Friday, December 29, 2006

the boy love of the taliban

maybe this tells us all we really need to know about radical islam..


Boys of the Taliban
By Jamie Glazov December 29, 2006

Just recently, the Taliban issued a new set of 30 rules to its fighters.
Many of the instructions were to be expected: rule No. 25 commands the murder of teachers if a warning and a beating does not dissuade them from teaching. No. 26 outlines the exquisite delicacy of burning schools and destroying anything that aid organizations might undertake -- such as the building of a new road, school or clinic. The essence of the other rules are easily left to the imagination, basically involving what militant Islam is about: vile hate, death and destruction.

But there is a curious rule that the Western media has typically ignored. Rule No. 19 instructs that Taliban fighters must not take young boys without facial hair into their private quarters.


(Cough and clearing of the throat).

Aside from the question of what is permitted if a young boy does happen to have facial hair, this new Taliban commandment brings light to a taboo pathology that underlies the structures of militant Islam. And it is crucial to deconstruct the meaning of this rule -- and the horrid reality that it represents -- because it serves as a gateway to understanding the primary causes of Islamic rage and terror.

Rule No. 19 obviously indicates that the sexual abuse of young boys is a prevalent and institutionalized phenomenon among the Taliban and that, for one reason or another, its widespread practice has become a problem.

The fact that Taliban militants’ spare time involves sodomizing young boys should by no means be any kind of surprise or eyebrow raiser. That a mass pathology such as this occurs in a culture which demonizes the female and her sexuality -- and puts her out of mind and sight -- is only to be expected. To be sure, it is a simple given that the religious male fanatic who flies into a violent rage even at the thought of an exposed woman’s ankle will also be, in some other dysfunctional and dark secret compartment of his fractured life, the person who leads some poor helpless young boy into his private chambers.

The key issue here is that the demented sickness that underlies Rule No. 19 is by no means exclusive to the Taliban; it is a widespread phenomenon throughout Islamic-Arab culture and it lies, among other factors, at the root of that culture’s addiction to rage and its lust for violence, terror and suicide.

There is a basic and common sense empirical human reality: wherever humans construct and perpetuate an environment in which females and their sexuality are demonized and are pushed into invisibility, homosexual behaviour among men and the sexual abuse of young boys by older men always increases. Islamic-Arab culture serves as a perfect example of this paradigm, seeing that gender apartheid, fear of female sexuality and a vicious misogyny are the structures on which the whole society functions.

It is no surprise that John Racy, a psychiatrist with much experience in Arab societies, has noted that homosexuality is “extremely common” in many parts of the Arab world. [1] Indeed, even though homosexuality is officially despised in this culture and strictly prohibited and punishable by imprisonment, incarceration and/or death, having sex with boys or effeminate men is actually a social norm. Males serve as available substitutes for unavailable women. The key is this: the male who does the penetrating is not considered to be homosexual or emasculated any more than if he were to have sex with his wife, while the male who is penetrated is emasculated. The boy, however, is not considered to be emasculated since he is not yet considered to be a man. A man who has sex with boys is simply doing what many men (especially unmarried ones) do. [2] And this reality is connected to the fact that, as scholar Bruce Dunne has demonstrated, sex in Islamic-Arab societies is not about mutuality between partners, but about the adult male's achievement of pleasure through violent domination. [3]

While secrecy and taboo surround this phenomenon, some courageous Arabs have dared to discuss and expose it. Walid Shoebat, for instance, a former Palestinian terrorist, has openly related the abuse of young boys in Palestinian Muslim society. He himself witnessed a line of shepherd boys waiting for their turn to sodomize a five-year-old boy. [4] Amnesty International has also reported that Afghan warlords routinely sexually victimize young boys and film the orgies. [5] (The sexual abuse of young girls in this environment is also obviously widespread). [6]

While she was in Afghanistan in 1961, author and scholar Phyllis Chesler saw homosexuals roaming the streets, holding hands in broad daylight and gazing into each other’s eyes. “One of the pair,” she writes, “might sport a flower behind his ear; another might be wearing lipstick or have rouged cheeks.” At the same time, Chesler observed that everyone, including her Arab husband, was in denial about this common social reality, refusing to admit that this widespread behaviour was, in fact, homosexuality. [7]

In the dysfunctional and morbid paradigms of this culture, the idea of love is, obviously, completely absent from men's understanding of sexuality. Like the essence of Arab masculinity, it is reduced to a form of prison sex: hurting others with violence. A gigantic rupture inevitably develops between men and women, where no harmony, affection or equality is allowed to exist. [8]

The sexual confusion, humiliation, and repression that develop in the mindset of many males in this culture are excruciating. And it is no surprise that many of them find the only avenue for personal gratification in the act of sexually abusing young boys and, of course, in humiliating the foreign "enemy," whose masculinity must be violated at all costs -- just as theirs once was.

Islamist terror, therefore, is, in part, very much a release of the terrorists’ bottled-up sexual rage in connection to sexual frustration and desperation -- and to the humiliation connected to feelings of emasculation, which culminates in the act of striking out against “the enemy” and violating his masculinity. The inner workings of this mindset explain why Islamic terrorists consistently engage in sexual mutilation of their victims. Psychiatrist David Gutmann notes this phenomenon in the context of Arab Jew-hatred:

The Israelis perform in this Arab psychodrama of gender as a potent, destabilizing threat: to begin with, as a people they broke out of the deprecated but tolerated status of Dhimmi - a kind of submissive "woman" - to the "masculine" status of pioneer, rebel, warrior and nation builder. In retaliation, in their wars and Intifadas the Arabs strive to castrate the uppity masculinizing Jew -- and this project is carried out quite literally on the battlefield, where the bodies of fallen Jews have been mutilated in the most obscene ways. [9]

This lust for violence against “the enemy” and the accompanying yearning to die in the process are fuelled by the morbid earthly existence that is engendered by militant Islam. Indeed, there exists very few reasons for males to value their time on earth; their freedom of action and ability to experience joy and pleasure are extremely limited in terms of what is allowed. To be sure, most young men have absolutely no experience in love, sex, affection or friendship with females, and they have no outlet for their libido, which, to further pathologize the mindset, they regard as evil temptation. Killing and dying, therefore, become the only areas where free will can be exercised.

This lust for death is further compounded by the theological underpinnings of Islam itself, which promises the Muslim male sexual treats in the afterlife which are forbidden to him on earth. Indeed, if a Muslim male dies in the cause of jihad, he will enjoy a blissful union with virgins in paradise (Suras 78:31, 37:40-48, 44:51-55). And for those Muslim warriors for whom women are not of interest, there will be young pre-pubescent boys at their service -- and they will be like “scattered pearls” of “perpetual freshness” (Suras 52:24, 56:17, 76:19).

Thus, for the Taliban fighters who are frustrated with the new obstacles posed by Rule No. 19, there now exists an even greater incentive to get to paradise a little faster.

In essence, suicide through jihad represents a form of perverted liberty through which an individual can express himself. In so doing, the Islamic radical strikes out at what tempts him, avenges his own emasculation and, through the act of suicide, cleanses himself of his own temptation by ridding himself of his earthly existence.

Theodore Dalrymple offers a profound analysis of this phenomenon in the context of the Muslim fundamentalist’s agonizing hate and self-hate inside a Western society. Analyzing the motivations of the Pakistani suicide bombers who struck in London in June 2005, he demonstrates that they saw no way out of their confrontation with freedom and modernity except death:

What more convincing evidence of faith could there be than to die for its sake? How can a person be really attached or attracted to rap music and cricket and Mercedes cars if he is prepared to blow himself up as a means of destroying the society that produces them? Death will be the end of the illicit attachment that he cannot entirely eliminate from his heart. The two forms of jihad, the inner and the outer, the greater and the lesser, thus coalesce in one apocalyptic action. By means of suicide bombing, the bombers overcome moral impurities and religious doubts within themselves and, supposedly, strike an external blow for the propagation of the faith. [10]

All of these inter-related phenomena serve as windows of understanding for us, through which we become able to grasp the demented and psychopathic psychology that creates the need for a rule such as the Taliban’s No. 19. It is a rule that exposes a fanatic mindset that holds the sight and reality of an unveiled woman to be a horrific nightmare and the greatest sin, yet simultaneously considers the forced rape of a young prepubescent boy to be in the normal swing of things.

It is on this eerie and putrid plateau that we come to see the factors that spawn the yearning for death and suicide inside militant Islam. Circumscribed in the most vicious and sadistic of ways, the men imprisoned in these cages long to regain a masculinity and humanity that was violently robbed from them as children. In a setting where healing through contact with feminine affection is denied and considered evil, self-extinction through hurting the “enemy” -- and the tempter -- becomes the only way out.


[1] David Pryce-Jones, The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs (Chicago: Irvin R. Dee, 2002), p.131.

[2] Bruce Dunne, “Power and Sexuality in the Middle East,” Middle East Report, Spring 1998. For a further discussion on the widespread homosexuality among men in Muslim societies in North Africa and South Asia, and how married men having sex with boys and other men is considered a social norm, and not “homosexual,” see Arno Schmitt and Jehoeda Sofer (eds.), Sexuality and Eroticism Among Males in Muslim Societies (New York: Harrington Park Press, 1992).

[3] Dunne.

[4] Chesler, The Death of Feminism, (Macmillan: New York , 2005), p.144.

[5] Chesler, p.144.

[6] Author Nawal El Saadawi, gives an account of the horrifying and widespread sexual abuse of young girls in the Muslim-Arab world, a crime for which the perpetrators are exonerated. See Sadawwi, The Hidden Face of Eve: Women in the Arab World, pp.12-24. While it is obvious that this abuse, as with the abuse of young boys, is connected to the unavailability of women for men in the culture at large, Chesler notes that the widespread sexual abuse of female children in the Muslim world “is one of the main ways of traumatizing and shaming girls into obedience and rendering them less capable of rebellion or resistance when they grow up.” (Chesler, p.145)

[7] Chesler, p.88 and p.144.

[8] Dunne.

[9] David Gutmann, “Symposium: Purifying Allah's Soil,”, January 27, 2006.

[10] Theodore Dalrymple, “The Suicide Bombers Among Us,” City Journal, Autumn 2005.

counter free hit unique web

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

attacking iran?

sounds like the new year could be complete with some serious fireworks..

By Kenneth R. Timmerman December 27, 2006

The nuclear crisis boiling away under the surface for the past three years with Iran has finally erupted.
Over the next three to six months, expect things to get much worse, with a very real possibility of a war that could spread far beyond the confines of the Persian Gulf.
How we got here was entirely predictable – and avoidable. So is the path to a violent future.

We got to this point because the White House essentially caved in to intense pressure from the CIA and the foreign policy establishment, and refused to do the one thing that could have headed off this crisis: that is, to support the rights of the Iranian people and their struggle for freedom against this clerical tyranny. And now, it is almost – almost – too late.

The immediate trigger for the crisis occurred on Saturday, just two days before Christmas, when the UN Security Council finally quit dithering and passed a binding resolution to impose sanctions on Iran because of its illegal nuclear program.

While far from perfect (remember: this is the UN), UNSC Resolution 1737 bans nuclear and missile-related trade with Iran, and includes a short list of Iranian government entities and individuals whose assets could be subject to seizure and who could be banned from international travel.

(The United States had wanted both to be mandatory measures in this resolution, but gave in to a Russian demand to again give Iran more leash).

The UN Security Council passed a similar, binding resolution on July 31 giving Iran one month to suspend its nuclear programs in a verifiable manner, or else…It’s taken all this time since that the earlier deadline expired for China and Russia to exhaust their formidable bag of diplomatic tricks. Now even they have come to acknowledge the obvious, that Iran is using the IAEA as a foil for acquiring all the technologies it needs to make the bomb.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded typically to the news from Turtle Bay in New York. “This resolution will not harm Iran and those who backed it will soon regret their superficial act,” he said on Christmas Eve.

“Iranians are neither worried nor uncomfortable with the resolution...we will celebrate our atomic achievements in February,” he added.

In earlier statements, he has claimed Iran would have a big nuclear “surprise” to unveil to the world by the end of the Persian year, which ends on March 20. So unless he is just blowing smoke (and I will explain shortly why I don’t believe that he is), then we will be facing very bleak choices in very short order.

Remember, just a few weeks ago, Ahmadinejad announced to the world that Iran had completed its uranium enrichment experiments and was now preparing to install 3,000 production centrifuges at its now-declared enrichment plant in Natanz, in central Iran.

His announcement fell exactly within the timeline that Israeli nuclear experts have derived from Iran’s public declarations to the IAEA, and the on-site inspections by IAEA experts in Iran.

As I wrote after interviews in Israel this past June, the Israelis projected that Iran would complete work on two 164-centrifuge experimental enrichment cascades within six months, and that installation of the 3,000 centrifuge pilot plant would take another nine months. From then, it would take Iran twelve months more to make its first bomb’s-worth of nuclear fuel.

So far, Iran is right on schedule. This will give it nuclear weapons capability by September 2008 – just in time for the U.S. presidential elections. (And remember: this timeline is not speculative. It is based on information, not intelligence.)

Once the UN Security Council resolution was passed, Ahmadinejad’s top nuclear advisor, Ali Larijani, said the regime now planned to accelerate the installation of the production centrifuges.

“From Sunday morning [December 24] , we will begin activities at Natanz – the site of 3,000-centrifuge machines – and we will drive it with full speed. It will be our immediate response to the resolution,” Iran’s Kayhan paper quoted him as saying.

How is this possible? Well, for one thing, it is likely that Iran has been producing centrifuges in factories and workshops it has not declared to the IAEA. Worse, it may be operating a clandestine enrichment facility buried deep underground already, as many in Israel and U.S. intelligence have long believed.

The Israelis told me this summer this was their “worst-worst case” scenario. But a senior Israeli intelligence official I saw recently said the likelihood of that “worst-worst case” now appeared to be far greater than he or others had previously believed. “There can be no doubt they have a clandestine program,” he said.

And because it’s clandestine, we don’t know the size or shape of it, and therefore can’t make estimates of Iran’s nuclear timeline based on speculation and fear. But now the Israelis, the Americans and the British are beginning to understand – finally – that what they don’t know about Iran could be fatal.

After all, they are facing a president in Iran who has said that the Holocaust never really occurred under Hitler, but that he intended to carry it out himself, by accomplishing Ayatollah Khomeini’s goal of “wiping Israel off the map.”

On December 21 – just two days before the UN Security Council resolution – British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave the bleakest assessment of his entire tenure at 10 Downing Street of the threat posed to the West by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Speaking in Dubai, he gave an unusually blunt speech that warned of a monumental struggle between Islamic moderates and Islamic extremists, and that labeled Iran as “the main obstacle” to hopes for peace.

For the first time, a key world leader actually uttered parts of the laundry list of Iranian regime misdeeds that people like myself and Michael Ledeen and Iranian dissidents such as Rouzbeh Farahanipour and Reza Pahlavi have been warning about for years.

Blair said there were "elements of the government of Iran, openly supporting terrorism in Iraq to stop a fledgling democratic process; trying to turn out a democratic government in Lebanon; floutting the international community's desire for peace in Palestine - at the same time as denying the Holocaust and trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability.”

Blair expressed surprise that despite these overt deeds, “a large part of world opinion is frankly almost indifferent. It would be bizarre if it weren't deadly serious.”

"We must recognize the strategic challenge the government of Iran poses," Blair added. "Not its people, possibly not all its ruling elements, but those presently in charge of its policy."

While all of this is developing, the United States and Britain have begun a quiet buildup of their naval forces in the Persian Gulf, with the goal of keeping the Strait of Hormuz open to international shipping.

The spark point of open military confrontation could occur in many different ways.

The Iranians, for example, might choose to get directly involved should the U.S. military aid the Iraqi government in a crackdown on the Iranian-backed Mahdi Army and the Badr brigade, two Shiite militias fueling the sectarian violence in Iraq. (A clear sign that Iran is contemplating just such a move was revealed on Christmas day, when the U.S. Acknowledged it was holding four Iranians captured during a raid on the Headquarters of Abdulaziz al-Hakim in Baghdad just three weeks after he met with President Bush in the Oval Office).

Should Iran send troops, or escalate its current level of military involvement in Iraq, the U.S. might choose to take the war into Iran, say by attacking Revolutionary Guards bases near the Iraqi border that were involved in aiding the Iraqi Shi'ite militias.

Should the United States bomb a Rev. Guards base here or there, the Iranians might choose to respond by launching “swarming” attacks against U.S. warships in the Persian gulf, or by attacking a foreign-flagged oil tanker carrying Iraqi or Kuwaiti oil, or by increasing rocket and missile supplies to Hezbollah in Lebanon to spark another diversionary war against Israel.

There are scores of ways this could happen. But where it gets us is to a direct military confrontation with Iran – an Iran which could be a nuclear power, and certainly will be a suspected nuclear power, in a matter of months, if not weeks.

And there is no easy way of walking this back. Even the insane Baker-Hamilton proposal of a direct dialogue with Iran will not get them to abandon their nuclear program, which this regime in Tehran has clearly identified as a strategic asset it is willing to make great sacrifices to develop and protect.

So fasten your seat belts. We are in for a rough ride.

counter free hit unique web

Thursday, December 07, 2006

throwing Israel to the wolves..

sweeping in to positions of prominence are ghosts of past administrations.. administrations without regard for Israel's security and a disinterest of its continued existence.

james baker, a long time Jew hater is now suggesting that the best method to resolve our issues in the middle east is to force our sole ally in to a smaller box with indefensible borders. the fact that robert gates would come out and explicitly label Israel as a nuclear power is inexcusable. the fact that this man is now our secretary of defense should concern us greatly.

i think that george bush is a man of great faith, however, i am concerned by his judgment since re-election. the united states has been blessed more than any country in the history of the world. these blessings are from God because of our foundation in his values and in his Son's name. We have also been the lone voice of support for Israel. if we back off our support for Israel, if we force them in to giving up land granted to them by God, then i fear for the country.

it is clearly stated in Genesis 12:3, "And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed." we abandon Israel at our own peril. we are already legislation and litigating God out of our day to day lives, so i suppose it only makes sense that we would finally abandon God's chosen people. unfortunately, we will be judged for our actions as a nation who claims 'in God we trust'.

it is sad that when pressed, a once great people who stood for something now choose to negotiate with terrorist and murderers rather than stand and do what is right. but anymore, doing what is right is far to difficult for some and impossible for others. for those 'others' have no sense of right and wrong, just what is convenient.
DEBKAfile: Robert GatesÂ’ reference to an Israeli nuclear weapon was synchronized with BakerÂ’s exclusion of Israel from a Mid East conference. The Senate confirms Gates in defense by 95-2 vote
December 7, 2006, 5:10 PM (GMT+02:00)
The pair is pursuing a new policy line which sacrifices the traditional US-Israeli alliance for the sake of wooing Iran, Syria and Iraq’s neighbors for help in Iraq. During his senate hearings, Gates confirmed - and indirectly justified - Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon by declaring that the Islamic Republic Iran wants the power of deterrence against “the nuclear countries surrounding them – Pakistan in the east, Russia in the north, Israel in the west and the United States in the Persian Gulf.”
Israeli vice premier Shimon Peres said Israel, backed by the US, has for decades pursued a policy of nuclear ambiguity as a powerful deterrence “against enemies bent on its destruction, while threatening no other country itself.”
DEBKAfile: The designated US defense secretary did not consult – or even inform - Israel before a disclosure that violates a confidence long-held between the two governments.
Gates also said that “If Iran obtains nuclear weapons no one can promise it would not use them against Israel.”
He was then confirmed as defense secretary Wednesday by an overwhelming 95-2 Senate vote. The only two opposing votes were cast by two Bush allies, Sens. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., and Jim Bunning, R-Ky. They cited his criticism of the war and his view that the U.S. should engage Iran as part of a solution.
The Pentagon, which has warned against granting a role to Iran and Syria at IsraelÂ’s expense, has a new master, Robert Gates. He has already applied the broom to his predecessor Donald RumsfeldÂ’s senior aides.
Some Washington pundits accused the co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, James Baker, as forcing President George W. Bush to resort to dealing with the Iraqi Shiite-led government for the sake of an orderly US exit from Iraq. The price offered is acceptance that Iran could go nuclear within two years at IsraelÂ’s expense.
The group’s recommendation of a Madrid-2 peace conference for a Middle East peace would pander to the Arabs and their European backers by pushing for a full Israeli withdrawal from territories captured in the 1967 war. Israel and its supporters in the United States would have no say – “…a unique opportunity for the US to strike a deal without Jewish pressure,” as one Washington observer put it.
This sort of crude language has not been heard in WashingtonÂ’s top circles since George Bush the elder was president and James Baker his secretary of state.
The new-old gang has also revived the threat of an imposed “peace.” It is barely veiled in the Baker-Hamilton report’s statement: “The US cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it embarks on a renewed and sustained commitment to a comprehensive peace plan on all fronts.”
The prime minister’s office in Jerusalem still clings to the now-meaningless statement that there is “no fear of a change in US policy towards Israel.” The statement released Thursday, Dec. 7, asserted that Ehud Olmert was assured during his Washington visit two weeks ago that “there was no linkage between the Iraq issue and Israel.”

counter free hit unique web

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Christian fall, muslim rise..

TAS Live
Christian Fall, Muslim Rise
By Tom Bethell
Published 10/24/2006 12:03:03 AM

FOR A LONG TIME I TRIED TO AVOID thinking about Lebanon. It seemed too marginal, not to mention too complicated. Its government, more notional than real, enjoys little more than the "trappings of sovereignty," as Fouad Ajami recently wrote. A territory more than a nation, it is a land of private militias, checkpoints, autonomous regions, and assassinations. Somehow, it degenerated into a place where the most ruthless could prevail by force, and maybe govern after a fashion. But that has long been a hallmark of government in the Arab world. Whoever seizes power can never relax the use or threat of force, lest he be overthrown by superior force.Lebanon is a microcosm, and an object lesson. It is a country where Christianity is on the wane. By one estimate, it was once over 70 percent Christian; today it is less than half that. Shi'ite Muslims alone probably outnumber Lebanese Christians (mostly Maronite). The decline may be greater than that. The Washington Post reported a few years ago that Lebanon has not conducted a census for about 50 years "out of concern that the evidence of Christian decline and Shi'ite Muslim advancement might fuel sectarian tension." A similar pattern holds across the Middle East, where the Christian downfall has been dramatic. The Catholic Archbishop of Algeria, interviewed recently by the New York Times, described "the ebbing of Christianity from North Africa's shores as Islam spreads across Europe." In 1958, there were more than 700 churches in the country where St. Augustine was born and died. Now there are about 20, and they are mostly empty. "The rest have been converted into mosques or cultural centers or have been abandoned." The archbishop says Mass for a remnant of 20 people.In The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam (1997) Bat Ye'Or wrote that 13 percent of the Middle East was Christian a century ago. Today that figure may be as low as 2 percent.Something similar is happening, although more slowly, in Europe.The English writer G.K. Chesterton feared that if Christianity ever began to disappear, "superstition would drown out all your old rationalism and skepticism." He is often quoted as saying that when people stop believing in God "they don't believe in nothing, but in anything." But no one has been able to find that famous remark in all his copious writings. He did write something similar-that your "hard-shelled materialists [are] all balanced on the very edge of belief-of belief in almost anything."Writing after the suicide attacks on the London Underground last year, the British historian Niall Ferguson drew attention to Chesterton's comment (and misquotation) and added that the "moral vacuum" left by de-Christianization seemed to be creating a "soft target for the religious fanaticism of others." Plainly, the rise of Islam in Europe is directly related to the fall of Christianity."Into the void are coming Islam and Muslims," Daniel Pipes wrote in the New York Sun two years ago. "As Christianity falters, Islam is robust, assertive and ambitious." He foresaw a time when Europe's "grand cathedrals will appear as vestiges of a prior civilization." Until they are transformed into mosques, that is.A RECENT STUDY SHOWED that the Catholic Church in Britain is facing its greatest threat since the Reformation. Its membership is in "terminal decline," much of it recent. What Henry VIII persecuted the modern world simply ignores. The faith is withering away. Meanwhile, the Church of England has devolved into a museum. Those old cathedrals are still maintained-even admired as works of art. Increasingly, however, they are venues for music festivals. As for the Church of England's Episcopalian equivalent in the U.S., it suggests nothing so much as a wounded animal beset by carnivores.How to explain this decline? Nothing less than a book-length response would suffice. But here are a few thoughts. Enfeebled bishops, selected precisely for their feebleness, preside over dwindling flocks. Bishops have lost all authority and few listen to their public comments, which almost always deal with material (not spiritual) concerns. Rome slumbers on, imagining that English Catholics must above all repair the breach with Canterbury, and that the way to do so is to stand for as little as possible. Diplomacy triumphs over conviction. There is no sign that the old pope, John Paul II, paid attention to the problem. Benedict XVI understands that Catholicism is in trouble in Europe, but has not yet shown that he has the courage to do anything about it.Christianity has been under constant attack since the time of the Enlightenment and the attacks have come from within. In recent decades, mullahs and imams have hardly needed to say a word against Christianity. All the work was being done for them by critics, reformers, apostates, defectors. In some ways Muslims are actually more respectful of Christianity than the Church's internal foes. And Islam's spiritual leaders have not lost the faith, defective though it is in key areas.Friedrich Nietzsche, the son of a Lutheran pastor, composed his nonsensical but influential work The Antichrist (better translated as "The Anti-Christian," as Walter Kaufmann noted), and proclaimed the death of God in a country still nominally Christian. His diatribes were influential not because they were cogent but because they were daring. He was thought profound merely because he had disturbed the peace. (In earlier centuries such exercises in egotism were smothered at birth.) In droves, Western intellectuals wanted to believe that they could safely defy the parson-ignore a creator perceived as more tyrannical than loving. So they disparaged the "wishful thinking" of believers, and in so doing imputed their own mindset to the faithful remnant.The Jesuits turned to liberation theology, and many have also fallen under the homosexual spell. A succession of popes has failed to mount any effective response.A likely ingredient in the Christian decline is increased material prosperity, which turns minds and hearts toward the things of this world. One could say that wealth makes materialists of us all. (But why hasn't there been an equivalent decline in the United States?) The Muslims of the Arab world, in contrast, have been unable to achieve anything beyond rudimentary levels of development. A material advance in the Middle East comparable to that of Western Europe possibly would undermine Islam. But why has it not already happened? The Muslims seem unable to achieve one of the most basic features of Western civilization-the rule of law. And they have remained largely frozen in a pre-medieval past. The strong rule by fear, force, and power replace law and consent, and property is insecure.THE MOST COMMON SECULAR RESPONSE to all this is to say: What was so great about Christianity? One blogger responded to Niall Ferguson: "I don't get it. What's wrong with, say, secular humanism filling the moral vacuum? Why does he think the Christian doctrine is irreplaceable?"It's an important question, deserving a full response. Just at the most basic level of demography, however, the secular-humanist option is not working. Sustaining a population requires each woman on average to bear 2.1 children. In the European Union, Daniel Pipes wrote, "the overall rate is one-third short, at 1.5 and falling." Should current population trends continue and immigration cease, the EU population of 375 million could fall to 275 million by 2075. Furthermore, birth rates are not lower than they already are (in France and Britain, for example, they are noticeably above the EU average) because Muslim immigrants to those countries are having more children than fallen-away Christians.As for those who imagine that the Christian legacy is one of imperialism, racism, and inquisition, and we are better off without it-legions on the left do believe that-they will have to start thinking about what will replace it. Some are already doing so. Whittaker Chambers is worth reading on these issues, even though Islam was still dormant when he wrote Witness. The attempt to reconstruct faith without God produced Communism, he wrote. And the attempt to live without any faith at all is, I believe, impossible. If faith collapses, civilization goes with it.

counter free hit unique web

Monday, October 23, 2006

bbc bias..

BBC admits: We are biased on religion and politics
Internal corporation memo on ‘impartiality’ summit leaked to British media exposes truth on BBC bias
Hagit Klaiman
10.23.06, 16:10

LONDON – The British Broadcasting Corporation has been struggling for several years against criticisms and claims of biased reporting concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and distorted coverage of the global fight against terror.
Following a diplomatic incident with Israel, the BBC appointed an editor known for his objective reporting, however, the true stance of the corporation’s editors remained the same.
An internal memo, recently discovered by the British media, revealed what the BBC has been trying to hide. Senior figures admitted in a recent 'impartiality' summit that the BBC was guilty of promoting Left-wing views and anti-Christian sentiment.
Most executives admitted that the corporation’s representation of homosexuals and ethnic minorities was unbalanced and disproportionate, and that it leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism, anti-Americanism and discrimination against the countryside.

Okay to trash Bible, not Quran
A truly shocking revelation to come out of the summit was expected to invoke a storm in Britain, which has already reached the boiling point with regards to the treatment of Muslims and the issue of the veil.
For the purpose of illustration, the executives were given a scenario in which Jewish Comedian Sasha Baron Cohen would participate in a program titled ‘Room 101’, a studio program where guests would be asked for their opinions on different issues, and allowed to symbolically throw things they hated in a garbage bin.

The executives were asked what they would do if Cohen decided to throw ‘Kosher food’, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bible, and the Quran in the garbage bin.

The executives said they would allow everything to be thrown in the garbage bin, save the Quran, for fear of offending the British Muslim community.
According to the ‘Washington Times’, the BBC also reportedly revealed that its executives favored interviewing terrorist leader Osama bin Laden if the opportunity arose.

Among other issues raised in the summit was the question of whether or not veiled women should be allowed to read the news. The BBC’s diversity editor said that since news anchors were allowed to wear crosses, any news anchor should be permitted to wear anything they wished, including the veil.

One senior BBC executive admitted to the ‘Daily Express’, "There was a widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness. Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it."

counter free hit unique web

Friday, October 13, 2006

Saturday, October 07, 2006

russian troops stationed in lebanon..

DEBKA Exclusive: Moscow posts two Chechen platoons in S. Lebanon, one headed by an ex-rebel commander, “to improve Russia’s image in the Arab world”

The Muslim commandoes of the Vostok (East) and Zapad (West) battalions of the Russian Army’s Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) (picture) are being sent to guard the 150 Russian military engineers. They arrived in Beirut this week to restore the roads in Lebanon damaged by Israeli bombing.

DEBKAfile reports: Moscow did not consult Israel before stationing Muslim Chechen troops on its border for the first time.

Russian defense minister Sergei Ivanov said openly to Russian media that the deployment of former rebel Chechen troops in Lebanon aimed at “improving Moscow’s image in the Arab and Muslim world.”

DEBKAfile’s military sources: The Russian units are operating independently of the largely-European UN peacekeeping force. Their vehicles fly Russian and Lebanese flags. UNIFIL too was taken by surprise by the posting of Chechen troops to Lebanon. Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora was informed but omitted to notify Washington, Paris, Berlin, Rome or the UN.
The Kremlin’s rationale for making Russia the first nation to deploy a Muslim contingent in South Lebanon - albeit outside the UN force – is part of a hard-hitting foreign and domestic policy initiative, which is summed up by DEBKAfile’s sources:

1. The Putin administration wants to demonstrate to Russia’s teeming Muslim community its willingness to step into Middle East conflicts – on behalf of the Muslim-Arab interest. This straw in the wind indicates the Kremlin’s orientation on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
2. Moscow is building another bridge to Tehran through a joint, potentially interactive presence in Lebanon.
3. As a step to promote cooperation with Hizballah, with whom the Chechens, with their long record of extremist Muslim terrorist action against the Russian army, have much in common – in contrast to the European contingents of UNIFIL.
4. The Russian Chechen unit’s cooperation with Hizballah in the parts of Lebanon under its control will pave the way for a Russian Muslim military presence north of Israel which is independent of the UN and not bound by accords to which Israel is a party.

According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, the Israeli government and IDF high command were taken aback by the Russian step, which lends a different and inimical aspect to the international deployment on its northern border. When it signed off onto UN Security Council resolution 1701, Israel never envisaged the measure would open the door for Russian military intelligence to step in and camp on its border, using former Muslim terrorists involved in organized crime.
The Chechen Vostok and Zapad battalions are part of the 42nd Motorized Rifle Division that is permanently deployed in Chechnya, in charge of the eastern and western regions. The Zapad battalion is led by Major Said-Magomed Kakiev, the Vostok’s commander is the former rebel Sulim Yamadaev.

This same Yamadaev, the former Chechen rebel commander who won an amnesty and the Hero of Russia award in 2004, is alleged by the Russian media with leading the robbery of the Samson-K meat-processing plant in St. Petersburg on September 15. He and up to 40 of his armed men stayed in the city’s Nevsky Palace Hotel, one of the most opulent in Europe, where he was seen embracing the leader of the local organized crime gang, Vladimir Kumarin.

counter free hit unique web

syria to invade israel ??

DEBKAfile’s sources: Tehran and Damascus are gearing up for a pre-emptive attack on Israel to ward off a US strike on Iran’s nuclear sites

Our military and Washington sources read as preparatory justification the Syrian ruler Bashar Asad’s statement Saturday, Oct. 7, that he expects an Israeli attack.
He was speaking in an interview to Kuwaiti paper al-Anba.

Asad’s Iranian-backed war plan would serve the purpose of forcing the Americans to divide their military assets between a strike against Iran and the defense of their allies in the Persia Gulf, Israel and US forces in Iraq. Both are seriously looking at a Syrian attack on the Golan which would escalate into a full-blown Syrian-Israeli war and a second Hizballah assault from Lebanon.

Asad’s remark that during the Lebanon hostilities, he was under pressure from the Syrian population to go to war against Israel and liberate the Golan is the most direct threat of belligerency of all his four Golan statements in the last month. He is implying that he stood up to the pressure once but may not do so again. And for the benefit of the Americans, the Europeans, the Saudis and the Egyptians - all of whom are pretty fed up with him – Asad is posing as the picture of self-restraint; anyone else in his place, he implies, would have taken advantage of the Lebanon war and made a grab for the Golan. Therefore, he is saying, he deserves to be treated with the respect due to a strategic asset by Western and moderate Arab powers instead of being targeted for an ouster.

The Syrian ruler would not threaten war without guarantees from Iran. According to DEBKAfile’s sources, Asad and Iran’s supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei are prompted by the following motives:

1. Tehran is not prepared to wait passively for the Americans to build up their assault force in the Gulf and strike its nuclear facilities. A pre-emptive attack would suit them better.
2. Tehran and Damascus have not missed the debilitating crisis in which Israel’s political and military leadership are sunk since the Lebanon war. They do not propose to wait until the IDF pulls itself together enough to handle fresh aggression.

3. Both accept Israel’s deputy prime minister Shimon Peres’ assessment that Israel’s cities are not prepared for missile attack. Iran and Syria take it for granted that Israeli leaders understand they cannot afford to launch missiles against either one of them for fear of reprisal in kind.

4. Syria believes that if Hizballah could stand up to the Israeli army in Lebanon, its commandoes can capture sections of the Golan and walk off with an easy victory.

5. Tehran figures that the Bush administration is coming to the end of its patience in Iraq and preparing for a major review of its position there. The influential U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman, John Warner, said Friday that Iraq's government had 60 to 90 days to control the violence that threatens civil war or the United States would have to reconsider its options. This gives the Maliki government in Baghdad up to December or January to de-escalate if not halt the sectarian war engulfing the country.

Iran, Syria and Hizballah would not be averse to disrupting the American Iraq timeline by attacking Israel and putting the Bush administration on the spot, forced to address three warfronts simultaneously.

counter free hit unique web

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

more mahdi madness..

just because we think it's silly doesn't mean that millions of other people do..
Waiting for the imam's return to Earth
THE followers of Moqtada al-Sadr believe that the US in
vaded Iraq to prevent the return to Earth of their sect’s messiah-like figure, the Mahdi, or 12th imam.

Hojatoleslam al-Sadr claims that his militia is preparing for the day when the Mahdi, the last direct descendent of the revered Shia figure Ali, reappears. Shia believe that the Mahdi, who disappeared in 868, will bring justice to Earth.

At a prayer service in the central Iraqi city of Kufa on September 15, the cleric told a crowd of thousands that the Americans were collecting a dossier on the Mahdi to prevent his return. “Did you ever ask yourself about why all of this, the bloodshed and the prisons? Why are the brothers fighting each other for a political game planned by the Americans? This all happened because they (the Americans) are waiting for the Mahdi. This planning started ten years ago. They have a big file for Imam Mahdi and they just need his picture to complete it.”

Hojatoleslam al-Sadr and his advisers are convinced that the Americans want to destroy Islam and stop the Mahdi. “The Americans are trying to hijack Islamic movements. They think that these are serving the Mahdi’s interests. Whatever they did in Afghanistan and Iraq are all attempts to hijack the Mahdi’s return.”

counter free hit unique web

Monday, September 25, 2006

a prayer?

"Dear Friends and Colleagues, From the beginning of time, humanity has
longed for the day when justice, peace, equality and compassion envelop the
world. All of us can contribute to the establishment of such a world. When that
day comes, the ultimate promise of all Divine religions will be fulfilled with
the emergence of a perfect human being who is heir to all prophets and pious
men. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace."

"O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last
repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that
will fill this world with justice and peace. "

for people who had a chance to read the text of mahmoud ahmadinejad's speech to the un, this should not be surprising. for those who haven't read or listened to his speech, you would be wise to pay attention to the way he closed it..

let's remember, iran's president believes in an apocolyptic view for himself. he believes he is the one to usher in the return of the 12th imam or mahdi who will bring islam to rule on earth and harken in a time of islamic ruled peace. this mahdi cannot come until there is a last great battle with the western infidels.. and ahmadinejad feels he is the one to pick this fight.

he has provided warning after warning to the world and the united states specifically.. he has asked george bush to convert to islam, which is required prior to war. and he has left the un with the prayer above.. a clear invitation to convert to islam and a call for the mahdi to come.

counter free hit unique web

a prayer?

"Dear Friends and Colleagues, From the beginning of time, humanity has
longed for the day when justice, peace, equality and compassion envelop the
world. All of us can contribute to the establishment of such a world. When that
day comes, the ultimate promise of all Divine religions will be fulfilled with
the emergence of a perfect human being who is heir to all prophets and pious
men. He will lead the world to justice and absolute peace."

"O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last
repository, the promised one, that perfect and pure human being, the one that
will fill this world with justice and peace. "

for people who had a chance to read the text of mahmoud ahmadinejad's speech to the un, this should not be surprising. for those who haven't read or listened to his speech, you would be wise to pay attention to the way he closed it..

let's remember, iran's president believes in an apocolyptic view for himself. he believes he is the one to usher in the return of the 12th imam or mahdi who will bring islam to rule on earth and harken in a time of islamic ruled peace. this mahdi cannot come until there is a last great battle with the western infidels.. and ahmadinejad feels he is the one to pick this fight.

he has provided warning after warning to the world and the united states specifically.. he has asked george bush to convert to islam, which is required prior to war. and he has left the un with the prayer above.. a clear invitation to convert to islam and a call for the mahdi to come.

counter free hit unique web

Monday, September 11, 2006


i think that it's important to really look at the motivations of the people who would believe that 9/11 was an inside job facilitated by the 'inept' and 'incompetent' george w bush. a man that had been in office only months before the attack.. a man who had barely put his cabinet together in time to plan such a spectacular event.. if you recall, the bush whitehouse was still trying to find all of the missing 'w' keys from the computer keyboards and trying to determine where the doorhandles had gone at this point.. everyone conveniently forgets the state that the clintonites left the white house (porn, vandalism and other white trash indulgences.)

david kupelian hits it on the head in this article.. the mindset that it takes to believe this type of thing should tell you much about the individual who buys in to it.

And for this cause, God will send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie..
2 Thessalonians 2:11
Anger, conspiracy and 9/11 truth
By David Kupelian

A recent Scripps Howard survey reports that one in three Americans believe or suspect their democratically elected government is guilty of the worst crime in American history – of participating in the wanton murder of thousands of its own citizens and the destruction of the national economy in order to advance some nefarious, secret agenda.

If that poll is accurate, then I think it's time for us to face some hard truths.

First, we need to understand that, when it comes to 9/11 conspiracy theories, the choice is not between believing that the Bush administration is as pure as the newly fallen snow or believing that the president is a murderous extraterrestrial shape-shifter (as at least one conspiracist alleges). There's a lot in between those extremes.

In fact, if you line up all the possible alternative explanations for 9/11 next to each other, you get a continuum – everything from the most eminently reasonable concerns to the most demented and moronic theories imaginable.

Questions such as whether Flight 93 was actually shot down by the U.S. military over rural Pennsylvania before it could crash into the White House or the Capitol are legitimate. Indeed, the history of clandestine government operations in our own lifetime suggests our government is not only capable of taking such an action (which might well have been the right thing to do under the circumstances), but also capable of keeping it a secret, for whatever reasons.

Likewise, all issues regarding the government's lack of preparedness before 9/11, its myriad intelligence failures, its failure to pay sufficient attention to the growing Islamist threat even after the 1993 World Trade Center car-bombing and other attacks on American interests worldwide, are legitimate.

Cover-ups, official obfuscation and other attempts at hiding past failures, ineptness and gross incompetence are all fair game. Citizens have the perfect right and duty to hold their government accountable.

However, where 9/11 conspiracy theorists cross the line into Bizarro Land is when they conclude, utterly without proof, that the Bush administration is filled with the most craven mass murderers in American history – in other words, that 9/11 was an "inside job."

Stop and think. To believe that 9/11 was an "inside job," that it was accomplished with the blessing of the U.S. government, requires that you believe not only that George W. Bush is a demonically inspired, genocidal monster, but also that dozens and perhaps hundreds of other people in the government are likewise crazed mass-murdering psychopaths.

How can bright and intelligent Americans believe such things?

Perhaps the Scripps Howard poll provides a clue. It cited two major findings:

1. More than a third of Americans believe the U.S. government somehow assisted in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, or else took no steps to stop them from occurring, so the Bush administration could launch a war in the Middle East; and

2. A record number of Americans (54 percent of respondents) claimed they "personally are more angry" at the government than in the past.

In case you're not aware, brainwashers and dictators and master manipulators of all sorts have long known and exploited the knowledge that when people are angry, emotional and upset, they are automatically more vulnerable to outside suggestion (that is, to believing nonsense) than if they were not angry. (That's why Hitler always insisted on appealing to the German population on the basis of powerful emotion, never reason and logic.)

If, in addition, the people are in denial – that is, they've rejected the truth – then they are open to believing virtually anything. Having already denied reality, they literally have a need for lies.
Let's bring this down to earth with an illustration: Have you ever wondered why so much of the Arab-Muslim world eagerly believes the wildest, most laughably absurd conspiracy theories?
Right now, for instance, Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV is broadcasting with a straight face the claim that "Zionist squads specializing in car bombs" are terrorizing Iraq. Meanwhile, Hezbollah's leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, insists that all the bombings of Christian churches in Iraq have been the work of the CIA and Mossad.

Then of course there are all the old classics – like the claim that Jews regularly murder Christian children and grind up their bodies as ingredients for their Passover matzah.
And, bringing it back to our subject, millions of Muslims to this day believe "the Jews" were responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks on the U.S. (which supposedly occurred only after 4,000 Jews had been secretly ordered to stay home from the World Trade Center that day).
How can so many Muslims believe such things?

For one thing, when you're brainwashed from birth to believe Jews are the cause of all evil, you feel no need to examine your own life, culture or religion. The natural need all humans have to understand right and wrong, to solve problems, to feel like they're good people, and so on, are all satisfied by the all-consuming hatred of Jews and other "infidels." Blaming others – Jews, Christians, Americans, "crusaders," collaborators, apostates, women, whatever – feels to them exactly like righteousness and strength. It's an almost perfect illusion.

In such a state, having rejected reality and embraced self-righteous hatred, they are perfectly comfortable believing sheer madness. In fact, not only are they vulnerable to believing lies; they need lies to sustain their delusions.

But wait. Doesn't common sense ever intervene and say to them, "You're believing a lie"? Of course, for some. But you never hear about those, because if they made their realizations known they'd be beheaded as "collaborators" or "apostates." But for millions of Muslims, raised to hate infidels and especially the detested Jews, that Zionist scapegoat simply becomes the source and repository for all evil, in their minds. Thus, if something goes wrong, it just has to be because of the Jews (or sometimes the Americans).

Now, what about America's 9/11 skeptics?

If radical Muslims can drink in conspiracy theories like water in a desert because they hate Jews so intensely, then who do America's 9/11 conspiracists hate with an all-consuming passion? That's easy: George W. Bush!

They hate him so much, they see him as such an evil and detestable person that they find it easy to make the wild leap of faith whereby they see the president as terrorist-in-chief.
How is it possible that just because you dislike a president, disapprove of his politics and worldview, and even disagree with his decision to involve the nation in a controversial war, you can so easily deny his very humanity and label him a monster – not to mention condemning countless other lesser "monsters"?

You want truth? Here's some: Right now, as you read these words, Christians and Jews are being attacked by hate-filled Muslim radicals – not only in Israel and Sudan and in-the-news hot spots, but all over the world, including in Europe and even the U.S. (remember the one-man terror attack at the Seattle Jewish center recently?). Ever-increasing numbers of Muslims, inflamed by the medieval, convert-or-die jihad mandate of world domination, are raping, slashing, burning, torturing and murdering infidels. They are bombing trains in Spain, and subways in London, and schools filled with children in Russia, and rioting in France, and butchering countless innocents in Indonesia because some reporter made a comment about Miss Universe, and killing countless more because a newspaper published some cartoons depicting Muhammad, and last month were busted shortly before they carried out their long-planned campaign to blow up 10 passenger jets bound for the U.S., and – oh wait, maybe George Bush was actually responsible for all of this. Never mind.

People, in case you hadn't heard, there's a world war going on, between Western Civilization and global Islamo-fascism. This war is 14 centuries old and counting. Like the evil portrayed in Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" – which, after earlier conquests, went dormant for centuries, only to re-emerge in the latter days with a newly rekindled imperative to conquer the world – so it is with radical Islam.

When we embrace wild conspiracy theories that the U.S. government, and not the global Islamic jihad, is the real enemy, not only are we accusing our leaders of committing the most despicable crimes in U.S. history, but we are also, wittingly or unwittingly, now in the service of the enemy. After all, at that point, we are literally embracing the same false reality they preach – that America is the "great Satan" behind all the evil in the world.

In fact, the rapid radicalization of Islam worldwide, with its murderous eruptions occurring ever more frequently, is being driven, more than any other single reason, by conspiracy theories!
The Aug. 10 edition of the CNN show "Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees," focusing on that day's arrest in the UK of two dozen Muslims who had planned to kill thousands of innocent human beings by blowing up 10 passenger jets, included this revealing exchange between host Cooper and CNN reporter Christiane Amanpour:

Cooper: You know, Christiane, I think it's hard for a lot of us to comprehend how young men, young Muslim men, in a country like Great Britain, could turn themselves into suicide bombers.

Amanpour: And – and be so virulently against the United States. And there is some evidence that is coming out now, five years after 9/11, that many, many Muslims in England and around the world, according to documentaries that have been produced, are really succumbing to the conspiracy theories. They're really now saying that 9/11 was not al-Qaida; it was a U.S./CIA, Mossad/Israel, Zionist plot, basically designed to cause a war against Islam. This is what is in the mindset now of increasing numbers of these young people.

Get it? Sept. 11 conspiracy theories are throwing gasoline on the Islamist fire that threatens Western civilization.

The U.S. government is a lot of things, many of them bad. But it did not cause 9/11. And if we believe such a preposterous lie, we are in danger of losing history's most important war – and of contributing to that loss.

Muslim terrorists tried to destroy the World Trade Center in 1993. Don't you remember Ramzi Yousef and his uncle, key al-Qaida operative Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, whom the "9/11 Commission Report" called "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks"? They didn't bring down the buildings that time, but they did succeed in killing six Americans and injuring over 1,000. Eight years later, their al-Qaida comrades came back to finish the job.
That's the truth – if you can handle it.

counter free hit unique web

Monday, August 28, 2006

UN <3 Israel

as if there was any question on the impartiality of the united nations when it comes to dealing with Israel, we have this golden piece of news.. apparently the un was broadcasting Israeli troop movements in lebanon for hezbollah to read..

lets remember that the un has condemned Israel more than 320 times and has done nothing to help protect the borders of the only democracy in the region.

now, the same force that was to have removed and disarmed hezbollah in resolution 1559 and was providing Israeli troop movements during the recent month long war is once again going to be leaned on to provide the security of Israel's northern border..

the fact that the united nations still absconds with any ounce of legitimacy in the public arena is a testament to the state of world affairs..

What did you do in the war, UNIFIL?
You broadcast Israeli troop movements.
by Lori Lowenthal Marcus

DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon.

UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got.

This war was fought on cable television and the Internet, and a lot of official information was available in real time. But the specific military intelligence UNIFIL posted could not be had from any non-U.N. source. The Israeli press--always eager to push the envelope--did not publish the details of troop movements and logistics. Neither the European press nor the rest of the world media, though hardly bastions of concern for the safety of Israeli troops,
provided the IDF intelligence details that UNIFIL did. A search of Israeli government websites failed to turn up the details published to the world each day by the U.N.

Inquiries made of various Israeli military and government representatives and analysts yielded near unanimous agreement that at least some of UNIFIL's postings, in the words of one retired senior military analyst, "could have exposed Israeli soldiers to grave danger." These analysts, including a current high ranking military official, noted that the same intelligence would not have been provided by the U.N. about Israel's enemies.

Sure enough, a review of every single UNIFIL web posting during the war shows that, while UNIFIL was daily revealing the towns where Israeli soldiers were located, the positions from which they were firing, and when and how they had entered Lebanese territory, it never described Hezbollah movements or locations with any specificity whatsoever.
Compare the vague "various locations" language with this UNIFIL posting from July 25:
Yesterday and during last night, the IDF moved significant reinforcements, including a number of tanks, armored personnel carriers, bulldozers and infantry, to the area of Marun Al Ras inside Lebanese territory. The IDF advanced from that area north toward Bint Jubayl, and south towards Yarun.

Or with the posting on July 24, in which UNIFIL revealed that the IDF stationed between Marun Al Ras and Bint Jubayl were "significantly reinforced during the night and this morning with a number of tanks and armored personnel carriers."
This partiality is inconsistent not only with UNIFIL's mission but also with its own stated policies. In a telling incident just a few years back, UNIFIL vigorously insisted on its "neutral ity"--at Israel's expense.

On October 7, 2000, three IDF soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah just yards from a UNIFIL shelter and dragged across the border into Lebanon, where they disappeared. The U.N. was thought to have videotaped the incident or its immediate aftermath. Rather than help Israel rescue its kidnapped soldiers by providing this evidence, however, the U.N. obstructed the Israeli investigation.

For months the Israeli government pleaded with the U.N. to turn over any videotape that might shed light on the location and condition of its missing men. And for nine months the U.N. stonewalled, insisting first that no such tape existed, then that just one tape existed, and eventually conceding that there were two more tapes. During those nine months, clips from the videotapes were shown on Syrian and Lebanese television.

Explaining their eventual about-face, U.N. officials said the decision had been made by the on-site commanders that it was not their responsibility to provide the material to Israel; indeed, that to do so would violate the peacekeeping mandate, which required "full impartiality and objectivity." The U.N. report on the incident was adamant that its force had "to ensure that military and other sensitive information remains in their domain and is not passed to parties to a conflict."

Stymied in its efforts to recover the men while they were still alive, Israel ultimately agreed to an exchange in January 2004: It released 429 Arab prisoners and detainees, among them convicted terrorists, and the bodies of 60 Lebanese decedents and members of Hezbollah, in exchange

for the bodies of the three soldiers. Blame for the deaths of those three Israelis can be laid, at least in part, at the feet of the U.N., which went to the wall defending its inviolable pledge never to share military intelligence about one party with another.

UNIFIL has just done what it then vowed it could never do. Once again, it has acted to shield one side in the conflict and to harm the other. Why is this permitted? For that matter, how did the U.N. obtain such detailed and timely military intelligence in the first place, before broadcasting it for Israel's enemies to see?

counter free hit unique web

Wednesday, August 23, 2006


outside of being my good friend libby's birthday today (happy birthday!) today is also the day after the much anticipated 8/22 date iran gave to respond to un demands... we're all still standing, and Israel hasn't been wiped off the map..

a good article:

After August 22

By Robert Spencer August 23, 2006
Iran drew concern worldwide for refusing to respond in a timely fashion to the West’s offer of an incentives package in exchange for Tehran’s abandonment of its nuclear program. Iranian officials brushed aside the June 29 deadline set by the West and said Iran would respond on August 22. Some, including Farid Ghadry of the Reform Party of Syria (as I reported several weeks ago) and Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis, suggested that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the mullahs in Iran’s inner circle may have chosen that date in order to establish a connection with the Islamic prophet Muhammad’s fabled Night Journey, during which Allah is said to have miraculously illuminated the night sky over Jerusalem to facilitate the prophet’s journey from Mecca to Jerusalem, and thence to Paradise. Would Iran’s answer to the West’s tribute package be to illuminate the night sky over Jerusalem again, this time with a nuclear device?

Obviously not – at least not on August 22 itself. That was a cue for some of the loudest advocates of Western appeasement and surrender to the global jihadists to condemn right-wing hysteria, despite the fact that no one who reported on this possibility had ever stated with any certainty that anything in particular would happen on August 22. Brian Whitaker, a columnist for The Guardian who once suggested that Gandhi would admire jihad, sneered: “The purpose of all this scaremongering is obviously to build up fears about an Iranian nuclear attack. The main obstacle to promoting such fears is that Iran does not possess any nuclear weapons but Lewis seems determined not to let that stand in the way and apparently believes that Iran already has a fully-prepared arsenal.” In dismissing these speculations as “scaremongering,” however, Whitaker and others neglect to consider one possibility: that they were correct.

How could this be, when doomsday did not materialize on August 22? Because the Iranian regime has made its desire to illuminate the night sky over Jerusalem abundantly clear. The fact that they first set the date for their reply as August 22, and then delivered a reply that budged not one inch toward conciliation, and made it clear that they had no plans to give up their nuclear ambitions, suggests that such an attack is still in the cards. When Whitaker and his ilk dismiss “fears about an Iranian nuclear attack” as “scaremongering,” they ignore both Iran’s present bellicose activities and clear indications it has been giving of its future plans:

* According to the Times of London, Iran “is seeking to import large consignments of bomb-making uranium from the African mining area that produced the Hiroshima bomb.”

* On August 22 itself, an Iranian warship fired upon a Romanian oil tanker moored in the Persian Gulf; Iranian troops occupied the ship.

* Lethal roadside bombs strong enough to penetrate American and British tank armor are being turned out in large numbers by three Iranian factories. A large cache of other Iranian-made weapons and materiel were discovered last Monday in the Iraqi city of Um Qasr.

* After decisively altering the balance between Hizballah and Israel by supplying military hardware to the Lebanese Shi’ite terror organization, Iran continues even after the ceasefire announcement to ship arms and materiel to Hizballah.

* Ahmadinejad continues to indulge his now well-established taste for pugnacious rhetoric, declaring last week: “If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.” Hardly a promising foundation for the negotiations that American officials so desperately want to initiate with Tehran.

* The Iranian President also threatened George W. Bush during his recent interview with Mike Wallace. Referring to the letter he sent several months ago to Bush inviting him to accept Islam, Ahmadinejad said to Wallace: “We are all free to choose. But please give him this message, sir: Those who refuse to accept an invitation will not have a good ending or fate.”

This is in accord with Islamic tradition. Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, tells his followers to call people to Islam before waging war against them: “Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action….Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them (Sahih Muslim 4294).” (Muhammad sent a letter much like Ahmadinejad’s to one of Ahmadinejad’s early predecessors, Chosroes, emperor of Persia – who contemptuously tore it to pieces. Muhammad, hearing of this, called upon Allah to tear the Persian emperor and his followers to pieces (Bukhari, vol. 5, book 64, no. 4424)). Ahmadinejad has followed Muhammad’s instruction to the letter both by calling Bush to Islam, and then by warning that his refusal would have bad consequences.

* Iran has in the last few days conducted large-scale military maneuvers and tested a new short-range missile.

* Ahmad Khatami of the Iranian Assembly of Experts said last week on government-controlled Iranian television that if Bush and Olmert “decided to display the slightest aggression against Islamic Iran, they should…fear the day that our missiles, with a range of 2,000 kilometers, land in the heart of Tel Aviv….They should know that playing with Islam is like playing with a lion’s tail.”

* Ahmadinejad continues to call for “elimination of Zionist regime.”

August 22 has come and gone. But the threat of Iran continues to hang over the world. Those who choose to ignore or downplay it may be in before too long for a most unpleasant surprise, courtesy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

counter free hit unique web

Thursday, August 17, 2006

messianic delusion

it's interesting to juxtapose the current leader of iran and the coming invasion of israel by a group including russia and iran..

Ahmadinejad’s Apocalyptic Faith
By Patrick Poole August 17, 2006

When Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes recently sat down in Tehran with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for an interview, perhaps the most important questions were the ones that went unasked. They talked about Hezbollah, nuclear weapons, Israel and President Bush, but the one question that ties all of these together in Ahmadinejad’s mind is his religious faith. It is the prism through which he views all of these other policy issues, which is why it is of singular importance to understand the ideology that drives this man. This was apparently lost on Mike Wallace.
No one can accuse Ahmadinejad of being circumspect about the religious views that shape his worldview. He speaks on those views quite frequently, but they are a taboo subject for Westerners unaccustomed to thinking that is self-consciously religious. The reactionary response is to dismiss it as mental instability or label it as “fundamentalist”, but facing the reality of a nuclear Iran, such a reaction is not only short-sighted and narrow minded, but possibly suicidal.

Ahmadinejad’s worldview is shaped by the radical Hojjatieh Shiism that is best represented by Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, the Iranian President’s ideological mentor and marja-e taqlid (object of emulation), of the popular Haqqani religious school located in Qom. The affection seems to be mutual: in the 2005 Iranian presidential campaign, Ayatollah Yazdi issued a fatwa calling on his supporters to vote for Ahmadinejad.

The Hojjatieh movement is considered to be so radical that it was banned in 1983 by the Ayatollah Khomeini and is still opposed by the majority of the Iranian clerics, including the Supreme Leader of the Supreme National Security Council, Ayatollah Ali Khamanei. That should be telling in and of itself. That opposition notwithstanding, it is believed that several adherents of the Hojjatieh sect are in Cabinet-level positions in Ahmadinejad’s government.

Most Shiites await the return of the 12th Shiite Imam, Muhammad ibn Hasan, the last direct male descendent of the Prophet Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali, who disappeared in 874AD and is believed to be in an invisible, deathless state of existene, or “occultation”, awaiting his return. Though it is discounted even by the most extremist clerics, a popular belief in Iran holds that the 12th Imam, also called the Mahdi or the sahib-e zaman (“the Ruler of Time”), lives at the bottom of a well in Jamkaran, just outside of Qom. Devotees drop written requests into the well to communicate with the Mahdi. His reappearance will usher in a new era of peace as Islam vanquishes all of its enemies. The Sunnis, who reject the successors of Ali, believe that the Mahdi has yet to be born.

But rooted in the Shiite ideology of martyrdom and violence, the Hojjatieh sect adds messianic and apocalyptic elements to an already volatile theology. They believe that chaos and bloodshed must precede the return of the 12th Imam, called the Mahdi. But unlike the biblical apocalypse, where the return of Jesus is preceded by waves of divinely decreed natural disasters, the summoning of the Mahdi through chaos and violence is wholly in the realm of human action. The Hojjatieh faith puts inordinate stress on the human ability to direct divinely appointed events. By creating the apocalyptic chaos, the Hojjatiehs believe it is entirely in the power of believers to affect the Mahdi’s reappearance, the institution of Islamic government worldwide, and the destruction of all competing faiths.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has clearly indicated that he is a true believer in this faith. It has been reported that he has told confidants that he anticipates the immanent return of the Mahdi. When he previously served as Mayor of Tehran, he advocated for widening the roads to accommodate the Mahdi’s triumphal entry into the city. One of his first acts of office as President was to dedicate approximately $20 million to the restoration and improvement of the mosque at Jamkaran, where the Mahdi is claimed to dwell.

This personal belief directs his official policies as President. He has publicly said, “Our revolution’s main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. We should define our economic, cultural and political policies on the policy of the Imam Mahdi’s return.”

However, Ahmadinejad’s messianism doesn’t stop with the Mahdi. In fact, he has made it clear that he believes he has personally received a divine appointment to herald the imminent arrival of the Mahdi, tacitly acknowledging his own role in setting aright the problems of the world.

His belief in a personal divine appointment was best confirmed after his speech to the United Nations last September, which was laden with references to the Mahdi. Upon his return to Iran, he met with Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli, where the two discussed an alleged paranormal occurrence while Ahmadinejad spoke wherein he related to the cleric:

On the last day when I was speaking, one of our group told me that when I started to say 'Bismillah Muhammad,' he saw a green light come from around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself. I felt that the atmosphere suddenly changed, and for those 27 or 28 minutes, all the leaders of the world did not blink. When I say they didn't move an eyelid, I'm not exaggerating. They were looking as if a hand was holding them there, and had just opened their eyes – Alhamdulillah!

As the recipient of this divine appointment, he not only a leading actor in what he believes is a divine drama taking place on the world stage, but it also feeds the Gnostic elitism inherent in Hojjatieh ideology. Not only are his acts reflective of divine inspiration, they are also above questioning. As an interview back in May with Der Spiegel, while talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this “populist” makes clear his lack of enthusiasm for popular sovereignty:

It does not make sense that a phenomenon depends on the opinions of many individuals who are free to interpret the phenomenon as they wish. You can't solve the problems of the world that way. We need a new approach. Of course we want the free will of the people to reign, but we need sustainable principles that enjoy universal acceptance - such as justice.

Another part of his divine mission is confronting infidel world leaders and inviting them to accept Islam – a necessary step in Islamic warfare before attacking an opponent. In May, Ahmadinejad sent President Bush an 18-page letter calling for a change in the Bush Administration’s foreign polices and challenging him to embrace Islam. A similar letter was sent to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Robert Spencer of JihadWatch immediately recognized Ahmadinejad’s letter as a call to accept Islam – an opinion that Ahmadinejad later confirmed – that contextualized his respective letters as a pretext for future military confrontation and escalation.

Referring to his letter in his 60 Minutes interview, Ahmadinejad made it clear that rejection of his personal invitation to Islam would invite personal destruction for President Bush:

Please give him this message, sir. Those who refuse to accept an invitation to good will not have a good ending or fate.

The confrontational approach taken by Ahmadinejad colors his official decision-making as President of the Islamic Republic. The kidnapping of the Israeli solider by Iran’s Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, resulted in the conflict between Israel and the terrorist organization that has killed more than a thousand people in Lebanon and Israel and displaced more than a million citizens in both countries. This provocative act by Hezbollah had to have the approval of Ahmadinejad and reflects the belligerence that marks virtually all of his policies related to the Middle East region and Iran’s relations with the West.

But it is the apocalyptic element to Ahmadinejad’s faith combined with Iran’s nuclear ambitions that should draw the most serious attention. He believes that a great cataclysm of bloodshed anticipates the return of the 12th Imam, in particular the destruction of infidels – Jews and Christians – that will usher in a new dawn of Islamic worldwide dominance.

With Israel in range of Iranian missiles, he has promised to “wipe Israel off the map”. Here Ahmadinejad draws from what Andrew Bostom recently identified as a theological current within the broader confines of Islam that holds that the destruction of the Jews will inaugurate the appearance of the Mahdi. Other Hojjatieh ideologues, such as one of Ayatollah Yazdi’s chief students, Mohsen Ghorourian, have openly advocated the use of nuclear weapons to assert Iranian/Islamic preeminence over Israel and the West.

In recent weeks Islam scholars have noted how Ahmadinejad’s selection of August 22nd to respond to the UN’s demand to cease the Iranian uranium enrichment program has roots in Quranic mythology. On July 27th, Robert Spencer wrote for FrontPage that this date corresponds to Muhammed’s “Night Journey” and ascension into heaven recounted in Islamic lore. Two weeks later, noted Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis reitterated these same concerns about the date chosen by Ahmadinejad’s government to respond to the UN’s demands. Could a nuclear event or other terrorist attacks directed against Israel, the West, or both, by Iran deliberately timed to coincide to utilize the perceived power of Islamic myth be in store? The scenario is not far-fetched.

Some commentators have dismissed the notion that Iran might launch an attack that would precipitate a catastrophic response from Israel and the US, relying on the Cold War logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). But yet again, the religious ideology that permeates the mind of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is extremely important to understand.

The whole structure of Shiite belief is built around a cult of martyrdom that assumes lethal retribution by the infidels against the true believers for their righteous conduct. Ahmadinejad constantly utilizes the Shiite images and slogans relating to martyrdom, as can be seen in his comments this past February in a speech reported by the IRNA:

We are all obliged to keep alive the culture of martyrdom-seeking in the society. Culture of martyrdom-seeking is our most effective weapon and best guarantee for our national security. Ruthless enemies who have a chronic enmity against our country and our nation have not succeeded in achieving their objectives so far thanks to the existence of this culture of martyrdom-seeking among our nation. He who is ready for martyrdom is always victorious. Martyrdom is the peak of mankind's perfection and the martyrs enjoy the highest status of humanity in this world and the Hereafter. People spend tough years of strenuous work in a bid to achieve the peaks of grandeur and pride, while our dear martyrs achieved those high peaks in shortest possible time.

An attack launched by Israel or the US that would kill tens or hundreds of thousands of Iranians would only serve to confirm the self-fulfilling prophecy of Shiite martyrdom and vindicate Ahmadinejad’s suicidal policies. In his mind, an apocalyptic act of self-initiated martyrdom unparalleled in Islamic history would undoubtedly serve to jump start the arrival of the Mahdi. In his religious calculus, the use of nuclear weapons is a win-win scenario. Such actions are not only entirely appropriate, but divinely sanctioned and wholly justified by the messianic and apocalyptic elements that Ahmadinejad and his ideological allies have attached to the Shiite martyrdom mythology.

We should then seriously consider the practical consequences of Ahmadinejad’s religious worldview and ask how this knowledge should help shape our foreign policy with regards to Iran and their nuclear ambitions. The political leaders in the West should understand that the Shiite and Hojjatieh beliefs play an integral role in shaping Ahmadinejad’s understanding of reality.

When he says that Iran’s nuclear development program are peaceful, he really means it. He has in mind the universal Islamic peace that will be established with the return of the Mahdi, and if rivers of infidel blood have to be shed to accomplish it, his religious faith leads him to understand that such is part of the divine plan. That is the way that ultimate “peace” will finally be achieved. And when he states that Israel will be “wiped off the map”, he unshakably believes that as well because it has been crafted into the overall religious narrative that guides his policies.

Because of this, we should understand that there is no negotiating position acceptable to them except for the complete and unconditional submission of the non-Muslim world to the rule of shari’a. Diplomacy is a vain illusion when dealing with adherents of this apocalyptic worldview. They have constructed an ideology where the most extreme actions on their part are not only justified, but divinely sanctioned; and all retributive responses by the “infidels” accounted for.

There is a glimmer of hope, however. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stands at the fringe of Iranian politics (which should illustrate how relative a term as “fringe” can actually be). Most hard line clerics do not share his vision and he is opposed by some of the leading politicians in Iran, like former President Rafsanjani. Our response should exploit those divisions. But that can only be done if we are relentless in constantly checking every move that Ahmadinejad makes. He cannot be allowed even the slightest victory. Allowing him any breathing room or agreeing to any concessions is fraught with extreme peril. A persistent escalation of hostilities between Iran and the US may force the hard line clerics to deal with Ahmadinejad on their own out of sheer self-preservation.

In conclusion, this brief examination has been intended to demonstrate that current Iranian policy is designed to vindicate the self-fulfilling prophecy of Ahmadinejad’s apocalyptic and messianic beliefs. This highlights that regardless of what West chooses to believe, we are in a religious war and we must fight it as such. At some point, we will be forced to take actions designed to shake their faith – a prospect that will not be well met by the postmodern pluralistic forces in the West. But the West and Israel is not the only one threatened: the Islamic world itself, Sunni and Shiite alike, is held hostage by this extremist religious ideology. When the day of reckoning comes for Iran, may our leaders fully understand the religious dimensions of the threat and have the nerve to do what is needed to protect our interests and security in both the short and long term. In this battle, there will be no substitute for victory.

counter free hit unique web