciding a case:
"Every night I pray to God -- and I mean the big bearded Caucasian guy in a robe who speaks English -- and ask His strength to overturn Roe by any means necessary, up to and including Jedi mind tricks."
Well, we don't actually know whether he said that exactly, but until this appallingly secretive White House releases all his notes, correspondence, Post-its and transcriptions of thoughts he might have had while gardening, we must assume he's hiding something.
Response: So some Democrats want to see notes that have been heretofore off limits. If they're fair game, then so are Sen. Charles Schumer's e-mails. Key search words: "Go to war. Extremist. Plaid pants. Religious. Wife. Judy Garland."
3. He wants to send little kids to jail for eating french fries. Too bad the kid arrested on the Washington Metro wasn't a fetus!
Response: Ooooh. Head shot. Yes, of course, that's exactly what animates the man: a desire to see children handcuffed and imprisoned, seeing as a six-year sentence in the cotton mills is no longer possible. Look: Roberts was behaving like an appeals court judge should, and found no error in the lower court's decision. He had the opportunity to impose his personal sensibilities from the bench, and didn't, preferring to uphold the law -- however stupid it was.
Upholding the law. You gotta hate that in a judge.
4. He belonged to the Federalist Society. Its members probably get together under a full moon, strip naked, smear their faces with ashes ground from the bones of Thomas Jefferson's slave-born progeny, and chant Latin oaths to an idol that represents the Constitution in Exile, which is in a safe deposit box in the Caymans.
Response: This is a sure-fire strategy for sweeping to midterm victory in '06: "There remain doubts about the clarity of his response regarding his membership in an organization dedicated to a particular view of constitutional law." Start handing out House committee chairmanships, boys!
5. He's a stealth candidate designed to make the Democrats look like automatic obstructionists. When a hard-core conservative minority is appointed to fill William Rehnquist's spot, the Dems will look like they're recycling the same old arguments. It's devious strategy of the most Rovian sort!
Response: It's pronounced "strategery."
Posted by: Steve ||
07/28/2005 09:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
It sends a signal to Ressam that suckers exist compassion exists in the justice system. This might actually encourage him to continue plotting. share what dark secrets he may still harbor, potentially losing saving precious lives.
It also shows the rest of the world that the U.S. system of justice -- at times imperfect, at times heavy-handed -- is often lame-brained not entirely cold or blind.
How daft is the columnist? Examples:
"Ressam eventually clammed up. He reached an emotional breaking point, unable to go on. His psyche, his lawyers say, was damaged, and he lost trust in a system he perceived as being manipulative."
The po' widdle terrorist with the damaged psyche. Awwwwwwhhh .....
#3
No, it shows that during time of war, that combatants should not be handled by a civil legal system. BTW, UBL's declaration of war against the US, predates this case.
The business model used by newspapers in the United States has gone through several market-driven incarnations. And while it is always tempting to suggest that such change is driven by technology, tech always takes a back seat to money.
The classical model was labor intensive, based in low wages and minimum skills. A reporter was hired for two things: the ability to find news and the ability to produce voluminous and formatted writing quickly.
The classical model was cut in half with the creation of the wire services, whose information sharing model eliminated the need for newspapers to have correspondents far afield, nationally and internationally.
Automation did finally matter in the bottom line, the next business model replacing numerous printers with automated systems, typesetters with computers, and limiting non-wire service reporters to just local news and opinion. Hard on the heels of this change came a great consolidation of independent newspapers into large media conglomerates, and the consolidation of news and opinion into a greater whole, known as "info-tainment".
But now this model, too, though economical, is failing. Among its problems is that even if local news is published, it is of little value to the reader. Wire service news is both biased and dated, and opinion is knee-jerk and ill-informed.
So it is time for a new business model. One that delivers timely, high density, and unique news with informed opinion.
To replace the wire services, several hundred original news websites could be organized together to produce their own news wire, like an RSS feed, open to all members of the news service. These would not include mainstream media, just independents from around the world. Emphasis would be on non-mainstream news.
Local news would be a microcosm of that. Solicited of ordinary people who could phone in, email or fax local news stories they had witnessed or were reporting. In exchange, they would receive small amounts of money to PayPal accounts, based on the quality and accuracy of their news and their writing style. Literally, 50 cents or a dollar a story. Each "field reporter" would have a byline with a serial number, part of which is their credibility rating, much like an Ebay rating. Higher ratings equal more money.
Editorials would be solicited only from experts, such as professionals in that field, and only on the subject of their expertise. Again they would be paid only nominally.
Comics could be replaced with independent comics, instead of expensive syndicate comics.
The actual staff would be a small number of reporters to fact check and follow-up on major local news stories, mostly by phone, and the editor. Publishing would be similar to today's inexpensive automated system, including distribution and advertisement. A "lite" version with no advertising could be available by subscription.
The philosophy behind this new newspaper business model would be with greatest economy, to deliver news not available through other MSM outlets, and local news of immediate import to local readers. Optimally, it consolidates news that could be found on the Internet, but only with hours of surfing, then adds local stories that would otherwise have been missed.
In a way, it is a return to the classical newspaper model, with low paid reporters in competition with each other, based in their ability to find news and to quickly produce voluminous and formatted writing.
#1
Heck the old model was newspapers as pure political broadsides for the party. It wasn't till later in the 19th century they were considered as an independent source of revenue. Now they've just reverting to their original models.
#2
Technology facilitates the emergence of new models and substantial changes to existing models, and its not obvious what these new models will be until after they have emerged. I have been a news junkie my entire life, but I no longer read deadtree newspapers and generally only read the online versions as a result of a link from RB or the other blog sources I follow.
My point is that the newspaper model is dying and will be replaced by news sources that I trust (moreorless) to tell me what I should be concerned about and why. That is, the real value in news is not in the facts of the matter, it is in its significance or lack thereof. This is where the MSM has failed so dismally and why thousands(?) of newsblogs thrive.
Then there is the news as entertainment aspect. Once you get used to reading the RB form of the news, complete with ironic pictures, the MSM is just plain boring.
Bruce Tinsley, creator of the conservative comic strip Mallard Fillmore, remembers feeling stunned when the fan letter showed up in February 1998. After all, his stripâ featuring a right-leaning TV newsman or, more accurately, newsduckâwas still in its relative infancy. Yet here was George Herbert Walker Bush declaring that he and Barbara turned to Mallard, âsage duck that he is,â first thing every morning. Even more gratifying, the former president thanked Tinsley for taking on âthat horrible Doonesburyâ and its creator, liberal icon Garry Trudeau, âa guy that tore me up in a vicious, personal way strip after strip.â . . .
The Mallard strips that prompted Bushâs letter had been a response to a series of Doonesbury strips that disdainfully characterized conservative talk radio as âhate radio.â
âMallard Presents: Learning the Liberal Lexicon!â reads the opening panel of one of the strips. â âHate Radio,â a common liberal word made from 2 ordinary words.â In the second panel, a bespectacled professor type explains: â âRadioââthe thing we use to listen to N.P.R. in our Volvos.â â âHate,â â adds a dowdy aging hippie in panel threeââthe word we use to describe any opinion that DISAGREES with OURS!â
âThat was really terrific,â says Tinsley today of the ex-presidentâs appreciative letter, noting that from the start he intended Mallard to be, among other things, an antidote to Doonesbury. . . .
. . . Tinsley created the Mallard character while working for a Charlottesville, Virginia, paper in the early nineties. In the strip, the duck landed his job in a fictional Washington newsroom only because he was âAmphibious-American.â But when a new management team took over Tinsleyâs real-life newsroom, he soon found himself out of work. The last straw for the new bosses was a strip that had Mallard musing about what might have happened if Michelangelo had applied for a National Endowment for the Arts grant. While the NEA would surely like all the naked people, the duck concluded, theyâd also object to the depiction of God as male, worrying about its disheartening influence over little girls. The new publisher, it turned out, was on NEAâs board. Happily for Tinsley, the Washington Times swiftly picked up Mallard Fillmore, followed by King Features, which recognized that the strip could fill a gaping hole in the funnies version of the political marketplace. . . .
. . . Though Prickly Cityâs main characters are cuddlier than the Mallard crewâcreator Scott Stantis claims Charles Schulzâs Peanuts as a key inspirationâthereâs nothing soft about the stripâs politics or in the obvious delight it takes in thumbing its nose at politically correct norms.
In fact, having replaced Mallard as the resident conservative strip at the Chicago Tribune, Stantis soon watched the paper kill one of his entries, which derided Senator Ted Kennedyâs moral high-handedness at Condoleezza Riceâs confirmation hearings by making a none-too-subtle Chappaquiddick reference. Not long after, the Seattle Times refused to run a hard-hitting Prickly City series inspired by the Terri Schiavo saga. In it, the stripâs conservative protagonist, a spunky little girl named Carmen, announces that sheâs depressed because her favorite team has lost in the NCAA Basketball Tournament; her best pal, a talking coyote named Winslow, decides that heâll relieve her of her agony by starving her to death. . . .
Even as Mallard Fillmore and Prickly City alter the balance of power on the comics page, at least one right-of-center cartoonist is starting to make an impact on the web. Without the benefit of syndication or any other traditional form of promotion, Day by Day, by Chris Muir, has become a daily stop for many bloggersâ a sign of how the Right remains ahead of the curve in the blogosphere. Knowing how few newspaper editors share his conservative politics, Muir flatly declares dailies are âthe antithesis of what I want to get involved with.â
Heading Muirâs cast of youngish hipsters is Damon, a young, self-made black software entrepreneur, with zero patience for the standard liberal truisms about race, economics, foreign policy, or much anything else (the strip reflects Muirâs real-world experience as a Florida-based industrial designer). âFunny,â as one of Damonâs white pals remarks to him in one recent strip, âDean says you white Christian Republican boys all look the same.â Sardonic as ever, Damon replies: âHeâs just worried Roveâll take the medical stash heâs been smokinâ.â . . .
Harry Stein is the author of the delightful book How I Accidentally Joined the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (and Found Inner Peace).
Posted by: Mike ||
07/28/2005 06:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How observant - "I mean, the crudity and intolerance of the Left these days is unbelievable; I canât tell you how many times Iâve been called a Nazi. But thatâs what happens when you donât have any ideas and the only thing left is anger.â
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/28/2005 8:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
As it happens, the same holds true for Mallard creator Tinsley, whose wife is a civil rights lawyer. Thereâs perhaps a lesson here. âItâs a funny thing,â Tinsley says. âAll her liberal friends are incredulous that our marriage works, but none of my conservative friends have any trouble with it at all. They understand you can think differently about things and still be civil to one another.â
Almost immediately, this observation leads Tinsley to reflect on something else. âYou ever notice how often liberals seem to think that, because they hold these lofty social views, it excuses them from having to be civil to bellboys and cabdrivers? I really think that by and large conservatives are just much nicer.â
That's why RB - for civil, well-reasoned discourse - has more conservative folks who visit here.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/28/2005 8:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
One of the primary reasons Ilove RB,Bobby,is this respect that you speak of.I am what could easily be called poor,under-educated white trash.But,while sometimes my opinons,comments and thoughts are often rediculed as assinine(something I have no problem addmitting to when my stupidity is pointed out,and valid reasons are given)over-all I am given a great deal of respect here at RB that is not given to me at Liberial sites.
Thank you RB'ers one and all.
#8
I come to rantburg primarily because the posters seem far better informed than nearly any other board I've ever seen, and a large number are pretty damn funny to boot.
#10
Raptor - Kerry's educated, but dumb - voted for the war before I voted against it, and opening himself up to the Swift Boat guys....
Teddy has economic status, and a 'liberal' education, I believe, but is relatively useless, except to show the dark side.
Here, one is valued for their thoughts, not their accomplishments, or their birth status. So keep posting good thoughts, and I'll keep reading them!
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/28/2005 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It is amazing how many sharp minds there are here in the 'Burg: Fred, the AoS, raptor, Zhang Fei, JFM, TGA, .com, Alaska Paul, badanov, Old Spook, trailing wife, Sgt. Mom, Jarhead, 11A5S, Chuck Simmins, Frank G, Ptah, Howard UK, Bulldog, Shipman, mojo, Pappy, tu3031, the inimitable muck4doo . . . I'm leaving people out, I know it!
Posted by: Mike ||
07/28/2005 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Hey, what about me?
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/28/2005 16:49 Comments ||
Top||
#13
"I am what could easily be called poor,under-educated white trash."
So what? What matters here are not your credentials, but whether you make sense. And IIRC, you usually do. Keep commenting.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/28/2005 16:51 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Frankily, I come here for the money.
Posted by: Jack Rubenstein ||
07/28/2005 20:05 Comments ||
Top||
#15
there's money? Frankly
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/28/2005 21:06 Comments ||
Top||
#16
The reality is the Right is much funnier than the Left. RB is a good example, but there are many others, PJ O'Rourke comes to mind. I think there is a simple reason behind it. In order to see the funny side of something you have to be able view it from different perspectives, whereas the Left peddles this uniform 2 dimentional view of the world, which precludes seeing it in different ways necessary to see the funny side.
#17
I agree wholeheartedly w/ Mike on this one. I've said it before and I'll say it again...(like the old Marines commercial)....I learn more at RB before 10 am than I could even hope to learn from MSM (and even Fox News) in an entire week! Plus, you get the great commentary to boot (I personally am in awe of .com and Fred).
Posted by: BA ||
07/28/2005 21:41 Comments ||
Top||
#18
The breadth of experience and knowledge here is breath-taking and, often, quite frightening. It makes it worth every minute.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/28/2005 21:42 Comments ||
Top||
Youssef M. Ibrahim
DUBAI -- The world of Islam is on fire. Indeed, the Muslim mind is on fire. Above all, the West is now ready to take both of them on.
The latest reliable report confirms that on average 33 Iraqis die every day, executed by Iraqis and foreign jihadis and suicide bombers, not by US or British soldiers. In fact, fewer than ever US or British soldiers are dying since the invasion more than two years ago. Instead, we now watch on television hundreds of innocent Iraqis lying without limbs, bleeding in the streets dead or wounded for life. If this is jihad someone got his religious education completely upside down.
Palestine is on fire, too, with Palestinian armed groups fighting one another - Hamas against Fatah and all against the Palestinian Authority. All have rendered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas impotent and have diminished the world's respect and sympathy for Palestinian sufferings.
A couple of weeks ago London was on fire as Pakistani and other Muslims with British citizenship blew up tube stations in the name of Islam. Al Qaeda in Europe or one of its franchises proclaimed proudly the killing of 54 and wounding 700 innocent citizens was done to "avenge Islam" and Muslims.
Madrid was on fire, too, last year, when Muslim jihadis blew up train stations killing 160 people and wounding a few thousands.
The excuse in all the above cases was the war in Iraq, but let us not forget that in September 2001, long before Iraq, Osama Bin Laden proudly announced that he ordered the killing of some 3,000 in the United States, in the name of avenging Islam. Let us not forget that the killing began a long time before the invasion of Iraq.
Indeed, jihadis have been killing for a decade in the name of Islam. They killed innocent tourists and natives in Morocco and Egypt, in Africa, in Indonesia and in Yemen, all done in the name of Islam by Muslims who say that they are better than all other Muslims. They killed in India, in Thailand and are now talking of killing in Germany and Denmark and so on. There were attacks with bombs that killed scores inside Shia and Sunni mosques, inside churches and inside synagogues in Turkey and Tunisia, with Muslim preachers saying that it is okay to kill Jews and Christians - the so called infidels.
Above all, it is the Muslim mind that is on fire.
The Muslim fundamentalist who attacked the Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands, stabbed him more than 23 times then cut his throat. He recently proudly proclaimed at his trial: "I did it because my religion - Islam - dictated it and I would do it again if were free." Which preacher told this guy this is Islam? That preacher should be in jail with him.
Do the cowardly jihadis who recruit suicide bombers really think that they will force the US Army and British troops out of Iraq by killing hundreds of innocent Iraqis? US troops now have bases and operate in Iraq but also from Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Oman.
The only accomplishment of jihadis is that now they have aroused the great "Western Tiger". There was a time when the United States and Europe welcomed Arab and Muslim immigrants, visitors and students, with open arms. London even allowed all dissidents escaping their countries to preach against those countries under the guise of political refugees.
Well, that is all over now. Time has become for the big Western vengeance.
Visas for Arab and Muslim young men will be impossible to get for the United States and Western Europe. Those working there will be expelled if they are illegal, and harassed even if their papers are in order.
Airlines will have to right to refuse boarding to passengers if their names even resemble names on a prohibited list on all flights heading to Europe and the United States.
What is more important to remember is this: When the West did unite after World War II to beat communism, the long Cold War began without pity. They took no prisoners. They all stood together, from the United States to Norway, from Britain to Spain, from Belgium to Switzerland. And they did bring down the biggest empire. Communism collapsed.
I fear those naïve Muslims who think that they are beating the West have now achieved their worst crime of all. The West is now going to war against not only Muslims, but also, sadly, Islam as a religion.
In this new cold and hot war, car bombs and suicide bombers here and there will be no match for the arsenal that those Westerners are putting together - an arsenal of laws, intelligence pooling, surveillance by satellites, armies of special forces and indeed, allies inside the Arab world who are tired of having their lives disrupted by demented so-called jihadis or those bearded preachers who, under the guise of preaching, do little to teach and much to ignite the fire, those who know little about Islam and nothing about humanity.
Youssef M. Ibrahim, a former Middle East correspondent for The New York Times and energy editor of the Wall Street Journal, is managing director of the Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group
Posted by: Fred ||
07/28/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Yea and a fellow who's book is coming out in September says there are 7 of Osmas Nukes in the US. Their targets, US cities, just as Osama has planed and promsied. We haven't tarried to long and pussyfooted around over long I hope .
Ibrahim lists just a few of the examples of the carnage inflicted by muslims on muslims, and then says:
The West is now going to war against not only Muslims, but also, sadly, Islam as a religion.
How is this an indictment of the West?
Clearly, it just reveals the fact that islam and the muslim culture, is the culprit. In fact, the West has not, and will not be nearly as harsh on arabs because of its human rights values.
#4
I don't think he's indicting the West at all - I think he's issuing a clarion call to Islam. That he adds "sadly" is probably no different than anyone in similar shoes would say - i.e. he's not weaseling.
#5
I think you'll find the link to the quote interesting - it's likely bogus, lol! But Ibrahim's article seems quite genuine - and uses typically colorful and visual phrasing, so apropos to Arabs - to make his point.
It isn't; he's indicting his fellow Muslims. His sentence preceeding the one you quoted says it all: "I fear those naïve Muslims who think that they are beating the West have now achieved their worst crime of all."
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/28/2005 6:43 Comments ||
Top||
#9
.com
If my memory is any good it was not the missing of the carriers who worried Yamamoto (1) but knowing that due a decoding snapfu the Americans had been notified of the state of war after the attack. Yamamoto had lived in America and knew that this would make Americans mad. Also he didn't share the opinion of his colleagues of Americans being soft and decadent, he thought they were tough and, if angered, would fight to the death. Pearl Harbor and the diplomatic disaster of delivering the note too late endured Japan would have to deal with an angry America. The thought of it frightened Yamamoto.
(1) As evidenced at Midway, Yamamoto still clinged to the concept that battleships were the important ships and carriers the secondary ones.
The version I've heard is that BEFORE Pearl Harbor Yamomoto objected to the war with words along the lines of ...."I'll have a free run for 6 months, but then what?"
Having been to the US he understood the size and scope of out industrial might.
Think back to Gene Wilder re Mongo... "Don't shoot him, you'll only make him mad."
In fact both stories are true. Yamamoto promised six months of victories but he feared what would happen once the US economy had redeployed for war because he knew American industrial power. But he also knew the Americans and he didn't share the opinion prevalent in Japanese leading circles that Americans were soft and after the six months of Japanese victories, would throw the towel at the perspective of having to fight in plague infested hellholes like Guadalcanal. That is why he opposed the war.
But when he learnt about the late deliveral of the declaration of war (BTW: the note was contorted and didn't tell clearly it was war, the Japanese wanted to cut in the the time allowed to Americans for alerting their forces) he knew that the Americans would not content with retaking the lost ground and force Japan to give some possessions but that they would not stop until utterly crushing it.
#14
From .com's link, about the assassination of Yammamoto - To cover up the fact that the Allies were reading Japanese code, American newspapers published a story that civlian coast watchers in the Solomons saw Yamamoto boarding a bomber in the area.
How we could've pulled off that feat of planning in such a short period must've stunned the Japenese - if they believed it!
Too bad we are not allowed to assassinate really bad people anymore.
Too bad the newspapers now would scream about the violation of the Geneva Convention, et cetera, and not actually lift a finger to help. War, after all, is morally reprehensible.
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/28/2005 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I agree with .com and phil.My take is,it is not an idictment of the West and the guy gets it.
#16
Perhaps Mr. Ibrahim did not want a war pitting all of Islam against the west, but Binny sure as hell does.
Binny's plan will succeed to the point of radical islam being the most dominant force in Islamic politics. But thats as far as he'll get with his plan, supposing the west goes to war with Islam, which is still very debatable.
Because we, as the article points out, can destroy anything we want to. Albeit at a high cost, but we've done worse to ourselves than anyone will ever do to us. We could destroy Islam if we please and will no doubt force radical islam into submission in due time. So, bring it on Binny.
However, I think our boys are going to pull this hearts and minds battle off, as we already have in most of Iraq, minus the Sunni leadership, who are all old baathists anyway.
I did like this guys take on Iraq and Palestine though, very insightful.
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.
