Dr. Mohammed T. Al-Rasheed, comments@d-corner.com
So Tony Blair is a Nazi. Or worse, he is a petty dictator who wants to scrap all the liberties and laws the Brits have accrued over the centuries. Why is the man who just won a national election being called such names? Well, he simply said, âenough is enough.â It is high time he said it and acted on it.
If I were Blair I would stop apologizing and get on with it and promise more of the same. The United Kingdom is under attack. It is not Iraq, nor is it Serbia that brought this on the Old Country. Rather, it is some stupid laws that went unchecked and unchallenged for years that allowed the demented of this earth to carry the British passport. He wants to throw out people who incite others to be violent against their fellow-citizens. Others would have chopped off their heads. He wants to stop a convicted felon from becoming a citizen after serving term in British jails. Others would have shown the man the door after they released him from prison.
What exactly is a British citizenship? Is it a piece of paper with the lion and the unicorn on it? Is it simply the boundary of officialdom with the right signature, or is it a collective sum of culture, history, and indeed a way of life? How am I, as an outsider, to believe that the infamous cleric with a hook for an arm is British? He doesnât look it, dress it, smell it, nor does he even care to speak Her Majestyâs English.
Political refugees are an essential part of human life and history. But refugees of that sort remain exactly that: Refugees until they are able to go home. One look at the Palestinians should make the point. I am not against mixing the races. Indeed, mixing gold and silver makes a better piece of jewelry. But you cannot, should not, and must not overtake the diamond that is the centerpiece of the whole. That goes for every nation.
I would not want Arabia to become India and I am sure the Indians do not want their country to become Arabia either. Even America, a nation built by refugees and still takes on most of the worldâs roaming humanity, should look twice at its makeup. If people want to come to America, they should embrace the American way and not the other way around. America should not change its ways and culture to suit every newcomer. The onus is on the newcomer to embrace the standing order. If I become Australian, for example, the first thing I would do is eating kangaroo meat and be proud of it. And I will certainly cheer the Australian soccer team and not the Saudi one. It is a matter of honor and decency if not outright duty and moral imperative.
All those in Britain talking about the social and economic factors that may have helped produce those dangerous odd thumbs in society should stop this reductive nonsense. Those people who came to Britain in the first place suffered more than social and economic hardships in their homelands. What did they do? Blow themselves up in public places? No, they packed and paid their savings to be able to come to places like Britain. If they still feel the situation has not changed, why not pack and do the same again?
Had these people been true Brits, they would have been aware of the line that Tennyson declared as his nationâs motto: âTis not too late to seek a newer world.â Indeed, it never was! The catch, however, is that this newer world is here on earth.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/11/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"it is some stupid laws that went unchecked and unchallenged for years that allowed the demented of this earth to carry the British passport"
Hoo-rah!
Preach it, brother!
Oh, and watch your back.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/11/2005 0:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Whatâs Wrong With Throwing Out People Who Incite Violence?
If the inciters are not native-born individuals, nothing.
#3
And this admirable piece of common sense comes in Arab news written by a Saudi. And we are here wondering if this would have passed the censorship instaured by the lefto-fascists in TV and in the academy.
#5
If the inciters are not native-born individuals, nothing.
Personally, I have no problem with it if they ARE native born. Exile should be an option for those who are unwilling to get along with their neighbors.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/11/2005 7:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If they are native born then they are traitors and should be treated like them.
#9
At this mornings breakfast table the resident leftist as he describes him self (his world view was fomed in the '60s and he sees no need to change after all the world hasn't) was ranting on and on about how unjust it is that the UK would consider doing this. When informed that they were deporting clerics who were expousing suicide bombings he admitted that he really didn't know that's why they were being deported. Then he got into something about the new pretend enemies, the Arabs. When he had it thrown in his face that people named John Smith aren't strapping on vests full of plastique but that guys named Achmed are he went off on how the John Smiths are more dangerous than the Achmeds. Truefully the whole foaming at the mouth diatribe used to be funny. Now it is just becoming pathetic. He substitutes opinion for facts and when caught in an outright fabrication he responds that he was only being retorical. Sometimes people on the left need to be reminded of Oliver Wendell Holmes comment about free speech not giving you the right to shout fire in a crowed theater
Ps the main reason I go to this eatery is the coffe and the conversation with others even the liberals is usually fairly reasoned. With this guy it is not.
âToo many people might be emotionally affected by the subject matter. ⊠Itâs too controversial to be aired at this time.â
So said a statement from CBS/Infinity Radio, declining to run a series of paid commercial announcements. What were these emotionally affecting and controversial spots advertising? Vivisection of puppies? The North American Man/Boy Love Association? The placement of religious symbols on government property?
None of the above. The rejected ads were to announce a conference, âThe Radical Islamist Threat to World Peace and National Security,â sponsored by the Peopleâs Truth Forum. I will be participating in this symposium on September 21 in Plantsville, Connecticut, along with Harvey Kushner, author of Holy War on the Home Front; Brigitte Gabriel, a former anchor for world news in the Middle East; and Laura Mansfield, an author and counter-terror analyst.
What is so frightening about this for CBS? Well, I cannot speak for the other participants, but at the conference I intend to challenge media bias head-on by exploding the common politically correct notions that American injustice and economic inequalities are the real cause of terrorism, not any imperative derived from Islamic theology. I will show how jihad violence â in the words of terrorists themselves including Osama bin Laden â gains its impetus from core elements of Islamic theology mandating warfare against unbelievers, and call upon sincere moderate Muslims to confront and repudiate these elements of Islam. From what I know of the other speakers, I seriously doubt that they intend to sugar-coat matters or toe the line of politically correct orthodoxy. And the ads, in a quiet but unmistakable way, make that clear.
Why is this too much for CBS? The rejected ads touted the conference as revealing the motivation behind the madness of the 9/11 attacks and announced the speakers. No frothing condemnations of Muslims in general, no calls to nuke Mecca or round up innocent people and throw them into internment camps. In short, nothing but a straightforward announcement of a conference designed to explore the motivations of Islamic terrorists.
The fact that CBS/Infinity Radio would find this in itself too controversial and emotion-arousing for the American people is just one sign of the abysmal state of public discourse about Islamic terrorism today. The forces of political correctness as well as prominent American Islamic advocacy groups seem to be doing all they can to make sure that the American people are not exposed to any serious investigation of the genuine root causes of Islamic terrorism â such as I have undertaken in my new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Even speaking the truth about Islam is becoming increasingly difficult in todayâs stifling politically correct atmosphere. After successfully getting radio talk show host Michael Graham suspended for his remarks about Islam, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) directed its ire toward Geoff Metcalf, Grahamâs replacement. Metcalf annoyed CAIR by telling his listeners that the Qurâan allows Muslims to lie to unbelievers. Yet even as it complained about Metcalfâs statement, CAIRâs press release attacking Metcalf, Radio Host Claims Quran Teaches Muslims To Lie, doesnât say that what Metcalf said was false. Why not? Because itâs true.
Religious deception of unbelievers is indeed taught by the Qurâan itself: âLet not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers. If any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah; except by way of precaution, that ye may guard yourselves from themâ (Qurâan 3:28). In other words, donât make friends with unbelievers except to âguard yourselves from themâ: pretend to be their friends so that you can strengthen yourself against them. The distinguished Qurâanic commentator Ibn Kathir explains that this verse teaches that if âbelievers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers,â they may âshow friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly.â The Qurâan also warns Muslims that those who forsake Islam will be consigned to Hell â except those forced to do so, but who remain true Muslims inwardly: âAny one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters unbelief â except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in faith â but such as open their breast to unbelief, on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful penaltyâ (Qurâan 16:106). Ibn Kathir explains that âthe scholars agreed that if a person is forced into disbelief, it is permissible for him toâŠgo along with them in the interests of self-preservation...â
But if CBS and CAIR get their way, the American people will be denied the ability to act in their interests of their own self-preservation â by being not allowed to investigate and discuss the roots of Islamic violence and terrorism. And that in turn will lead only to our increased vulnerability to new terror attacks, more virulent than any we have seen up to now.
#1
I fear you give the average American too much credit. Deep thought is not our long suit.
Jingoism is the rule of the day, its far easier to ignore our peril than to actually ponder on how it might be avoided
Posted by: bk ||
08/11/2005 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
I think this post could be subtitled "Too Stupid to Live...."
From Michelle Malkin's blog - EFL for the relevant parts:
Speaking of slow-wittedness, the Cindy Sheehan juggernaut has resulted in an uptick in profanity-laced moonbat hate mail from Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers incapable of rational debate. Here's just a sample. Excuse the language. *snip*
And Patrick Mitchell, who works at the Los Angeles office of Ogletree and Deakins, writes from work:
X-Originating-IP: [216.105.154.202]
From: "Mitchell, Patrick" Patrick.Mitchell@ogletreedeakins.com
To: "'malkin@comcast.net'"
Subject:
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:41:22 -0400
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
YOU STINK you nasty CUNT! Eat Shit and DIE bitch!!
You tell me who the hate-mongers are.
*snip* Later:
Update, 1:50 pm eastern time: I have just received an e-mail and phone call from Gray L. Geddie of the L.A. office of Ogletree Deakins. Here's the e-mail...
"Dear Ms. Malkin,
I am the Managing Shareholder of the law firm of Ogletree Deakins with offices located across the country. I was very disturbed to learn today that a legal secretary in our Los Angeles office sent you the vile e-mail referenced on your home page. Such remarks are clearly inappropriate in any context and an e-mail such as this certainly should not have been sent during working time using our firm's equipment. The comments of this employee are not reflective of the views or opinions of the firm and are directly in violation of our e-mail policy. As Managing Shareholder, I wanted to extend to you our apologies and let you know that this serious violation of our firm's work rules has resulted in the discharge of this employee.
Once again, let me offer you our deepest apologies for any discomfort that the referenced e-mail has caused. It will not happen again. (at least, not from our computer)
Sincerely,
Gray Geddie"
(emphasis added)
What was that guy thinking? Good luck in your next job interview, Patrick.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/11/2005 15:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/11/2005 16:55 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Every time anyone signs on to a computer where I work, a popup appears that you have to agree in order to access your computer. It's basically acknowledging that you're aware of and agree to the firm's computer policies. Everybody has to do this, every time they sign on - including the biggest wigs of all.
And everybody hits "enter" without reading it (again) and keeps on going, but if someone were to be as stupid as the idiot in question, there'd be no way of saying he/she didn't know about the policy.
When the tech people have to work on my computer - particularly if it's something they have to do while I'm gone - they always ask very politely if they can have my password, and if they root around in my computer. I remind them every time it's not my computer, it's the firm's, and as the firm techies they can do whatever they want (within the firm's guidelines) without my permission whatsoever.
Same with people coming into my office to get communal books stored there. Everybody is very polite about not "invading your space" and protecting your "privacy," but it's not my computer and not my office space either. I don't keep anything there (or write anything from there) that I'd be ashamed of. (I don't do that from my home computer either, but at least it's paid for by ME.)
I can guarantee you this clown's firm has stringent e-mail/net use policies, too. Guess he should have read - and believed - them.
"Do you want fries with that?" Good one, MAC. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/11/2005 17:05 Comments ||
Top||
#6
That's cold, Frank. :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/11/2005 17:05 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Patrick:
Can you give me an example of your strengths? I will make valuable employee because I improve as I go from job to job.
good...and now example of your weakness? I tend to get angry fast and I am improving as I go from job to job. Since this is my 20th job in 2yrs, my value is priceless.
We're often told that Islamic terrorism has an exact mirror in Christian-inspired extremism.
Sure, there are thousands of jihadis killing and maiming people of all creeds and colors, but look at Timothy McVeigh! Can't -- he's compost now. But when he was alive he wasn't shouldering aside old ladies to make morning Mass; McVeigh was one of those pathetic Aryan pagans who would have beat up Jesus for his dusky hue.
What about that abortion bomber guy, Eric Rudolph? Sorry; he calls himself a disciple of Nietzsche.
Well, what about the Crusades? And Dresden? Fine. Drop us a line when someone drives a 737 into the Sears Tower on behalf of a bygone pope and Gen. Eisenhower.
It turns out, however, that there are similarities. There is something the Islamic extremists and some Christian groups share: They agree that Israel is the problem.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) -- not the members, but the learned elders -- has announced it will use its stock holdings to target Israel for being mean to the Palestinians.
But they're not anti-Semites. Heavens, nay. Don't you dare question their philosemitism! No, they looked at the entire world, including countries that lop off your skull if you convert to Presbyterianism, and what did they choose as the object of their ire? A country the size of a potato chip hanging on the edge of a region noted for despotism and barbarity. By some peculiar coincidence, it happens to be full of Jews.
The right and the left seem to take turns deciding who's going to be anti-Semitic. But for some time now, the hard left in the West has led the charge against the Jews -- or, as the sleight-of-hand term has it, the Zionists.
These adolescent spirits love nothing more than a revolution, a story of a scrappy underdog rising up against a colonizing power, and the Palestinians, with their romantically masked fighters and thrilling weapon-brandishing, fit the bill. Plus, there's something so deliciously naughty and transgressive about calling Jews the new Nazis.
It doesn't matter that one side is a liberal democracy that grants rights to women and non-Jews while the other has thugs and assassins for rulers and sends its kids to summer camps where they learn the joys of good ol' fashioned Jew-killing.
According to the hard left's script, Israel was created when some Europeans (hisssss) invaded the sovereign nation of Palestine, even though we all know the Jewish homeland is somewhere outside Passaic, N.J. Then for no reason Israel invaded the West Bank and Gaza -- which for some reason had not been set up as New Palestine by the Egyptians and the Jordanians, but never mind -- and made everyone stand in line and get frisked. Those who joined the line in '67 are just getting through now. Evil Zionists.
Don't tell the Presbyterians about Tibet or Sudan. It would absolutely ruin their day.
The companies the church wishes to pressure include Caterpillar, which makes bulldozers purchased by the Israelis for the sole purpose of knocking down innocent homes of gentle lamb herders, and Motorola, which among other things sells night-vision goggles that give the Israeli Defense Forces an unfair advantage over people who want to smuggle in bombs to encourage the social-justice dialogue.
The church will probably get around to boycotting Cuisinart, if the imams suggest that Jews use Cuisinart products to grind up Gentile bones for Passover pastries. Of course it's not true, literally, but in the culture of the occupation and resistance, we must understand these things as potent metaphors. False, yes, but potent!
Next they can sue the company that sells buses to Israeli cities. All those tempting targets, packed with innocent people. How could an oppressed person resist killing them all? What sort of civilized nation would tempt them so? Especially because they don't have helicopters and night-vision goggles and tanks and missiles. Not that they'd use those devices against Israelis. That would risk a Presbyterian boycott.
There are some lines even the most romantic revolutionary dare not cross.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/11/2005 11:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Another great one by Lileks! It amazes me just how infiltrated the Church has become these days. Christ's bride needs to do some housecleaning.
Posted by: BA ||
08/11/2005 14:07 Comments ||
Top||
IIRC, right out of WWII Husseini was spirited away and sheltered in France by the Quay d'Orsay (the arabs-loving french state department), so he could undermine GB's influence in the region and counterbalance the zionists, who were seen as rivals of La Belle France. Note that Husseini's grand daughter, the lebanese-born Leila Shahid is the PLO mouthpiece in France, where she is very active, has good access to the MSM, and has excellent relations with the far left.
Readers of David Horowitzâs excellent book Unholy Alliance are well aware of the peculiar relationship between the political Left and radical Islam. It is a relationship compounded by the Leftâs incessant mongering of the myth of "Hitlerâs Pope"âa myth that, as a rabbi and historian, I am determined to expose.
Many readers of the New York Times no doubt believe that Pope Pius XII was "Hitlerâs Pope," because John Cornwellâs bestselling book told them that, and itâs been reaffirmed by Garry Wills, Daniel Goldhagen, and other Left-leaning writers since. Itâs been said so often in fact that most well-read liberals know it for a certainty. The only trouble is: it isnât true.
Not only does it contradict the words of Holocaust survivors, the founders of Israel, and the contemporary record of the New York Times, but even John Cornwell, the originator of the phrase "Hitlerâs Pope," has recanted it saying that he was wrong to have ascribed evil motives to Pius and now found it "impossible to judge" the wartime pope.
But thereâs something else that has been ignored nearly all together. Precisely at the moment when Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church in Rome (and throughout Europe) was saving thousands of Jewish lives, Hitler had a cleric broadcasting from Berlin who called for the extermination of the Jews.
He was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the viciously anti-Semitic Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who resided in Berlin as a welcome guest and ally of the Nazis throughout the years of the Holocaust.
As I point out in my book, The Myth of Hitlerâs Pope, the outrageous calumny directed against Pope Pius XII has not only besmirched the reputation of a man who did more than any other religious leader to save Jewish lives, it has deflected attention from the horrible truth of Hajj Amin al-Husseiniâwho continues to be a revered figure in the Muslim world.
It is possible to trace modern Islamic anti-Semitism back along a number of different historical and intellectual threads, but, no matter which one you choose, they all seem to pass, at one point or another, through the hands of Hajj Amin al-HusseiniâHitlerâs Mufti.
In late March 1933, al-Husseini contacted the German consul general in Jerusalem and requested German help in eliminating Jewish settlements in Palestineâoffering, in exchange, a pan-Islamic jihad in alliance with Germany against Jews around the world. It was not until 1938, in the aftermath of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlainâs infamous capitulation to Hitler at Munich, that Hajj Amin al-Husseiniâs overtures to Nazi Germany were officially reciprocated. But by then the influence of Nazi ideology had already grown significantly throughout the Arab Middle East.
Several of the Arab political parties founded during the 1930s were modeled after the Nazi party, including the Syrian Popular Party and the Young Egypt Society, which were explicitly anti-Semitic in their ideology and programs. The leader of Syriaâs Socialist Nationalist Party, Anton Saâada, imagined himself an Arab Hitler and placed a swastika on his partyâs banner.
Though he was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, al-Husseini moved his base of operations (and pro-Nazi propaganda) to Lebanon in 1938, to Iraq in 1939 (where he helped establish the strongly pro-German Rashid Ali al-Gaylani as prime minister), and then to Berlin in 1941.
Adolf Eichmannâs deputy Dieter Wisliceny testified at the Nuremberg Trials that Hajj Amin al-Husseini "was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan. He was one of Eichmannâs best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures." At Auschwitz, al-Husseini reportedly "admonished the guards running the gas chambers to work more diligently."
This unholy legacy continues. Hajj Amin al-Husseini has inspired two generations of radical Islamic leaders to carry on Hitlerâs war against the Jews, which is why today, as was true 60 years ago, it is not the Catholic Church that is the great threat to the survival of the Jewish people; it is Islamofascism.
NB: I'm posting this to the Opinion Page, although it's not really an Op-Ed. The author discussed in this article makes some interesting correlations between the *actions* of the Nazis and the *actions* of Germany's new Left Party. Rantburg has hosted some of this debate previously, and it's a meme I've seen argued elsewhere in the center-right blogosphere. If you add the current Wahhab pathologies and Hitler's pal the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to the mix, it starts to congeal into a mighty unappetizing pudding...
Germany's new Left Party, which polls show will win 12 per cent next month's general election, draws on a concept of 'National Socialism' from the Nazi era, a prominent German historian alleged on Wednesday. "This is not an accident - it's intentional," said Goetz Aly who recently published a book arguing that Hitler's Nazis won allegiance by creating a huge social welfare state funded by property stolen from the Jews and people in Third Reich-occupied Europe.
A leader of the Left Party, a rebel former Social Democratic (SPD) chairman Oscar Lafontaine, said in a speech last month that German workers had to be protected to prevent foreigners stealing their jobs. "The state is obligated to prevent family fathers and women from becoming unemployed because 'Fremdarbeiter' (foreign workers) are taking away their jobs by working for low wages," said Lafontaine at a rally in the eastern German city of Chemnitz near the Czech border. Germany's Brockhaus dictionary says the term 'Fremdarbeiter' is a Nazi expression used to describe foreign and often slave labour brought to Germany during World War II.
Does it translate into 'dhimmi' in Arabic?
"In Lafontaine's propaganda of the past weeks, elements of the National Socialist concept can very clearly be recognised," said Aly in a Handelsblatt newspaper interview. He added that angry reactions of the right-wing extremist National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD) showed the far-right now viewed the Left Party as serious competiton.
The newly-founded Left Party is a merger of former East Germany's neo-communists and a smaller western German movement, the WASG. Aly noted that many of Germany's tax loopholes and social welfare policies originated under the Nazis. For example, the fiercely defended tax-free status of bonus pay for work on Sundays, holidays and night shifts dates back to 1940 - and was imposed after the Nazi invasion of France, he said. "Because National Socialism under Hitler was a continuation of German social welfare policy, big chunks of it were taken over by the successor states (West Germany and East Germany), cleansed of racist elements and then further developed," said Aly. Aly said that Germans for the past century had repeatedly demanded social and financial equality. "In our national history one can unfortunately see again and again that Germans - in case of doubt - always give up freedom in favour of equality," he said.
Polls show the Left Party at around 12 per cent, meaning it is almost certain to win parliamentary seats in Germany's September 18 election. Under German election law a party must get at least 5 per cent of the vote to enter the Bundestag. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, whose SPD badly trails conservative opposition challenger Angela Merkel, has ruled out any coalition with the Left Party.
Stick to your guns on this, Gerhard.
Schroeder is said to detest Lafontaine who quit as SPD leader and as German finance minister in 1999 amid complaints that the Chancellor was not a team player and refused to listen to his views. Earlier this year Lafontaine quit the SPD and joined the WASG.
#1
Even the Germans have Commie-controlled Fascists, i.e. Clintonian FASCISTAS, also, ehh!? The Lefties and Commies are hiding behind the vestiges of GLOBAL FASCISM, aka in Leftspeak as DE-REGULATED/
COMPETITIVE COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM - errrrrr. I meant Clintonian Centrism. And what is the antithesis or alternate to Fascism - Communism! WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS THAT THE LEFTIES ARE WAITING FOR NEW 9-11's TO OCCUR, in order to justify Left-based Commie Super-regulatory Totalitariansm as opposed to defective "Fascist" Authoritarianism, for that kinder, gentler despotism and gulag/death camp.
#4
The Trasantlatic intelligencer blog by John Rosenthal (http://www.trans-int.blogspot.com/) has had several very interesting entries about the linkage between some modern german conceptions (nationhood, welfare state, war crimes, ethnicity-based minorities,...) and the nazi or pre-nazi era ones.
Note that in general this excellent blog, which is soon going to evolve, is an good ressource on political issues for Europe, especially France and Germany, written by a true scholar with a background in political sciences.
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.
