November 16, 2017

Big Deal in the land of Mecca

This really is a big deal - one I've been watching with interest since the first news that Saudi women could finally drive a car without running afoul of the law of this holy land.

A New York Times op-ed finally broaches the significance of the tectonic shift apparently underway in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia:

All this is a risky proposition. What is happening in Saudi Arabia today, especially considering the recent purges against the old guard, resembles both a palace revolution and a religious upheaval. In addition, these changes coincide with the Saudi government’s renewed warnings about the Iranian menace and its rapprochement with Israel. What kind of revolutionary is this prince? Some see in him instead a man guided by an American hand, commissioned to clean up the region.

Sidebar: Current Colorado gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo long ago suggested, infamously, the "nuking" of Mecca. What a colossal mistake, in retrospect, that would have been.

Posted by JohnGalt at 4:07 PM | Comments (0)

June 13, 2016

Women, Artists, Gays... Who Ya Gonna Call?

If I may attempt to return the focus, away from guns, gays and "Islam is not to blame" back to where it belongs, i.e. Trump v. Clinton, I will at least do it in the context of current events.

Milo Yiannopolous sez:

The Christian Right may not be totally down with homos, and Trump may say things that hurt our delicate feelings, but they aren't going to kill us or put us in camps. Only Islam would do that -- the same Islam that, bizarrely, now stands at the top of the left's hierarchy of victimhood.

And the leading spokesperson for that leftist hierarchy, seeking to grab the baton from a gasping President Obama, is Hillary:

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:58 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

I owe you an answer on two thoughtful posts concerning the Presidential contest. I am not ducking you. Here's a short one and I will expand in the future.

There is much time but -- at this moment -- Sec. Clinton is strangely attractive because of her corruption. The corporate interests which "own" her will not allow much of the mischief I fear in a Trump Administration.

"But we will lose all our rights!" Yes. Rights are not going to be protected in the next four years either way. I wish to have the largest possible remnant of a nation and economy for the occupant in 2021 or 2025.

Posted by: jk at June 14, 2016 2:29 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Wow. That's a novel way of looking at the situation.

What about the Supreme Court? Are you as sanguine about letting either of them botch the nomination of the next 1-n Justices?

Posted by: johngalt at June 15, 2016 5:05 PM
But Jk thinks:

I do not trust Mr. Trump to make better picks than Sec. Clinton. I did get good reviews on his list, but he backed off it before the ink was dry. Making good picks -- and, more importantly, defending them -- requires conviction. Of which Trump has a paucity.

Posted by: Jk at June 15, 2016 9:03 PM

September 11, 2015

Still missing the forest for the trees

On this 14th sad anniversary of 9/11, as the President of the United States prepares to deliver to the ideological creators of Islamism not bombs, but billions of American taxpayers' dollars, I was inspired by a Facebook meme to revisit Leonard Peikoff's 'End States Who Sponsor Terrorism' advertisement from October 2nd, 2001 edition of the New York Times.

I recalled we had discussed that essay on these pages, and that it was not well received. I see now that much if not all of the blame for that falls on my shoulders. I foolishly suggested that the war against Islamism could be won with superior firepower. It cannot, and Peikoff knows that. He said as much in his essay. It can only be won by the equivalent of the "de-Nazification" of Iran. To my credit, I did at least excerpt that portion of his essay in my 2005 post.

Eliminating Iran's terrorist sanctuaries and military capability is not enough. We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government. This goal cannot be achieved painlessly, by weaponry alone. It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation. But nothing less will "end the state" that most cries out to be ended."

The whole piece is worth re-reading, as I did, with nine more years of experience under our belts. Please do so and see if perhaps your judgment of Peikoff's conclusions was as mistaken as was my proposed way forward.

Posted by JohnGalt at 6:57 PM | Comments (4)
But nanobrewer thinks:

Yes, I seem to recall commenting one time, if not two, that regime change was the only real solution. Sadly, the slow and rocky road to the Arab Spring sort of quashed any momentum we might have had (tho' it didn't stop Hillary from nudging Libya into anarchy).

As a point of order: were the Iranians positively tied to 9/11?

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 12, 2015 11:37 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Iran was not linked to 9/11, legally or militarily. Peikoff's point, however, is that they are linked to it ideologically:

If one were under a Nazi aerial bombardment, it would be senseless to restrict oneself to combatting Nazi satellites while ignoring Germany and the ideological plague it was working to spread. What Germany was to Nazism in the 1940s, Iran is to terrorism today. Whatever else it does, therefore, the U.S. can put an end to the Jihad-mongers only by taking out Iran.
Posted by: johngalt at September 13, 2015 12:27 PM
But jk thinks:

Two great things about having a blog of such longevity:

-- The fame, income, and influence it affords;
-- I do enjoy reprocessing an old discussion.

I'm going to be a bit stubborn on this one and postpone my rapprochement with Mr. Peikoff for another year. I first am going to push back on his selection of Iran as a singular locus of evil. Evil, yes, but we could hand out a lot of plaques in their neighborhood.

He dates the start of Islamic extremism to the '79 revolution and places Iran at the root node. I do not share that. I remain heavily influenced by Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower." Wright lays a historical, ideological foundation on Sayyid Qtub (a man about whom, Jonah Goldberg says "desperately needs to 'buy a vowel'"). Wright documents Salafist, Sunni origins leading directly to Osama bin Laden.

My second new datum is discussion with blog friend tgreer. We don't always agree but he is steeped in diplomatic/strategic thinking on foreign policy, and is exceptionally learned in that area. Throughout the contretemps over the Iran Deal, he has railed against conservatives, right wingers, republicans and nascar retards in general over Iran hate.

Our friend looks at ISIS, and Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and wonders why Iran has been singled out. I pushed back on this and won't rehash all the arguments here. But he did plant a seed. If we had a long alliance with Iran and I suggested that we should switch sides and support Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, you'd rightly tell me I was out of my mind.

Ten years ago, I thought I had the answers and I tread a bit more cautiously. But sand into glass does not seem the moral or efficacious way out.

Posted by: jk at September 13, 2015 2:16 PM
But nanobrewer thinks:
If we had a long alliance with Iran and I suggested that we should switch sides and support Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, you'd rightly tell me I was out of my mind.

I'm trying see to which mind you're in; the sentence doesn't make sense to me....

"Iran Hate" is based on their ideological bent, and their $400B economy, with solid reserves of oil and NG and a sophisticated arms industry. Still, I'll wait to hear more from someone well versed in the highly-touted Looming Tower. Yes, the Saudis do fund Salafists, but they don't allow them to get ICBMs, nor to topple other governments.

Syria? You've got to be kidding (I think LT is now out of date on them...); even before their recent donnybrooks they had the economy of New Hampshire, no navy and the Turks leaning over their shoulder... all they can create is refugees. I'm not even that worried about the Norks (49th GDP-wise, were they to be a state); and they HAVE nuke-tipped, ICBMs.... wobblier than their mentally-IL leader.

Sand into glass? No, no, when I say regime change I mean an orange, pink or puce revolution...

Posted by: nanobrewer at September 14, 2015 11:30 PM

March 25, 2015

Peaceful Islam?

'Heretic' a new book by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, makes a philosophical case for the reforms needed to make Islam a modern faith, compatible with the rest of the modern world. Writing in the WSJ she listed five critical reforms:

1. Muhammad’s semi-divine status, along with the literalist reading of the Quran. (...) The Quran’s eternal spiritual values must be separated from the cultural accidents of the place and time of its birth.

2. The supremacy of life after death.
The appeal of martyrdom will fade only when Muslims assign a greater value to the rewards of this life than to those promised in the hereafter.

3. Shariah, the vast body of religious legislation.
Muslims should learn to put the dynamic, evolving laws made by human beings above those aspects of Shariah that are violent, intolerant or anachronistic.

4. The right of individual Muslims to enforce Islamic law.
There is no room in the modern world for religious police, vigilantes and politically empowered clerics.

5. The imperative to wage jihad, or holy war.
Islam must become a true religion of peace, which means rejecting the imposition of religion by the sword.

A story in The West Australian quotes AHA from her book:

"It simply will not do for Muslims to claim that their religion has been 'hijacked' by extremists," she said.

A reformation, similar to that in Judaism and Christianity over the centuries, was necessary, Ali wrote.

"We need to hold Islam accountable for the acts of its most violent adherents and to demand that it reform or disavow the key beliefs that are used to justify those acts."[emphasis mine]

I heard a statement in a news report yesterday that sounded possibly like this, and went searching for it today. It was made by the current President of the Islamic Republic... of Afghanistan, Mohammad Ashraf Ghani.

President Ghani stressed, “We have the capacity to speak truth to terror. Terrorists do not speak for Islam -- we do. And it's the genuine Islam that is interested in dialogue between civilizations and cooperation and endeavor forward.”

He added, “These [terrorists] are not classic national liberation movements; these are destructive, nihilistic movements. And it's essential that we confront them with vigor and determination.”

Perhaps not a direct call for "reform" of Islam, but dialog and cooperation, and trade mentioned elsewhere, are some of the end results of such reform.

His true intentions are further revealed in his remarks on an incident in front of a Mosque in Kabul last week:

No individual is allowed to make oneself a judge and use violence to punish others in degrading manners. Launching personal trials and choosing who to punish stands in clear contradiction to Sharia and Islamic justice.

The government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan condemns yesterday's act of extreme violence and makes it clear that ensuring justice is only the duty of courts and whoever engages in violent acts outside law will be dealt with strongly.

The government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan also condemns in strong terms any action that causes disrespect to the Holy Quran and Islamic values.

We Muslims are all obliged to protect the sanctity of the Holy Quran but only within the instructions and principles of Islam.

Hopeful, perhaps.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:30 PM | Comments (0)

February 13, 2015

Let us ask ourselves, "Why do they hate us?"

Is this not the Progressive prescription when atrocities are committed in the name of religious faith? When, more than 14 years after Muslims celebrated in the street the 9/11 atrocity, an American man allegedly murders three Muslim students because they are Muslim, is it not just as advisable for Muslims to contemplate why some may feel anger toward them?

Koos Mohammed opines in Morocco World News:

We have Iraq, where the ‘war on terror’ has been terrorising civilians for over a decade now. First raped by the CIA, children in Iraq are now raped by ISIS. What were once safe countries for the average civilian have been turned into something from apocalyptic films in Libya and Syria. The Western media won’t report it, but the freedom the West exported to Libya has manifested itself in a chaos that makes one think, if hell had a jungle, this would be it.

In Palestine, Israel’s most recent military attack on the Gaza Strip left over 2,200 people dead; mostly civilians. The murders of Palestinian civilians by soldiers and settlers occurs almost weekly.

In Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the dictators there (friends of the West by the way) brutally suppress the civilians. Executions are common. Those who dare speak out, face life behind bars, or risk being whipped publicly.

So where are Muslim lives sacred? The truth is, in today’s world, in this current setting and condition, Muslim lives aren’t safe anywhere. [emphasis mine]

I must have missed the reports of rapes and other atrocities by the CIA. Perhaps they were overshadowed by Abu Graib. And it's difficult to tell what Koos values more - freedom or dictatorial leadership of "safe countries for the average civilian." But I really must ask, Is it so difficult to publicly state "I am a Muslim and I reject those who kill innocents in the name of my faith?" Or how about, "I treasure the freedom and safety and individual rights inherent in the western nations, and I condemn anyone who threatens those rights for any reason, including religious fundamentalism?"

And oh by the way, those rapes being perpetrated in Iraq... by ISIS... are the acts of Muslims. People in glass houses.

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:13 PM | Comments (1)
But Jk thinks:

You might enjoy this.

Posted by: Jk at February 15, 2015 2:48 PM

September 3, 2014

The End is Near?

Here is an interesting article that was linked by Real Clear Politics - What ISIS's Leader Really Wants

The last four paragraphs are of particular interest, as they suggest that the Islamist movement or, at least, the Caliphate reenactment re-sequels, may have a finite duration as foretold by the prophet:

ISIS almost certainly has a successor in mind. But the supply of caliphs is not infinite, according to some Baghdadi-aligned Islamic scholars studied by Bunzel. One of those scholars, the Bahraini cleric Turki al-Bin'ali, cites a saying attributed to Muhammad that predicts a total of twelve caliphs before the end of the world. Bin'ali considers only seven of the caliphs of history legitimate. That makes Baghdadi the eighth out of twelve--and in some Sunni traditions, the name of the twelfth and final caliph, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, has already been foretold.

I did not know that.

Posted by JohnGalt at 12:21 AM | Comments (4)
But Keith Arnold thinks:

"... the supply of caliphs is not infinite..."

I wonder how we should test that hypothesis. There are good arguments for either a bolt-action .308 or a mushroom cloud.

Either way, just sitting back and seeing how history plays out while watching from the back nine is not a worthwhile option.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at September 3, 2014 1:41 PM
But johngalt thinks:

The linked article closes with the words "The end of the [Islamist?] world may be coming, one Hellfire missile at a time." I advocate for using whatever weapon(s) will dispatch as many of the youthful Jihadi idealists who surround the Caliph, and no more. The idea is to bring to justice violators of individual rights. Not Muslims, not terrorists, but plain old murderers. And then to tell all the governments and faiths of the world, "You have the same freedoms as anyone else on earth which is to say, you may not initiate force against another."

Posted by: johngalt at September 3, 2014 1:54 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Just curious: why the clear distinction between terrorist and murderers? From The Refugee's perspective, one has killed innocent people and the other is making every attempt to do so. Must we wait until they succeed before taking action?

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at September 4, 2014 12:18 PM
But johngalt thinks:

What I was getting at was not *because* they are terrorists. Terrorist is a politically charged word, imparting moral ambiguity, e.g. "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" but there is no moral ambiguity regarding murderers.

Posted by: johngalt at September 4, 2014 5:45 PM

August 29, 2014

Moral Ambiguity, Meet Moral Certainty

Despite numerous high-level voices in his administration giving clear signals that Islamic State is unambiguously evil and should be dealt with swiftly and forcefully, President Obama said yesterday that, "we don't have a strategy yet." And, really, who is surprised at this development, given that his response to the decapitation murder of James Foley was to say of ISIS: "People like this ultimately fail. They fail because the future is won by those who build and not destroy."

Daily Beast contributor Stuart Stevens writes what essentially occurred to me the moment I heard that:

"But it seems incredibly naïve and American-centric not to grasp that the Islamic fanatics of ISIS are very much about building - building a new world in their vision."

Stevens explains:

As a post-Cold War figure who matured through "movements," Barack Obama is drawing from a distinct tradition. He is clearly more comfortable talking about "justice" than "evil." The "oppressed" to him are much more likely to be victims of society's prejudice than communism. Some on the right argue that Barack Obama rejects the concept of America as a force for good but I think that's a misjudgment. It's more that he defaults to a fundamentally different test than his predecessors.

More often than not, Barack Obama defines America's moral worth - our "goodness" - by comparing America's past to some future in which the values in which he believes will be the norm. In that matrix, it's not about us versus them - it's about what we are versus what we can be. It's us vs. us. America is "good" because we are getting "better." We are at our best not when we fight the evils of the world, but the "injustice" of our society, primarily prejudice, for which there is an evolving test.

This explains the Progressive apology for Islamism wherein their heinous acts are caused, not by an innately barbaric interpretation of a "pure" principle, but by the "injustices" visited upon them by prosperous westerners and their governments. They are supposedly "radicalized" in response to our prosperity. (And "inequality" perhaps?)

But moral ambiguity is not a condition which afflicts the Islamists. Right or wrong, they know what they want and they believe they are justified in doing anything to achieve it. That kind of moral certainty is a very powerful motivator. It can provoke millions of people to vote for you, if you articulate it in a political contest. It can also provoke a convicted mass murderer to seek to join your movement, as former Army Major Nidal Hassan reportedly attempted:

""It would be an honor for any believer to be an obedient citizen soldier to a people and its leader who don't compromise the religion of All-Mighty Allah to get along with the disbelievers."

Would but the President of the United States be so certain as to say, "Anyone on this Earth may believe anything he wants, but there is no justification to initiate force against anyone else. You don't have to get along with us, but you most certainly may not kill or injure us, except in physical self-defense."

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:54 PM | Comments (0)

August 22, 2014

Quote of the postwar era

I do not feel that my choice of title is overwrought.

The whole questionable debate on American war weariness aside, the U.S. military is not war weary and is fully capable of attacking and reducing IS throughout the depth of its holdings, and we should do it now, but supported substantially by our traditional allies and partners, especially by those in the region who have the most to give - and the most to lose - if the Islamic State’s march continues.

From a must read article by General John R. Allen, USMC retired. He gives the President great credit for actions taken in the theater thus far, but makes a profound plea for his annihilation of Islamic State immediately.

For its part, the White House has finally unleashed the "t-word."

"When you see somebody killed in such a horrific way, that represents a terrorist attack," White House Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes told reporters. "That represents a terrorist attack against our country, against an American citizen, and I think all of us have the Foley family in our thoughts and prayers."
Posted by JohnGalt at 4:54 PM | Comments (0)

August 21, 2014

"Never Again..."

A Facebook friend compared the Islamic State movement [ISIS] to Nazism in 20th century Germany. Given the wholesale mass murder that both ideologies engaged in, I think the comparison is a good one, and completely leaps over Godwin's Law. I replied with the following comment:

The analogy between "ISIS" (Islamic Statists) and NAZI Germany is apropos, but I think there is a more timely analogy for IS - namely, the Ebola virus. Islamism is an ideological virus comparable to the biological virus. Both viruses kill or make carriers of the majority of people which they contact. Both are merciless, and have no goal but their own propagation. Both pose a threat of spreading to every nation on Earth. They are impervious to reason or "negotiation." - So why does Ebola warrant emergency efforts by our NIH and deployment of our latest experimental "weapon" the ZMAPP drug, while the rapidly spreading Islamic Statist movement is met only with "limited airstrikes?"


Posted by JohnGalt at 3:09 PM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

Michael Moynihan deliberately mentioned and then contravened Godwin's Law on The Independents last night, saying "This is Babi Yar."

Strong but undeniable words. There are no examples contradictory to equivalence.

I would certainly back the President on a forceful response, but I mistrust his judgment sufficiently to hope for caution. "Limited Air strikes" have been somewhat effective. A clandestine arming of the Kurds could be good politics and good policy.

Posted by: jk at August 21, 2014 5:31 PM

August 13, 2014

Islam on Sex and the "rights" of "slaves"

Heh. Don't get many opportunities to use the "slavery" category these days but such is the gift that is the darkness of [they refer to it as, simply] IS. (Islamic State)

In the first comment to this oft-cited (at least by yours truly) post I riffed on Ayaan Hirsi Ali's claim in a WSJ piece that a central part of what the jihadists are about is the oppression of women.

The central issue here, morally justified by the "pure principles of the Prophet" is a profound illiberalism. One which permits one class - devout Muslim men - to do anything his heart desires to every member of any other group. A "license to rape" is a popular selling point to young men.

This idea was horrific enough in the antiseptic realm of the intellect. Today I find purportedly devout young Muslim men Tweeting about what a believer is permitted to do with his female slaves.

Islam allows "slavery". Women can be captured, men can be killed. The Prophet approved this ...

is their a limit to how many slave women can have?

I'm not sure there's a fixed limit.

that in islam u dont need to marry a slave to have physical relationship with her

a slave is not one of your wives, you can have relationship with her as long as she's your slave

Don't worry, though, because "slaves" have "rights."

Sex has to be consentual though and it only applies to concubines. Mut'ah [temporary marriage for pleasure] is a big no no

whats the definition of concubine, isnt it the same as a person u own, obvious in islam they have rights

But their intentions are "good" right? As AHA explained, "Boko Haram [and all Islamists, by extension] sincerely believes that girls are better off enslaved than educated." Noble even. With benefactors like that, who needs an evil overlord?

Posted by JohnGalt at 5:30 PM | Comments (0)

August 20, 2013

Friends like U.S.

As the pro-western Egyptian military declares, through its actions, that it is with George W. Bush and not the terrorists, America's government treats them like pariahs. If I didn't know better I'd think our President was with the terrorists. But there is scant evidence to the contrary. IBD editorial:

In 2009, his grandiose speech in Cairo apologized for America's historical role in the Middle East and snubbed Mubarak, setting the stage for the Egyptian president's overthrow by the mob.

When the worst-case scenario happened and an operative for the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Morsi, was elected president, Obama's secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, went to Cairo and personally coddled him.

President Obama's foreign policy is reminiscent of his domestic economic policy, where he uses the power of government to punish winners and reward losers. With friends like him, Egypt (and American business) don't need enemies.

Posted by JohnGalt at 2:18 PM | Comments (4)
But jk thinks:

I certainly agree it was bungled. And I'm not above blaming the President's ego. (Too bad Egypt had to try and get by for 5,000 years without his awesomeness).

But now that we're in the soup, I'm not sure fulsome support of the Military is a slam dunk. Bret Stephens presents it as the least-worst option, which I might buy. But al-Sisi as sort of a Dick Cheney with better aim . . . I'm not sure I'm buying that.

Posted by: jk at August 20, 2013 5:25 PM
But jk thinks:

OTOH: Ambassador Marc Ginsberg was on Kudlow last night and made a solid case for this.

Posted by: jk at August 21, 2013 2:54 PM
But johngalt thinks:

"McCain and Graham, the little Bobsey twins..." LOL! He walked it back, but still.

I'm not sure, but it sounded like Ambassador Ginsberg said the Egyptian army is racist. Isn't that what "displeasure with the Obama Administration" means?

Posted by: johngalt at August 22, 2013 3:14 PM
But jk thinks:

Damned Egyptian Army Racist Teabaggers!!!

Posted by: jk at August 22, 2013 3:48 PM

July 10, 2013

"saucily exhibiting Kelly Slater's package"

There are many reasons to embed the preceding promotional video. I'll try to hit them all, in no particular order.


Product placements for HTC phones and Windows Phone OS, which they refer to as "Surface" at the end of the promo.

A hip soundtrack, featuring a group I'd never heard before.

Feminist schadenfreude. After all, has there ever been, in the history of advertising, a man who complained that a woman in a commercial was "sexualised?" The commenter's mindset is clearly revealed by the term "typical blonde size six surfer girl." Jealous much?

Equality. This one nearly provokes me to profanity. It is fast replacing altruism as, in my opinion, the most dangerous and dispicable idea in human thought. To wit:

So what exactly is so offensive this time, as the surfing giant is merely using a tried and tested marketing approach? Probably the fact that this little voyeuristic semi soft-core porn clip is representing a professional sport which has been fighting a long and ongoing battle for gender equality.

Please. Men and women are - wait for it - differ'nt. Commercial advertising is as free-market as anything else left in this world and its practitioners have discovered a formula that works. You may not like the formula, and you may not like that it works, but no amount of snippy commentary will ever change those facts.

Freedom. Freedom to voluntarily participate in a promo video featuring ass shots, of your own ass. "12 butt shots in one minute and 46 seconds exactly." Huzzah! Perhaps you'd prefer if she wore a burka, Ms. Salvo? As a father of daughters, I have no objections whatsoever to this promo. Natural, athletic beauty is nothing to hide or to battle against using shame, much less the government regulation that is so routinely resorted to in such matters of "inequality." You, who claim to seek "gender equality" would have more credibility if you didn't object to the same "offenses" as does the Taliban.

Did I mention badonkadonk?

Hat tip to Tully Corcoran and the "Popular Now" feed on Bing.

Posted by JohnGalt at 9:24 PM | Comments (7)
But jk thinks:

And I speak fluent Redmondonian. The tablet at 0:29 is Microsoft's "Surface:" positioned to destroy the iPad about the same time ads like this lose their efficacy and appeal.

Posted by: jk at July 11, 2013 9:41 AM
But johngalt thinks:

In "North Colorado" the iPad will be illegal.

Posted by: johngalt at July 11, 2013 2:02 PM
But Sugarchuck thinks:

What strat?

Posted by: Sugarchuck at July 11, 2013 4:21 PM
But jk thinks:

Hahahahahahahahahahaha! Make sc miss a Red Strat with a rosewood fretboard and you're doing something right!

Posted by: jk at July 11, 2013 5:20 PM
But johngalt thinks:

He must have been mesmorized by the hip soundtrack. And I too, since it easily merited its own bullet point on this, the successor to the blog for "Jazz, Guitars, and Right Wing Politics."

Posted by: johngalt at July 11, 2013 6:32 PM
But jk thinks:

There was a soundtrack?

Posted by: jk at July 11, 2013 6:42 PM

March 5, 2011

"Nothing to See Here"

A few excellent passages from a Mark Steyn IBD editorial on the "random" murder of US airmen in a German civil airport:

The strange shrunken spectator who serves as President of the United States, offering what he called "a few words about the tragic event that took place," announced that he was "saddened," and expressed his "gratitude for the service of those who were lost" and would "spare no effort" to "work with the German authorities" but it was a "stark reminder" of the "extraordinary sacrifices that our men and women in uniform are making . . ."


But relax, this fellow in Frankfurt was most likely a "lone wolf" (as Sen. Chuck Schumer described the Times Square Bomber) or an "isolated extremist" (as the president described the Christmas Day Pantybomber).

There are so many of these "lone wolves" and "isolated extremists" you may occasionally wonder whether they've all gotten together and joined Local 473 of the Amalgamated Union of Lone Wolves and Isolated Extremists, but don't worry about it: As any Homeland Security official can tell you, "Allahu akbar" is Arabic for "Nothing to see here."


Okay, why is a Muslim who wants to kill Americans holding down a job at a European airport? That's slightly easier to answer. Almost every problem facing the western world, from self-detonating jihadists to America's own suicide bomb -- the multi-trillion dollar debt -- has at its root a remorseless demographic arithmetic.

In the U.S., the baby boomers did not have enough children to maintain their mid-20th century social programs. I see that recent polls supposedly show that huge majorities of Americans don't want any modifications to Medicare or Social Security.


But even with looming bankruptcy America still looks pretty sweet if you're south of the border.

And this last applies to Western Europe just the same.

So among other things we have some sobering news for your favorite, possibly marijuana-medicated, effete urbane egalitarian idealist who most likely calls himself "Progressive:" What killed the social welfare state, or at least hastened its demise? The sexual revolution.

And in bleak contrast with the western immigrants from Islamic regions who want to manage a 7-Eleven or drive a taxi or go to med school in the land of opportunity are the Islamic refugees looking for a free lunch. These are the ones most likely to, in Steyn's words, self-detonate. And what brought them to our neighborhoods? The social welfare state.

Posted by JohnGalt at 8:41 AM | Comments (0)

August 16, 2010

8 Down, 1,199,999,992 To Go

OK, given the serious and positive nature of this development, The Refugee will admit that the headline is overly snarky. is reporting that eight American Muslims recently visited the Dachau and Auschwitz concentration camps. The trip was arranged by Marshall Breger, an Orthodox Jew who served both Presidents Reagan and GHW Bush. Apparently, the trip had some positive results:

Former Holocaust denier Yasir Qadhi, the dean of academics at Al Maghrib Institute in New Haven, Conn., said the trip was eye-opening.

"Anybody who is a Holocaust denier should deserve a free ticket to see Auschwitz and Birkenau," he told the Jewish Daily Forward, "because seeing is just not the same as reading about it."

If the majority of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are to emerge from the 12th century, more scholarship like this and less stoning would be in order. The Refugee does not make light of this as a positive step in the right direction.

Posted by Boulder Refugee at 3:52 PM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

A more important quote, in my opinion, is this:

"No Muslim in his right mind, female or male, should deny the Holocaust," Magid, a native of Sudan, told the Forward. "When you walk the walk of the people who have been taken to be gassed, to be killed, how can a person deny physical evidence, something that's beyond doubt?"

The difference between Magid and those of his faith who deny the Holocaust is his willingness to consider "physical evidence" with his rational mind. While he calls his evidence-based conclusion "beyond doubt" the deniers depend upon others taking their conclusion on faith.

Consequently, if we could send every Muslim to see the concentration camps a sizeable but unpredictable fraction would continue to deny history. But at least we might reach the rest of them!

Posted by: johngalt at August 17, 2010 3:14 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

I never though I'd live to see the day that someone would want to send all the Muslims to the concentration camps. Oh, the humanity!

Yes, I realize the intention is the afternoon tour rather than the permanent relocation - but as long as the title is being snarky, it is only appropriate to follow suit.

Kudos to Dean Qadhi for his willingness to forsake his former stance in the light of evidence; yet JG is also right - some people will believe only what they want to believe, despite overwhelming rational evidence. Hopefully, that segment of deniers will prove to be a fractional minority.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at August 17, 2010 9:10 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Do you mean the "nonexistent" concentration camps?

Posted by: johngalt at August 19, 2010 2:49 PM

8 Down, 1,199,999,992 To Go

OK, given the serious and positive nature of this development, The Refugee will admit that the headline is overly snarky. is reporting that eight American Muslims recently visited the Dachau and Auschwitz concentration camps. The trip was arranged by Marshall Breger, an Orthodox Jew who served both Presidents Reagan and GHW Bush. Apparently, the trip had some positive results:

Former Holocaust denier Yasir Qadhi, the dean of academics at Al Maghrib Institute in New Haven, Conn., said the trip was eye-opening.

"Anybody who is a Holocaust denier should deserve a free ticket to see Auschwitz and Birkenau," he told the Jewish Daily Forward, "because seeing is just not the same as reading about it."

If the majority of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are to emerge from the 12th century, more scholarship like this and less stoning would be in order. The Refugee does not make light of this as a positive step in the right direction.

Posted by Boulder Refugee at 3:52 PM | Comments (3)
But johngalt thinks:

A more important quote, in my opinion, is this:

"No Muslim in his right mind, female or male, should deny the Holocaust," Magid, a native of Sudan, told the Forward. "When you walk the walk of the people who have been taken to be gassed, to be killed, how can a person deny physical evidence, something that's beyond doubt?"

The difference between Magid and those of his faith who deny the Holocaust is his willingness to consider "physical evidence" with his rational mind. While he calls his evidence-based conclusion "beyond doubt" the deniers depend upon others taking their conclusion on faith.

Consequently, if we could send every Muslim to see the concentration camps a sizeable but unpredictable fraction would continue to deny history. But at least we might reach the rest of them!

Posted by: johngalt at August 17, 2010 3:14 PM
But Keith Arnold thinks:

I never though I'd live to see the day that someone would want to send all the Muslims to the concentration camps. Oh, the humanity!

Yes, I realize the intention is the afternoon tour rather than the permanent relocation - but as long as the title is being snarky, it is only appropriate to follow suit.

Kudos to Dean Qadhi for his willingness to forsake his former stance in the light of evidence; yet JG is also right - some people will believe only what they want to believe, despite overwhelming rational evidence. Hopefully, that segment of deniers will prove to be a fractional minority.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at August 17, 2010 9:10 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Do you mean the "nonexistent" concentration camps?

Posted by: johngalt at August 19, 2010 2:49 PM

July 9, 2009

Quote of the Day

The Refugee is starting to get the hang of the QOD thing...

An American Muslim-turned-terrorist recently commented on Obama's Cairo speech. He states that Obama makes "one major miscalculation:"

“A Muslim doesn’t look to peace, security, education, work, or the love of any other number of things as his ultimate goals,” al-Amriki said. “Instead, a Muslim is always working and striving to please the one true Creator."

I don't know that he's speaking for all Muslims, but he's certainly speaking for the Jihadists, aka, the ones shooting at us. So, Mr. Preznit, its not a matter of a big misunderstanding, or our unwillingness to "dialog," or an outcry for jobs or the fact that we backed the Shah in 1953. It's the fact that we exist. Could it possibly be made more clear? Anyone in the administration listening?

Posted by Boulder Refugee at 4:43 PM | Comments (5)
But jk thinks:

The quotes rock, br, but I believe the ThreeSources Style Guide abbreviates it as QOTD.

Posted by: jk at July 9, 2009 5:13 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

Mea culpa!

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 9, 2009 5:42 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Administration? How about the PRESS? They would even get a chance to bash religion in the process.

Posted by: johngalt at July 9, 2009 11:14 PM
But Boulder Refugee thinks:

The press will only bash Christianity.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at July 9, 2009 11:38 PM
But Perry Eidelbus thinks:

Both are correct. Muslims are supposed to please Allah, just like Christians should do all things for the glory of God. The difference is that the Koran teaches that infidels should either be subjugated or killed. I don't find anything like that in Matthew 25...

Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 9, 2009 11:39 PM

April 1, 2009

A Liberal Arab Voice Worthy of Three Sources

The Refugee has hesitated to make this post, because the content does not introduce new ideas or angles to Three Sources. Nevertheless, a reference to an Al Jazeera interview is perhaps remarkable enough to make it blog-worthy. Moreover, it is an Arab (Kuwaiti) journalist talking about the importance of individual rights, secularism and the necessary separation of government and religion. Though Three Sourcers will simply say, "Here, here," it is nice to see this topic being debated openly in Arab society. This link is to the transcript. The video is available, but loads slowly and is subtitled anyway. The topic around which the debate takes place is the journalist's position that Palestinians would be better off if aid to them were eliminated and they were left to their own devices.

Hat tip: FrontPage Magazine

Posted by Boulder Refugee at 11:23 AM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

Awesome. Yeah, it really doesn't add much except to underscore the universal nature of liberal ideas. Awesome.

Posted by: jk at April 1, 2009 12:21 PM

March 11, 2008

God's good graces

Blind obedience to faith or manipulative rationalization? You decide: Gaza Hamas leader thanks God for his son's death in Israeli air strike

"This is a part of our people's path and, God willing, our people will achieve victory," Khalil al-Haya said.

He has himself escaped assassination attempts, including an Israeli strike last May that killed two of his brothers and six other relatives gathered at a family home. Al-Haya was not in the building at the time.

How unfortunate for mister al-Haya that God frowns upon him so, and denies him the glory of martyrdom. Many others in his family were apparently in good graces with Him, however.

"I thank God for this gift," Khalil al-Haya said. "This is the 10th member of my family to receive the honor of martyrdom."

Man, that's a lot of virgins!

Seriously though, if Islamists really believed that being blown to bits by Israeli helicopters in the "conflict with Israel" was a gift from God they'd be lining up with targets on their heads.

Posted by JohnGalt at 11:43 AM

July 2, 2007

Meet Farfour

Posted by Harrison Bergeron at 1:33 PM | Comments (2)
But jk thinks:

Stunning. I wanted to laugh at the crudeness of "the interrogation" but it is real.

Posted by: jk at July 2, 2007 3:03 PM
But johngalt thinks:

"Real?" There's nothing real here except an intent to foment hatred of "filth[y]...criminal, plundering Jews."

Posted by: johngalt at July 3, 2007 2:58 PM

December 7, 2006

Iraq "Surrender" Group Report

" . . . more than six people cannot agree on anything, three is better -- and one is perfect for a job that one can do. This is why parliamentary bodies all through history, when they accomplished anything, owed it to a few strong men who dominated the rest. Never fear, son, this Ad-Hoc Congress will do nothing . . . or if they do pass something through sheer fatigue, it will be so loaded with contradictions that it will have to be thrown out." --Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, pg 162 [Robert A. Heinlein]

I've been waiting all week for someone to blog the celebrated Iraq Study Group report, for I have a comment I'd like to make about it. Alas, nobody has obliged on these pages. But with each passing day I've come to realize that the real blogging is taking place on the front pages of the major dailies. They took the slap dash 97 page report as their kernel and proceeded to concoct every sort of meaning from it in their headlines. Every one, that is, except for making the world safe for liberty. Well, here goes.

Let's start with part I, subpart D: Achieving Our Goals:

We agree with the goal of U.S. policy in Iraq, as stated by the President: an Iraq that can “govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.” In our view, this definition entails an Iraq with a broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity, is at peace with its neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn’t brutalize its own people. Given the current situation in Iraq, achieving this goal will require much time and will depend primarily on the actions of the Iraqi people.

It is critically important to understand that, with Saddam gone, Iraq matters little in the present war between civilization and archaic totalitarianism. Re-read the passage above and replace "Iraq" with "America." An America that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. [...] Given the current situation in America, achieving this goal will require much time and will depend primarily on the actions of the American people."

And where America represents civilization in this war, the seat of archaic totalitarianism today is... anyone? anyone? Bueller? That's right: Iran. Now re-read the passage above replacing "Iraq" with "Iran." In our view, this definition entails an Iran with a broadly representative government that maintains its territorial integrity, is at peace with its neighbors, denies terrorism a sanctuary, and doesn’t brutalize its own people.

Now, what actions of the American people can do anything to help Iraq "govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself?"

Posted by JohnGalt at 3:10 PM | Comments (5)
But jk thinks:

Speaking for myself, I was so happy that the report wasn't worse. I think it significantly undercuts the cut and run crowd and can be used more to the President’s favor than his detractors.

The idea of using Iran and Syria seems tedious but there is an interesting context. I don't know if you saw Brit Hume's panel discussion on this (you get kicked out of the VRWC if you don't watch 4x a week) but Secretary Baker believes that Syria might be incentivized to help us and the Sunnis. "Flip Syria" he said to Brit as they were packing up their cameras.

It's a long shot and I hate to think of the price but it is not necessarily "nuts."

Posted by: jk at December 7, 2006 7:33 PM
But AlexC thinks:

They want peace in the middle east. That's a bold vision.

How much did we pay for this, again?

Posted by: AlexC at December 7, 2006 11:54 PM
But johngalt thinks:

And now, my long awaited comment. With respect to diplomacy with Iran, or even Syria:

"Do steers sign treaties with meat packers?" -Robert A. Heinlein

I agree with John Murtha. It is time to redeploy coalition forces to "another region in the Middle East." TEHRAN

Posted by: johngalt at December 8, 2006 8:51 AM
But jk thinks:

I also resent the implication that ThreeSources was behind in commenting on the ISF. We hit the idea of Syria help on November 21.

Posted by: jk at December 8, 2006 11:51 AM
But johngalt thinks:

Credit duly noted. And that post also reminded us what we get whenever we employ "realpolitik" when killing people and breaking things is in order.

Posted by: johngalt at December 8, 2006 3:09 PM

October 12, 2006

Not Surrendering Yet

The unreported civil war.

    Radical Muslims in France's housing estates are waging an undeclared "intifada," or uprising, against the police, with violent clashes injuring about 14 officers each day.

    As the Interior Ministry announced that nearly 2,500 officers had been wounded this year, a police union declared that its members were "in a state of civil war" with Muslims in the most depressed "banlieue" estates. Banlieue, which means outskirts, is the commonly used euphemism for the low-income housing projects heavily populated by unemployed youths of North African origin.

    The police union said it had asked the government to provide police with armored cars to protect officers in the estates, which it said were becoming no-go zones.

    The number of attacks has risen by a third in two years. Police representatives told the newspaper Le Figaro that the "taboo" of attacking officers on patrol has been broken.

    Instead, officers -- especially those patrolling in pairs or small groups -- are facing attacks when they try to arrest locals.

Posted by AlexC at 2:06 PM | Comments (3)
But mdmhvonpa thinks:

The shoe was on the other foot a few years ago:

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at October 12, 2006 3:14 PM
But mdmhvonpa thinks:

I intended to point out this, but close enough.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at October 12, 2006 3:16 PM
But mdmhvonpa thinks:


Posted by: mdmhvonpa at October 12, 2006 3:17 PM

October 11, 2006

Service Dog Taxis

Herald-Sun (Australia)

    Victorian Taxi Association spokesman Neil Sach said the association had appealed to the mufti of Melbourne to give religious approval for Muslim cabbies to carry guide dogs.

    One Muslim driver, Imran, said yesterday the guide dog issue was difficult for him.

    ``I don't refuse to take people, but it's hard for me because my religion tells me I should not go near dogs,'' he said.

    There are about 2000 Muslims among drivers of Melbourne's 10,000 taxis. Many are from countries with strict Islamic teachings about ``unclean'' dogs and the evils of alcohol.

    Drivers who refused to carry blind people with their dogs attended remedial classes at Guide Dogs Victoria, Mr Sach said.

    "They are taught why blind people need dogs," Mr Sach said.

It's only a matter of time before Muslim cabbies in this country run up against the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Related: Booze in taxis.

Posted by AlexC at 11:58 AM | Comments (1)
But jk thinks:

As if I do not have enough things to disagree with Muslims about. My friend tells me he has to wash his hands five times after touching a dog. He stayed with me for two weeks and I sent him home with very chapped hands...

Posted by: jk at October 11, 2006 1:18 PM

July 19, 2006

World War?

I thought the DNC talking points after the renewal of combat in Lebanon included the line that "This is World War III." I surmised that they wanted to be able to claim that World War III began under Bush's leadership... that warmongery begets warfare.

I just listened to former supreme commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark in an interview with a local talk radio show. The first questions for the general were, "Who is our enemy and what is the name of the war we are currently in." Simple enough questions, right? Fat chance.

Clark said only Republicans like Newt Gingrich or (can't remember the other guy) call this "World War III" or "World War IV" respectively. Alternately, the General says we are not even engaged in a war. Instead, we have a "loose conglomeration of individuals trying to pursue their own ends." He admitted that they use terrorism as their method, but his solutions were all "law enforcement." The natural question then is, "Whose laws?"

The big picture of the Clark interview is that he can't see the big picture in human events. Doesn't he read the Australian newspapers? (Or he sees it but is forced to deny it because Bush named it first: Axis of Evil.) Those who deny any link between al Qaida and Iraq also deny any link between either of them and Hamas or Hezbollah. Or Iran.

In answer to the questions the General never answered:

OUr enemy is every nation, organization, or "loose conglomeration of individuals" who practice Islamofascism and attempt to impose it on others by force.

The name of the war is "The Islamist War."

There, now let's go win the frackin' thing.

UPDATE: On last night's show, Bill O'Reilly said, and I paraphrase, "Regarding the war on terror, Americans can be divided into three camps: One says bomb the crap out of them, the second says it's all America's fault, and the third says I don't want to hear about it, let's go to the beach." Dagny and I are proud members of the "bomb the crap out of them" camp.

Posted by JohnGalt at 10:57 AM | Comments (5)
But jk thinks:

The WSJ Ed Page suggested that September 11, 2001 was the start of World War IV, WWIII being The Cold War. This Republican is happy with that terminology. I worry more that people forget there is a war than they think it started under President Bush.

The World War appellation ties in 9-11, London, Madrid, Mumbai, and the current Israeli two front conflict.

Posted by: jk at July 19, 2006 11:19 AM
But mdmhvonpa thinks:

The Islamist War ... a bit like our 2 conflicts with Iraq ... seems to be an extension of the Crusades. A clash of ideologies.

Posted by: mdmhvonpa at July 19, 2006 11:57 AM
But jk thinks:

Bill O'Reilly would be another good reason not to get AlexC's 103" plasma screen. I favor a muscular response but would be loathe to characterize it as "bombing the crap out of 'em."

We've said some harsh words about President Bush over the years but I have to say that I am bursting with pride. His unwillingness to reach moral relativism, his unscripted comments with PM Blair that were caught on mic -- he is doing it right and we are very lucky to have him in the White House.

Posted by: jk at July 19, 2006 12:34 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Like I said, I was paraphrasing. I think "bomb the crap out of them" was just the way I remembered it.

As for the president, I very much agree. (I'm biting my tongue now to prevent mention of the pending stem-cell bill veto. Let's debate that in a separate thread.)

Posted by: johngalt at July 19, 2006 12:42 PM
But jk thinks:

I missed the paraphrase bit, mea culpa.

I would still suggest that there is more nuance in the BTCOOT demographic. Israel will lose ground as Reuters and the BBC highlight civilian casualties over the campaign.

(New post above for stem cells, BTW)

Posted by: jk at July 19, 2006 1:31 PM

July 16, 2006

Iranian Nukes? We'll Soon Know

We knew this was coming sooner rather than later when we witnessed the "elections" of Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. When the "imperialist" American administration and the "Hitler" and "Ghengis Khan" like Israelis did nothing to provoke open warfare with Iran, those swell Iranian mullahs grew tired of waiting. As Robert Tracinski writes, "If, in the face of repeated threats and provocation by an aggressive dictatorship, you refuse to go to war, the war will eventually come to you." Two years after the 'forward strategy of freedom' swept the Syrian army out of Lebanon, Hezbollah was under growing pressure to leave as well. No reasonable person should have expected them to leave peacefully. (What do you think they are, pluralistic democrats? No, they're Islamofascists you fools!)

A timely example of such a fool is Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd, who said on Fox News Sunday this morning that, essentially, it's Bush's fault! Dodd attributes the military action in south Lebanon to diplomatic failure:

"It seems to be that you have to go beyond just understanding the friendship, which is important, but for Israel's benefit and our own, we have missed, I think over the last number of years, the ability to really engage in the kind of diplomatic efforts in the middle east. From 1967 up until the end of the Clinton administration, every administration has remained very, very engaged in the middle east. This administration unfortunately has seen the word diplomacy and negotiation as somehow a favor to your enemies. I think unfortunately we've allowed this time to elapse over the last several years, the resolution 1559 was adopted two years ago, and the administration's done nothing in my view to really insist that the Lebanese rid southern Lebanon of Hezbollah and so this time has gone through without really engaging in the process thus we find ourselves today, Israel certainly has the right to defend itself. What it's doing is absolutely necessary. If Lebanon and Syria will recognize that those soldiers need to be returned and also Hezbollah has to get out of southern Lebanon then I think you could bring a cease-fire about."

To be fair, it has been nearly five years since Islamofascists unilaterally slaughtered 3000 American civilians with airliners. But despite this, why is Dodd still endorsing the realpolitik appeasement cum stability strategy of the past thirty years? Does he genuinely believe that it will lead to regional and worldwide peace if we just give it another decade or three to work itself out?

I can't say whether it is a symptom or a cause of America's confusion in general, or Dodd's in particular, but there is clearly a filter in place between the events of the mideast and the front pages of America's news media. Compare some recent news excerpts in America to those in, notably, Australia:

WSJ- 'World Leadership Reacts To Escalating Mideast Violence'
"Haifa was hit with at least 20 rockets fired by Lebanese guerillas, in retaliation for a wave of bombings by Israeli airplanes early Sunday morning when about 18 powerful explosions rocked southern Beirut."

AP (via Houston Chronicle)- 'Hezbollah rocket barrage kills 8 in Haifa'
"Hezbollah's firing of at least 20 rockets at Haifa and 30 elsewhere came after Israel unleashed its fiercest bombardment yet of the Lebanese capital, starting after midnight Saturday."

And, in the most offensive of my three examples,

Chigago Tribune- '2 dead on Israeli warship; jets attack Lebanon anew'
"A draft resolution under consideration, from Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh, demanded the release of Lebanese captives and detainees in Israeli prisons, and supported Lebanon's right to "liberate them by all legitimate means."

Meanwhile, Israeli warplanes renewed attacks on Lebanon early Saturday, targeting bridges, fuel depots and gas stations in the east and south, security officials said."


""You wanted an open war and we are ready for an open war," Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said in a taped statement broadcast Friday. He vowed to strike even deeper into Israel with rockets."

The clear message to American voters: The "cycle of violence" continues and Hezbollah/Lebanon are defending their sovereignty from Israeli aggression.

In contrast, Australians read the following headlines:

The Australian- 'Militants' missile hits ship with Iranian troops' help'
"Israel says the troops involved in firing the missile were from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, an elite corps of more than 200,000 fighters that is independent of the regular armed forces and controlled by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei."


"A military official said the group was also believed to have longer-range projectiles that could hit the Israeli commercial hub of Tel Aviv."

The Australian- 'Strikes to intensify in four-stage strategy'
"In the first stage, which began shortly after the Hezbollah incursion across the border last Wednesday, Israeli warplanes attacked missile caches in south Lebanon and elsewhere, particularly those housing long-range missiles.

Fifty caches, some hidden underground and in private homes, were reportedly destroyed. It is unclear what percentage of the 13,000 missiles known to be in Hezbollah hands that accounts for."


"In the second stage, which began early on Friday, warplanes attacked the heart of Hezbollah power, shattering high-rise buildings in south Beirut housing the militia's command structure as well as the home of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, who was reportedly trapped for a while in the underground command centre when the building above it collapsed."

"The third and fourth stages are still secret. However, the sources said the operation calls for each of the four stages to be more powerful than the previous one."


"Israeli officials say the international community will not force Israel to stop before its goals are achieved."

Sydney Morning Herald- 'With US backing, Israel determined to go for the kill'
"Israel's goal is to either eliminate Hezbollah as a security threat, or altogether. The broader goal of the US is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush Administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East.

Whatever the outrage on the Arab streets, Washington believes it has strong behind-the-scenes support among key Arab leaders also nervous about the populist militants - with a tacit agreement that the timing is right to strike."


"Israel and the US would like to hold out until Hezbollah is crippled. "It seems like we will go to the end now," said Israel's ambassador to the US, Daniel Ayalon. "We will not go part way and be held hostage again. We'll have to go for the kill - Hezbollah's neutralisation."

These stories give a far different perspective on the current munitions exchanges: Israel is under attack by Iran-sponsored terrorists embedded in a third nation, Lebanon. Hezbollah rockets target Israeli civilians while Israeli laser-guided bombs target, Hezbollah rockets. Contrary to the protestations and accusations of one Christopher Dodd, the Bush adminstration has clearly been working in concert with regional and world governments to lay the groundwork for Israel to help Lebanon exorcise Hezbollah from its cities and countryside without manic diplomatic attempts to protect the terrorists.

Dodd warns that, "This could spin out of control to such a degree that we have a major, major war in the middle east." The reality is that the cold phase of that war has been raging since at least 1979, with Iran's Islamic revolution. Iran has decided it is time to turn up the heat on this war and it certainly appears that Israel, the Bush adminstration and key western governments anticipated it, were prepared for it, and are in the process of winning it.

There is little reason for concern that Israel's defense forces will fail in this effort. The two areas of concern are that diplomatic failures will allow allies like France and Russia to reverse course and, more ominously, that Iran's threat that attacking Syria " ... will definitely face the Zionist regime with unimaginable damages" portends their possession and imminent detonation of a nuclear bomb. Let us hope that western intelligence and military authorities have this matter as well in hand as they appear to have Hezbollah's rockets.

Posted by JohnGalt at 1:59 PM | Comments (3)
But jk thinks:

I hate to respond to a thoughtful post with an anecdote, but I have been thinking about Senator Dodd all week. I did not know he was on FNS, I have that TiVoed and will watch it soon.

I have been considering the Senator from Connecticut who is still respected by his party because I purchased some Contra Cafe coffee on July 4, and it recently showed up. The coffee is great and is grown by former freedom fighters in Nicaragua.

I think of Senator Dodd because I remember his fighting President Reagan tooth and nail. I think of he and Kris Kristofferson as leading the pro-Sandinista movement in the US. Rather than admit he was wrong, Dodd -- 20 years later -- opposed the nomination of Otto Reich to be Assistant Secretary of State. His crime? Supporting democracy against communism in the Western Hemisphere.

Posted by: jk at July 16, 2006 2:27 PM
But jk thinks:

And one quibble. I would disagree with conflating the Iranian and Palestinian elections. The election in Iran was a farce and remains worthy of scare quotes. The election in palestinian-controlled-Isreal, however, was legitimate.

I'm not happy that they chose Hamas, though people should remember the other choice was Fatah. They were, however, real and legitimate elections and their constituencies are getting the government they deserve.

I include their number in my accounting of folks living under self elected government.

Posted by: jk at July 16, 2006 5:09 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Yes, I hesitated to group them together for the reasons you mentioned, but I was trying to economize on words in this post, believe it or not. In defense I'll point out that when your democratic choices are limited by force or by "belief in unproven things" it is not a free election in either case.

I can live with this quibble though. My charming bride said she wasn't sure she shares my sanquinity that western intelligence and military authorities have this matter "well in hand."

That comment forced me to consider the source of my optimism. I re-read my own post to find the answer: The unprecented combination of Israeli resolve to "to to the end now," and not go "part way and be held hostage again," coupled with supportive words from key Arab leaders. The Israelis are implementing the Bush Doctrine and no one of consequence - not the multiculturalists of Old Europe nor the Islamic apologists of Egypt or Saudi Arabia - dares, strike that, chooses, to stand in their way. Selfishly, they all want Hezbollah "crippled" or, better yet, "neutralized."

Posted by: johngalt at July 16, 2006 7:33 PM

June 2, 2006

Meanwhile, in Dar al Islam...

Here is another case of Islamists' abuse of children (I understand they are used as screens in Iraq, among other places...):

A group of Palestinian children were sent towards the Gaza Strip border fence holding toy guns on Thursday in order to test the vigilance of the soldiers on duty.

From a distance, troops noticed four apparently armed Palestinians approaching the border north of the Kissufim crossing.

When the four were some 400 meters from the fence, the soldiers realized that they were children, who looked to be about 13 years of age, and that their guns were toys.

The Gaza security fence has become the scene of almost daily incidences of would-be infiltrations from the Gaza Strip, attempted terror attacks, and occasionally exchanges of fire. Earlier Thursday, IDF forces arrested two unarmed Palestinians who breached the fence in order to cross into Israel.

HT: Little Green Footballs

Not to be outdone by their Azeri bretheren, some Lebanese had some good Islamist fun, too, as the AP reports (from the Sun Herald):

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Hundreds of Shiite Muslims enraged by a TV comedy that mocked the leader of Hezbollah took to the streets of southern Beirut on Thursday night, burning car tires and blocking roads - including the highway to Lebanon's international airport, police and witneses said.

The trouble began shortly after a TV show on Lebanese Broadcasting Corp. - a privately-owned Christian channel - in which an actor spoofed Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, wearing the Hezbollah leader's trademark black turban and sported a similar beard and spectacles.

HT: Jihad Watch

Now for a lesson in cultural awareness and sensitivity (and in hypocrisy and Muslim wanna-be supremacy), please study the following images. (And don't riot!!!!)

piss-liberty AlRisala 25 May 202006.jpg

lady liberty alhayataljadida 090604.jpg

AlQuds lady-liberty-prostitute 220505.jpg

Images from Palestinian Media Watch. Click here to see more, and to read about Palestinian child abuse: how they train their children to be suicide bombers and jihadists.

Posted by Cyrano at 9:39 PM

Meanwhile, over at UCI...

Another report on the coming of the Ismalic States of America, brought to us by Phi Beta Cons Blog:

The Muslim Student Union of UC Irvine recently held a "Holocaust in the Holy Land" week with signs proclaiming Israel as the "Fourth Reich" and horrendous anti-Semitic and anti-Israel declarations, such as "Israelis Love to Kill Innocent Children" and "Exploiting the Holocaust to Justify Genocide." Floods of misinformation flowed forth in hateful, belligerent speeches, and disagreement was suppressed or shouted down with cries of "Allah Akbar."

An eye-witness reports that "I understood that day, standing alone, what it felt like to be a Jew in pre-war Germany. I understood how fearful the hostages in Iran must have felt when the U.S. Embassy was taken over. And I understand the double standards that occur when it comes to the UCI administration in taking a position to facilitate peaceful dialogue."

But there is some good news Phi Beta Cons also brings us:

Frank Mickadeit writes that the feds are conducting an intense surveillance operation to detect potential terrorists in Orange County and that part of their program involves studying activist Muslim student organizations at the University of California at Irvine.

When asked whether citizens should be concerned about these groups, the FBI agent answered, "That is another tough question to answer." She did tell Mickadeit that the FBI is aware of large numbers of Muslims at UCI.

Posted by Cyrano at 9:17 PM | Comments (2)
But Vynette Holliday thinks:

What do I think? I think that the citizens of the world can no longer afford the luxury of catering to the 'sensibilities' of religious folk - including Muslims.

There is only one way to attenuate the threat posed by militant Islam and that is to introduce doubt into the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslim believers.

Instead of side-stepping in fear of giving 'offense', strike at very heart and soul of the problem.

And what is that?

Why, the Qur'an itself!
This fountainhead of fervour and discord, supposedly an exact word-for-word copy of tablets existing eternally in heaven:
makes demonstrably false claims
is based on identifiable 'fables'
is replete with historical and other errors
is not worthy of faith, let alone lives

To argue endlessly about what is meant by this word, or that word, or this idea, or that idea, is worse than pointless when the whole book can be, and has already bee, swept away by an even mildly rigorous scholarly examination.

Question the provenance and content of the Qur'an, publish fearlessly, and confidence in the Qur'an as the word of Allah will be severely shaken, just where it should be - in the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims.

There is no other way!

Posted by: Vynette Holliday at June 3, 2006 12:41 AM
But johngalt thinks:

All of these criticisms of the "Qur'an" apply in equal measure to the Holy Bible. And yet, here we are: 97% of Americans profess a belief in some sort of "personal God."

Only 3 percent of us appear to understand that such a notion is unworthy of faith, let alone lives.

Posted by: johngalt at June 6, 2006 3:31 PM

Chuck the Constitution...

...make way for Shari'a. Little Green Footballs reports, in "DePaul University Appeasement Goes on Trial :"

Here’s an update on the case of Thomas Klocek, fired from DePaul University for challenging the hatred espoused by Muslim student groups.


He is guilty of a thought-crime, challenging the pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel mindset which has come to dominate the DePaul campus. Klocek’s challenge to this new campus orthodoxy occurred in a cafeteria during a student activities fair last September. For 15-20 minutes, Klocek, who is Catholic, not Jewish, confronted a group of 8 students manning two tables for the groups Students for Justice in Palestine, and United Muslims Moving Ahead. Klocek says he argued that the materials the groups were disseminating were one-sided..


He says he told the students that Palestinians were Arabs who lived in the West Bank and Gaza – that they had no unique national historical identity. He challenged one student’s assertion that Israel was behaving like the Nazis. He stated that while most Muslims were not terrorists, pretty much all terrorists these days were Muslim.


The campus has welcomed representatives of the Palestinian terror group Islamic Jihad to campus. The scurrilous propaganda “documentary” Jenin Jenin has been shown on campus.


The University wasted little time after hearing of the students’ complaints about Klocek. The students first met with their advisors and then with a series of University administration members. They said that he had insulted them and their religion and (imagine this!) acted as if he was right and they were wrong. DePaul accepted the charges in toto and without holding a hearing (to which Klocek was entitled) quickly suspended the Professor.

The Muslim students also sent out an email to a large population at DePaul declaring a fatwa on Klocek for insulting Islam. With the recent history of the murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands, and the secret life of Salmon Rushdie for more than a decade since the Iranian fatwa directed against him, one might have expected DePaul to have viewed this email as possibly threatening to Professor Klocek, and as potentially criminal behavior.

Prepare for the coming dhimmitude...

Posted by Cyrano at 8:55 PM

May 31, 2006

"Honor" Killings

There have been some gruesome Islamic "honor" killings in Europe lately. Here is one, reported in the Jerusalem Post, which occurred in Palestine. (There have been more French riots, too...)

Masked Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigades gunmen on Tuesday publicly executed a Palestinian man and woman they suspected of having spied for Israel. ... The Aksa Martyrs' Brigades, an offshoot of Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah movement, accused Jafal Abu Tzrur, 24, of having informed the IDF where to find three of its members. The three were killed by IDF troops during a raid on the Balata refugee camp near Nablus earlier this year.

Al Aksa gunmen interrogated Abu Tzrur, claimed he confessed and then dragged him into Balata's main street. As a large crowd looked on, the gunmen threw Abu Tzrur to the ground, witnesses said. When he tried to get up, the gunmen killed him with several shots, the witnesses said.

The movement said it also killed Odad Abu Mustafa, 27, a Nablus woman. Abu Mustafa was married to one of the Aksa men slain by Israel, and was reportedly having an affair with Abu Tzrur.

Abu Mustafa, a mother of four, was shot by gunmen and male relatives on grounds that she shamed her clan. More than 15 people took part in the execution, witnesses said. It took place in the courtyard of Raffidiyeh Hospital, the West Bank's largest.
"One of the gunmen said 'where is her brother?' and when he stepped forward they said to him 'you know what you need to do,"' he said. "The brother took out a gun and shot her in the head with one bullet."

Mahmoud said the brother then emptied the entire clip into the body of his sister, while the surrounding gunmen fired into the air. He said that the woman remained silent throughout and did not resist her captors.


Posted by Cyrano at 1:54 AM