Israel Military Forum

Welcome to the Israel Military Forum. You are currently viewing our Israel Forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, Image Forum and access our other features. By joining our Israel Military Forum you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so
Join Our Israel Community Today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go Back   Israel Military Forum > Social > World News > North America
Register FAQ Pictures Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-23-2010, 02:07 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road

The anti-Semitic book “Allah or Jehovah?

The purpose of the book is to question the fact that Judaism is one of the monotheistic religions, using so-called “proof” taken from the Torah. The book intends to portray Jews as non-monotheistic infidels in order to inspire hatred against them, make them illegitimate in the view of Islamic religious law, and justify an all out Islamic war against them.

In the book’s foreword (pp. 11-12), the author states that his teachers had taught him that Judaism was the first monotheistic religion, followed by Christianity and Islam. The author states that the book is meant to prove that Judaism is not, in fact, a monotheistic religion. The author states (p. 12): “… I noticed while reading that the Jews do not recognize Allah [i.e., God] at all and that they [never] worshipped him. When they translate the [sacred name] Jehovah into the term Allah, they do so in order to deceive and defraud, to portray themselves as being monotheistic and worshipping Allah.”

The following appears on the back cover of the book: “Jehovah is the God of the Jews—where did he come from? What are his qualities? The God in the Torah lies, speaks the truth, kills, shows mercy, regrets, feels sorrow, tires, rests, weakens, grows strong, and gives birth. [The question, therefore, is:] are Jews [really] monotheists?”

On page 16, the author writes: “It is no mystery to anyone reading the Torah that the Jews did not worship [just] one God, and that they do not accept [the fact that] one God alone controls the universe, an absolute, eternal God, who is without partner.

They [Jews] discovered that Jehovah is just one god among a group of gods, differing from them by his being the most powerful.” The author backs his claim by alleged “proof” from the Torah.

The author reiterates the ridiculous claim that Jews worship a number of gods: one god is called El, another Tammuz, and a third Jehovah. The author claims that Jehovah is a god of tribal character, from which he once again infers that Jews are not monotheists. The author concludes the book by saying that the Jews have used the name Allah as a nickname for Jehovah, but that is incorrect. The author concludes: “Jehovah is a god of hatred, fear, and blood, who is content with visions of carnage and takes pleasure in the scent of blood…” (p. 128).

Dar al-Awael publishing
Dar al-Awael is a Syrian publishing house based in Damascus (in the Jalaboune neighborhood). The publishing house specializes, among other things, in the publication of anti-Semitic literature. It has a website ( which it uses for distributing its books. Among other books, Dar al-Awael has published an updated edition of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (2005), and another anti-Semitic book (2004) titled “Murder, from the Jews’ Torah and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to Headless Horseman”.5Several anti-Semitic books published by Dar al-Awael were sold at the International Book Fair in Qatar.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 04:05 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Opinion: Is Time a Muslim Magazine?

Opinion: Is Time a Muslim Magazine?

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D. is emerita professor of Psychology and Women’s Studies and a frequent contributor to FOX News, Pajamas Media, and Middle East Quarterly.

I did not think that the pro-Muslim/pro-Islamist and anti-Western propaganda could get any worse—and yet it just has.

TIME magazine has an August 30 cover story titled “Is America Islamophobic? Within, the article is titled: “Islam in America: It’s part of the fabric of life, but protests reveal a growing hostility to the religion of Muslims.”

President Obama’s rather strange assertions that “seven million” Muslims live in America (only 2.5-3 million actually do), and that “Islam has always played a role in America,” actually contradict the point of this piece, but no matter.

One might wonder why any “hostility” to a productive, historically significant Muslim presence in America exists. TIME magazine does not tell us.

The article portrays Muslims as innocent victims and American non-Muslims as prejudiced racists who, historically, once banned Catholicism, tried to limit immigration, burned African-American churches, passed anti-Chinese legislation, criminalized certain Native-American rituals(polygamy, rejection of modern medicine), spawned the Ku Klux Klan, failed to elect a Catholic President until 1960, allowed Father Coughlin’s anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi rants to appear over the airwaves, and interned 120,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans during World War Two. This is all contained in TIME’s “Brief History of Intolerance in America.”

This article could easily appear in an Egyptian or Syrian magazine; however it would be Israel that would be blamed for various alleged atrocities, and Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood, even al-Qaeda, who would be seen as the innocent victims.

TIME magazine does not balance out their history of American intolerance with a history of American tolerance, which included separating the state from religion, reforming religions, instituting a tradition of free speech, fighting a bloody Civil War in order to free the slaves, giving women the vote and educational opportunities, freeing Europe from Nazi fascist rule and waging a Cold war against Soviet totalitarianism.

Also missing in the TIME magazine article is the fact that Muslim leaders, in the name of Islam, have behaved very badly and for a very long time. Missing is an equal history of Muslim countries which have practiced colonialism, imperialism, forced conversions, slavery (which is still practiced), and a far more barbaric mistreatment of non-Muslims infidels.

Muslim leaders, in the name of Islam, killed and forcibly converted Hindus in India for 800 years—and are still persecuting them; they have also destroyed the Christian Church in the Middle East and Central Asia—it is no more; in its place are only mosques and minarets where once only churches stood. Muslims vanquished Zorastrianism and Buddhism, and both exiled and genocidally exterminated Jews, Armenians, and Greeks. According to Israeli historian, Benny Morris, the Arab 1948 war against Israel must now also be understood as a religious holy war, a jihad, one that is still ongoing (“The 1948 War Was an Islamic Holy War,” Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2010).

TIME magazine fails to note all this—and gives little credence to more recent historical events.

Recently, Muslims, in the name of Islam, have hijacked planes, blown themselves and other people up, flown planes into tall buildings, plotted bomb attacks in New York City’s Times Square and over Detroit, shot American soldiers down on a military base in Texas, plotted to do so on military bases in New York and New Jersey. In addition, mosques everywhere, even in the West, have been preaching death to the Jews, death to Zionists, infidels, and Jihad Now! These mosques and their imams or mullahs have been funded by Arab and Muslim pro-jihad financiers.

After years of denial, indifference, and anti-racist, multi-culturally relativist political correctness, Europeans and Americans are only now just waking up to what Israel has been living with for 63 years. Too little, too late, they are now trying to halt some of the Islamist practices which are crimes and are best described as Islamic gender and religious Apartheid.

When westerners protest Islamic Apartheid, they are demonized as “Islamophobes” and “racists.” This means that any resistance to aggressive Islamification is shamed and slandered. If that doesn’t work, physical intimidation and lawsuits (“lawfare”) follow.

Incredibly, the Western media and political establishment has taken the Islamist side. They confuse “Islamism” or “radical Islam” with the majority of silent Muslims who are too afraid to take on the Islamists, (or who agree with them), and with the small but precious number of Muslim and ex-Muslim dissidents, feminists, secularists, and moderates who do stand up to the Islamists but who are not consulted by western leaders or quoted in the Western media.

TIME magazine does not quote Ibn Warraq, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Seyran Ates, Zeyno Baran, M. Zuhdi Jasser, Magdi Allam, Bassam Tibi, Khaled Abu Toameh, who are Muslims and ex-Muslims who have written major works against Islamism, and who have argued for human rights within Islam, including the right to leave Islam without risking death.

TIME magazine’s approach has also been adopted by the mainstream media in how they cover the controversy over the controversial mosque near Ground Zero. Those who oppose it are being called “bigots,” “racists,” and madmen, at least in the mainstream media. Those who defend it are seen as enlightened, tolerant “victims” whose religious freedom has been impinged. Just yesterday, Daisy Khan, Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf’s wife, claimed that the attacks have gone far beyond “Islamophobia” and are now in the realm of “discrimination against Jews.”

Next thing I expect to hear is that the “Zionists” are behind the discrimination against the “Jewish” Muslims.

Folks: Welcome to the Middle East in New York City. Now, we are really all Israelis.

Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2010, 06:50 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road

Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2010, 06:15 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Undermining the Jewish State

Undermining the Jewish State
Bishop Mark Hanson and the Religious Left take their anti-Israel crusade to the White House
by Mark D. Tooley

Churches for Middle East Peace (CMEP) is one of the relatively more “moderate” anti-Israel church coalitions constantly pushing for a more ostensibly neutral U.S. stance towards Israel. In July, a CMEP delegation met with National Security Council Chief of Staff Denis McDonough to offer “support” for President Obama’s Middle East policy but also to share “concerns.” What were these concerns?

CMEP was distressed by continued Jewish settlements on the West Bank, the “humanitarian situation” in Gaza, and the “importance of Jerusalem being a shared city (for three faiths as well as two peoples).” And, oh yes, they were also concerned about the “dwindling Christian population of the Holy Land.” But this concern seemingly extends only so far as it implicates Israel and does not fault radical Islam or the policies of Arab regimes towards Christian minorities.

This very concerned CMEP delegation to the White House included the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s presiding bishop, a Greek Orthodox representative, several clerics from pacifist denominations, a Roman Catholic bishop, and strangely, an official from the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC). This latter group is comprised of Latino evangelicals, mostly Pentecostals and charismatics, who are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. NHCLC, which was represented at the White House by senior Vice President Angel Nunez, is not a member of CMEP. NHCLC is headed by the almost omnipresent Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, a chief national spokesman for liberalized immigration.

Rodriguez sits on the executive committee of the increasingly left-leaning National Association of Evangelicals and has joined in its campaigns against U.S. “torture,” and for nuclear disarmament. Although Rodriguez has been very pro-Israel, the presence of NHCLC in the CMEP White House visit may signal that Rodriguez’s political activism, especially on immigration, is tugging him leftward even on the Middle East. If so, his perspective will be elitist and not representative of pro-Zionist Hispanic evangelicals as a whole.

Last year, Rodriguez’s NHCLC formed an alliance with Rev. John Hagee’s pro-Zionist Christians United for Israel. “I have always loved Israel and believed that Christians must speak out in support of Israel’s right to exist and [its right of] self-defense,” Rodriguez enthused at that time. Also last year, Rodriguez robustly wrote for The Washington Post’s religion blog: “In order to protect the Palestinian people, and secure peace between Israel and Arab neighbors, Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda must experience the same fate as the Nazi Party in Germany, annihilation.” This perspective does not quite fit with CMEP’s priorities, so perhaps Rodrigeuz’s vice president’s participation in the CMEP White House visit was a misunderstanding.

CMEP’s delegation to the White House seems to have been chaired by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson. ”The continued expansion of settlements becomes that to which Palestinian people on the ground look to either substantiate or negate what politicians are saying about the progress being made,” Hanson afterwards explained, in a typical CMEP slant. “The greatest antidote to religious extremism in the world is to see us, who are not religious extremists, consistently work with people of other faiths to achieve a just and lasting peace; and for people to see successes from these efforts,” he added. Hanson boasted of his own denomination’s “strong history of advocacy for a lasting peace with justice, which in this case involves a two-state solution.”

Also part of CMEP’s White House delegation was CMEP executive director and former U.S. Ambassador to Gabon Warren Clark. A few weeks before the White House visit, in June, CMEP convened its annual advocacy conference in Washington, D.C. called “Pursing Peace Together: Working for Reconciliation in the Holy Land.” In his remarks, Clark focused on what CMEP thinks is the main obstacle to Middle East peace: Israel, especially the Jewish settlements on the West Bank: “If the new building freeze is not extended, I believe hopes for an agreement will end, as no Palestinian authority can agree to continue the pattern of the past 17 years of engaging in negotiations while the Israeli population expands into the Palestinian territories, including east Jerusalem.” Only an ongoing building freeze could allow “public perceptions” to improve, especially in Israel and the U.S., he insisted.

Clark implored: “We will all need to work as individuals and in groups, in our church communities, in our parishes, in our meetings, synods, dioceses and in all the other words we use to describe our various church organizations, to tell our elected representatives we want them to support the effort to bring about an end to this conflict and an agreement for a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Holy Land.” In other words, rally your churches for increased U.S. pressure against Israel.

More direct than Clark at the CMEP advocacy event was former United Church of Christ President John Thomas, who sits on CMEP’s Leadership Council. As reported by my colleague Jeff Walton, Thomas likened Israel and the U.S. to the Bible’s wicked King Ahab, who stole his neighbor Naboth’s adjacent land for his own palace garden, declaring: “Give me your vineyard, because it is next to mine, and I want it.”

“There are always enough scoundrels around who will trump up charges and then ultimately dispossess the Naboths of this world first of their reputation, then of their life, then of their land,” Thomas insisted. Inevitably, he listed supposed American examples of “possessing and dispossessing,” which apparently makes America as notorious as Israel. “How else can we read the narratives that lead to and from the trail of tears and all of the tributaries that have gone so painfully from it?” he ponderously asked. “What of manifest destiny that rendered much of Mexico and Puerto Rico and islands in the Pacific ours, adjacent? Or closer to home, what else can one make of so much of the urban gentrification that we see, or even the foreclosures – which are not only cruel, but also demonically and deliberately clever?”

Thomas zinged America Christian Zionists’ for “self-serving apocalyptic visions” to bolster their pro-Israel stances. He claimed Israel was created as “a kind of atonement for centuries of anti-Semitism” and has since become America’s “compliant vassal state to be possessed as a client serving our strategic interests in which Naboth counts for little.” He warned against seeking “balance” in the Middle East and urged instead to focus on despoiled “Naboth” as the “the church’s primary concern,” by which he clearly meant suffering Palestinians, victimized by Israel and its American patrons.

Probably the CMEP was on its best behavior and did not mention “Naboth” while visiting the White House in July. But simplistically portraying Palestinians as victims and Israel and America as villains is the underlying constant theme for CMEP and the elites of its member churches.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 04:36 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Turning a Blind Eye »

Turning a Blind Eye
The Religious Left zealously supports the Ground Zero mosque, but where is its concern for Christians persecuted by Islamists?
by Faith J. H. McDonnell

What do Christians in Indonesia have in common with the faithful of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, whose lovely church building was obliterated by the falling World Trade Center Tower Two? Quite a bit, it would seem.

Like the Greek Orthodox parishioners, Indonesian Christians of the Filadelfia Batak Christian Protestant Church in the Jakarta suburb of Bekasi lost their church to an Islamic attack. Also like the New York churchgoers, they have not received permission to rebuild. And their plight, like that of the Christians in Manhattan, is disregarded by Christian leaders focused on the building of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s Ground Zero Mosque/Cordoba House Islamic Center.

In spite of the commonalities, Christians in Islamist-dominated Indonesia have a far more difficult road than the Christians of St. Nicholas, the little church that stood on Liberty Street, across from the World Trade Center South Tower. But Christians in Indonesia, and throughout the Islamic world, should serve as a warning of what may happen if tolerance and accommodation unreasonably are extended to those who are intolerant and unaccommodating.

Although Indonesia has the world’s largest Muslim population, some 200 million, there is a strong Christian presence. The Filadelfia Batak Christian Protestant Church (HKBP Filadelfia) is a member of the Huria Kristen Batak Protestan (HKBP) denomination founded in 1917 in the highlands of North Sumatra by Dutch and German missionaries to the Batak people. Part of the Lutheran World Federation, it is the largest Protestant church in Indonesia, with over 4 million members. This does not sit well with Indonesian Islamists.

In 1998, Indonesian Christians purchased land to build the HKBP Filadelfia Church. According to Compass Direct New Service, they jumped through all the hoops required to ensure that they did not “offend” Muslims. They had to secure the signatures of at least 60 Muslim residents and officials giving consent to the building of a Christian church and they received consent from two hundred.

But as church construction took place, the Indonesia’s religious tolerance deteriorated. Although most Indonesian Muslims were good neighbors to Christians, Islamic extremists targeted Christians. In Ambon, Maluku Island, thousands of Christians were slaughtered by the terrorist Laskar Jihad, who announced a “snuff out all the candles” campaign late in 2000. Although violence was not as prevalent in Jakarta, extremists burned down the almost-completed HKBP Filadelfia Church that November.

Church members then bought a house to use as a temporary worship space while applying for a permit to rebuild. But Islamists mobs protested the use of the house for church activities, too. And when mobs disrupted services and threatened the church goers, Christians were accused of disturbing the peace. Compass Direct New Service reported that authorities forbade the use of the house for worship by the church and sealed it up. At the same time they ignored the church’s request for a permit to build a church building on its own property. After this, church members were forced to meet for worship outside in an open field on the property they own.

On June 27, 2010, following an Islamic Congress in Bekasi, Islamists announced their plans to combat the “Christianization” of the Jakarata suburb. They urged local mosques to set up militia forces. They announced plans to establish an Islamic Center and to train a Laskar Permuda (youth army) to push for Shariah implementation in the region. “If the Muslims in the city can unite, there will be no more story about us being openly insulted by other religions,” Ahmad Salimin Dani, head of the Bekasi Islamic Missionary Council, announced at the gathering. “The center will ensure that Christians do not act out of order.”

But nobody ensures that the Islamists don’t act out of order. An August 16, 2010 Washington Post article reported, “For months, Christians in the industrial city of Bekasi have been warned against worshipping on a field that houses their shuttered church. They’ve arrived to find human feces dumped on the land and sermons have been interrupted by demonstrators chanting ‘Infidels!’ and ‘Leave now!’” In the latest of five such confrontations, a small group of worshippers were attacked violently by a mob of over 300, although the Bekasi administration had approved the church’s decision to meet in the field months before, and that they were promised police protection.

The head of the extremist Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), alleged to be an Al Qaeda affiliate, Murhali Barda, said that the church’s “insistence on worshipping at the site was a provocation.” At the scene, Barda yelled (in a not-at-all provocative manner), “The Batak Christians deserve to be stabbed to death!” He then punched a few Christian women for good measure, thus demonstrating the manliness and courage of Islamists. According to the Jakarta Post, one young woman, “Berliana Sinaga, 22, suffered bruising after several men hit her in the head and face.” Pastor Palti Panjaitan demanded to know what more the demonstrators wanted from them, “We have been forced to worship under the sky, on newspapers, in front of our sealed church, and they still demonstrate against us,” Panjaitan declared.

One recent encouraging moment, relayed by Compass Direct News Service, was on August 17, 2010, the 65th anniversary of Indonesia independence. Moderate Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus supported the Christians in protesting the national government’s lack of response to Islamic radicalism. The group, gathering at the National Monument Square in Jakarta, warned that government inaction was fostering the growth of extremism in the country. Dr. Musda Mulia, a Muslim research professor at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, told Compass Direct News Service that all Indonesians have the right to freedom of religion. “It seems the government doesn’t want to deal with the radicals,” she said. “Persecution of Christians and other minorities has been my concern for many years, but the government is very weak.”

Meanwhile, in the United States, supporting radical Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf and the building of the Islamic center is the priority of the leaders of the Religious Left, such as the National Council of Churches (NCC). Although the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America is a member denomination of the NCC, the NCC has shown no similar support for Father John Romas, the pastor of St. Nicholas Church or the people of St. Nicholas Church. Nor has the NCC uttered a statement of solidarity with persecuted Christians in Indonesia.

In his recent statement of support for the “Cordoba House and Mosque at Ground Zero,” NCC General Secretary Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon says that Cordoba House “is a gesture of neighborliness and healing.” This is not quite how those who are opposed to Cordoba House see it. They say the mosque is a gesture of a different sort altogether. And many of the 70 percent of Americans who are opposed to the plans are stunned by the NCC’s eagerness to accommodate the agenda of Islamism while ignoring the needs of fellow Christians.

True to form, Kinnamon accuses opponents of Imam Rauf’s grand plan of “narrow-minded intolerance.” This is the “same ignorance that has led to hate crimes and systematic discrimination against Muslims,” he says. But neither Kinnamon, nor any liberal church leaders, have condemned Islamists’ narrow-minded intolerance or the hate crimes and systematic discrimination perpetrated against Christians such as those in Bekasi, Indonesia. Occasionally the NCC issues statements urging prayer for “ethnic conflict” (one of the few times when they are satisfied with “praying” about something rather than becoming involved politically!). But they would never articulate the problem: an Islamic jihad is seeking to wipe out Christians. Neither have they clamored for justice for Christians closer to home, the parishioners of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, still waiting for permission to rebuild their church.

Kinnamon and his tolerant, liberal Religious Left friends appear to not understand the agenda of Imam Rauf and Cordoba House or the agenda of Islam. His ignorance of Islam is breathtakingly obvious when he protests that a “tiny minority” of Muslims have committed “violent acts” that “defy the teachings of Mohammed.” And as for violent acts defying the teachings of Mohammed – has Kinnamon never read the Koran? Or if he has, doesn’t he know that the earlier, vaguely tolerant passages are abrogated by the later, intolerant passages? And what about Mohammed’s own violent acts? Has Kinnamon never heard how Mohammed wiped out the Qurayza Jews of Medina in 627 A.D.?

Kinnamon rightly regrets slavery in America, which he says was “justified with Bible proof-texts and a belief that blacks were inferior to whites.” But in reality, slavery is much more closely associated with Islam.

“Mohammed’s teachings” include the idea that slaves are given to Muslim warriors as “booty,” by Allah. Allah’s endorsement of the rape of slave girls and (more often than not) boys, justifies such “violent acts” perpetrated by Islamists against Christian and other infidel “slaves” taking place today. One 9/11-haunted man who still sees “the face of the young man” who worked in his department that was killed found Kinnamon’s press release offensive. Like many non-Greek Orthodox people who worked in New York, this gentleman occasionally attended St. Nicholas. “It was pleasant and welcoming. Now it’s gone,” he said. He challenged the NCC to “lead an effort to build a 100 million dollar Greek Orthodox Church at Ground Zero” even while admitting that he knew that it was highly unlikely. The NCC critic also asked why the council could not “use its clout to speak out for Christians in Muslim countries who are often discriminated against” and suggested that the NCC “talk about what is good about America instead of always harping on its problems or why the people who built the country were racists, bible thumping bigots, etc.”

The Religious Left often excuses the oppression of Christians living under Islam. Islamists in Bekasi, Indonesia, who find the very existence of the Christians of the HKBP Filadelfia Church offensive, violate Indonesian Christians’ human rights. Yet cultural sensitivity to the Islamic world is of paramount importance to Christian leaders of the Religious Left. So they are circumspect concerning Indonesian co-religionists.

But the Religious Left also puts first cultural sensitivity to Islam in the United States. It matters little that the thought of a mosque symbolizing Islamic victory is offensive to most Americans. Or that the church home of over seventy families of Greek Orthodox Christians and countless visitors, the only church to be destroyed on 9/11, still has not been rebuilt. The sensitivities of Muslims in America, and the need to accommodate the Ground Zero Mosque, are of paramount importance to Christian leaders of the Religious Left.

When do the sensitivities, the feelings, of non-Muslims get to be taken into account? Maybe that is not a critical matter. But regardless of feelings, the situation of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in New York is disturbingly similar to that of the Indonesian Christian Church. At present, St. Nicholas’ plight is just a matter of red tape and indifference, not government-sanctioned discrimination. But rather than demonstrate solidarity with and the importance of this historic Christian church by pressing for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to allow its swift rebuilding, liberal church leaders are more concerned with demonstrating their accommodation to Islam. How far will their accommodation go?

Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2010, 04:52 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road

The Left’s Culture of Hate
Why all opposition is met with knee-jerk censorship and rage
by Dennis Prager

I recently wrote about leftists’ hatred for conservatives as people, not merely for conservative ideas. Demonization of opponents is a fundamental characteristic of the left. It is not merely tactical; they believe people on the right are bad. (Here’s a test: Ask someone on the left if active support of California Proposition 8 — retaining the man-woman definition of marriage — was an act of hate.)

A related defining characteristic of the left is the ascribing of nefarious motives to conservatives. For the left, a dismissal of conservatives’ motives is as important as is dismissal of the conservatives as people. It is close to impossible for almost anyone on the left — and I mean the elite left, not merely left-wing blogs — to say “There are good people on both of sides of this issue.” From Karl Marx to Frank Rich of The New York Times, this has always been the case.

In the left’s worldview, conservative opponents of affirmative action cannot be driven by concern for blacks — opposition is animated by racists; conservative opponents of illegal immigration are animated by racism and xenophobia; opposition to abortion is a function of sexism; President Bush went to war for oil and American imperialism; and conservative supporters of retaining man-woman marriage hate gays.

This is not true of elite conservatives. Leading conservative columnists, leading Republicans, etc., rarely depict liberals as motivated by evil. Conservatives can say “There are good people on both sides of the issue” because we actually believe it.

Almost any contentious issue would provide proof of the left’s need to attack motives, but the proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero provides a particularly excellent example.

I have not come across a mainstream leftist description of opponents of the mosque/Islamic center being built near ground zero that has not ascribed hate-filled, intolerant, bigoted, “Islamophobic” or xenophobic motives to those who oppose the mosque. Contrast this with how mainstream opponents of the mosque describe the proponents of the mosque and you will see an immense divide between right and left in the way they talk about each other.

Here are but a few examples of how mainstream proponents of the mosque describe opponents and their motives:

Michael Kinsley, editor at large, The Atlantic: “Is there any reason to oppose the mosque that isn’t bigoted, or demagogic, or unconstitutional? None that I’ve heard or read.”

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times Blog, Aug. 19, 2010: “The far right wing has seized on the issue as an occasion for fanning hatred against Muslims.”

Tony Norman, columnist, Pittsburgh Post Gazette: “… a handful of politicians who cynically conflate the religion of American Muslims with the nihilism of the 9/11 terrorists.”

Andrew Sullivan, The Atlantic blog: “The pursuit of power through demagoguery."

Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York (in a column titled “America Has Disgraced Itself”): “In today’s GOP, even bigotry doesn’t spare you from bigotry.”

“GOP leaders call them (those building the mosque) terrorists because they don’t share Benjamin Netanyahu’s view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

“And oh yes, my fellow Jews, who are so thrilled to be locked arm in arm with the heirs of Pat Robertson and Father Coughlin against the Islamic threat.”

And in a Politico column titled “Decency Lost”: “Republicans are clawing over each other to demonize Muslims.”

HuffingtonPost, Allison Kilkenny: “This mock piety is really a cover for Islamophobia.”

“Indeed, America is extremely hostile — not only to Islam — but to anyone who gives off the air of being exotic, or different.”

“Xenophobia is really a convenient cover for a deeper bigotry.”

HuffingtonPost, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute:

“Shame. Your bigoted appeals to fear and intolerance disgrace us all and put our country at risk in the world.”

New York Times editorial: “Republican ideologues, predictably … spew more of their intolerant rhetoric.”

HuffingtonPost, Michael Hughes: “Even more hideous is the way in which these bigots try to hide their overt prejudice in the emotional guise of love and caring, purportedly because they believe we must be ’sensitive’ to the families of the victims of 9/11.”

“The country ignores such cynicism and ugliness at its own peril.”

“Too many Republican leaders are determined to whip up as much false controversy and anguish as they can.”

New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof: “Why do so many Republicans find strip clubs appropriate for the ground zero neighborhood but object to a house of worship?”

“(They) are cynically turning the Islamic center into a nationwide issue in hopes of votes. … They’re just like the Saudi officials who ban churches, and even confiscate Bibles, out of sensitivity to local feelings.”

“Today’s crusaders against the Islamic community center are promoting a similar paranoid intolerance.”

Keith Olbermann, MSNBC: “(The) country has begun to run on a horrible fuel of hatred — magnified, amplified, multiplied, by politicians and zealots, within government and without.”

New York Times columnist Frank Rich: “This month’s incessant and indiscriminate orgy of Muslim-bashing.”

“So virulent is the Islamophobic hysteria of the neocon and Fox News right — abetted by the useful idiocy of the Anti-Defamation League …”

“The ginned-up rage over the ‘ground zero mosque’ (was motivated) by the potential short-term rewards of winning votes by pandering to fear during an election season.”

It started with “a New York Post jihad.”

“The Islamophobia command center, Murdoch’s News Corporation…”

Why does the left attribute only nefarious motives to those who believe that the Islamic center does not belong near ground zero?

Because leftism holds these beliefs:

1. Those who hold leftist positions are, by definition, better people than their opponents.

2. Those who hold leftist positions have, by definition, pure motives; therefore, the motives of their opponents must be impure.

I conclude with this: I believe that a wiser man than the present imam would have decided to avoid precisely what he has inspired — intense division in America — and would have immediately retracted his decision to erect an Islamic center and mosque right by the slaughterhouse of 9/11 which happened to have been caused by his co-religionists.

But I also believe that there are good arguments and good people on both sides of this issue.

I can say that, however, for one reason.

I am not on the left.

Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 03:15 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Raymond Ibrahim: Is Sharia a "hopelessly abstract concept"?

Raymond Ibrahim:
Is Sharia a "hopelessly abstract concept"?

In "Is Newt Gingrich Wrong to Talk About Sharia?" in Pajamas Media (via, August 24, our friend Raymond Ibrahim discusses whether Sharia, as Lee Smith recently characterized it, is a "hopelessly abstract concept":
In a recent article appearing in Tablet, Lee Smith takes former House speaker Newt Gingrich to task for the latter's focus on sharia (i.e., Islamic law). The thrust of Smith's argument is that sharia is a "hopelessly abstract concept" and "a highly idealized version of reality that has little basis in fact"; that sharia is "a catchall phrase for legal principles that have rarely, if ever, existed in actual Muslim societies"; and that "the notion that something called 'sharia' was widely imposed throughout the lands of Islam is an Orientalist fantasy."

My first observation is -- even if all these charges were perfectly true -- so? It hardly matters what sharia really is; all that matters is what today's Muslims believe it is. And a great many believe sharia is tangible and codified, and that it can, and should, be implemented in society. More to the point, telling the apostate or adulteress -- who are regularly executed "according to sharia"-- that they are really being murdered by "principles that have rarely, if ever, existed in actual Muslim societies," is hardly reassuring.

Smith does acknowledge Islam's famous draconian punishments; he just prefers to call them hudud, and limits them to "Islamist outfits like the Taliban." Similarly, Smith offers a blitz tour on Islamic jurisprudence -- including the Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi'i madhahib, the differences between usuli and akhbari, fiqh, ijma, 'aql, qiyas, and ahkam sultaniyya -- even as the reader wonders how these concepts are relevant to the discussion at hand: Islam in America, from a national security context....

Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 03:20 AM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road

Muslim Brotherhood, libelblogger Charles Johnson blame Geller, Spencer for Leftist pro-mosque group employee's attack on Muslim cab driver

"'Bigot' slashes Muslim cabby," says the New York Post. "Rider Asks if Cabby Is Muslim, Then Stabs Him," says the New York Times.

That was enough for the Islamic supremacists and their Leftist dhimmi tools. Libelblogger and CAIR tool Charles Johnson's vile sycophants at Little Green Footballs were quick to blame Pamela Geller and me. And the Muslim Brotherhood went full-frontal with their hatemongering and defamation at their English-language Ikhwanweb site, with a photo of the cabbie who was attacked and the headline "Pamela, Robert .. Congrats!!"

There was just one problem with all this: the attacker was a Leftist employee of an organization that has gone on record as favoring the mosque. So whatever may have been his motivation in attacking this cab driver, one thing that almost certainly wasn't motivating him was rage over the Islamic supremacist mega-mosque at Ground Zero.

And even if he were motivated by rage against the mosque, what would that have to do with us? Absolutely nothing. We are working on peaceful protests against the mosque, and trying to raise awareness among the American people about who is behind this effort and what its significance is. We have never advocated or condoned any violence or vigilantism -- unlike the mosque's own leader Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who refuses to condemn the bloodthirsty jihad terror group Hamas. We are not responsible by any conceivable stretch of the imagination for everything any given opponent of the mosque does.

So what is going on here? Remember: the thuggish Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has actually trumpeted fake anti-Muslim hate crimes in the past, in order to use them to score political points. They did this again just weeks ago in Georgia.

CAIR, an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas funding case, has claimed that "anti-Muslim hate crimes" have risen sharply in the U.S. since 9/11. In fact, the rate of such crimes has actually dropped. CAIR knows well that victimhood is big business: insofar as they can claim protected victim status for Muslims in the U.S., they can deflect unwanted scrutiny and any critical examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism.

That's most likely why CAIR and others have not hesitated to stoop even to fabricating "hate crimes." They want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they can use them as weapons to intimidate people into remaining silent about the jihad threat.

Was this attack on a Muslim cab driver in New York yet another faked hate crime designed to tar opponents of Islamic supremacism as bigoted people who are fomenting hate? It cannot be ruled out. I hope that New York investigators are honest enough and brave enough to say so if that turns out to be the case.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2010, 02:02 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Lies the Left Believes »

Lies the Left Believes
The warped progressive world of falsehoods and conspiracies
by Larry Elder

Thirty-one percent of Republicans, according to the Pew Research Center, believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim. And more Republicans, 74 percent, than Democrats, 39 percent, oppose the construction of a mosque near ground zero. Thus, goes the argument, opposition to the proposed mosque stems from similar “right-wing” ignorance and Islamophobia.

Why do so many people think Obama is a Muslim? Are they lunatics?

Perhaps people base their assumption about Obama’s religion on what they believe Islam says about the matter. In a New York Times op-ed, Edward Luttwak, with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, wrote that Obama “chose to become a Christian.” But, Luttwak wrote: “As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.”

Maybe some follow the lead of Hillary Clinton. When asked on “60 Minutes” whether she believes Obama is a Muslim, then-presidential candidate Clinton said, “Of course not. … There is no basis for that.” She said she goes on “the basis of what he says.” But she added, “There is nothing to base that on as far as I know” (emphasis added). She wasn’t called anti-Muslim.

Perhaps people believe Obama — who no longer belongs to a church — is a Muslim because of his 20-year association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Wright’s church publication honored the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan as a man who “truly epitomized greatness.”

Or maybe the more people oppose Obama’s policies the less they think of him as a person. Discontent breeds negative feelings. After the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor, a majority of Americans believed that Germany was behind it. A large plurality of Americans, despite the lack of evidence, believed President Nixon planned the Watergate break-in that brought down his presidency.

Liberals should be sympathetic. They are quite adept at willfully refusing to face facts, if necessary, to support wrongheaded views. Here are some examples:

“The rich don’t pay taxes.” False. For the 2007 tax year (the latest income tax data year released by the IRS), the top 1 percent of income earners, those making over $410,000 a year, paid 40 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 percent, those making about $160,000 a year or more, paid 60 percent of all federal income taxes.

Yet according to a 2008 IBD/TIPP poll, only 12 percent of Americans knew what the rich, in fact, paid in taxes. And liberals are likelier to get it wrong.

“The rich exclusively benefited from the Bush tax cuts.” MSNBC’s insufferable lefty Ed Schultz said: “Ninety-eight percent of you, it (the Bush tax cuts) doesn’t even affect you.” False. In a recent New York Times editorial, the liberal paper said extending the cuts to the non-rich — a policy it favors — would “cost” about $140 billion next year. Extending the cuts to the rich — a policy it opposes — would “cost” about $40 billion next year. If the tax cuts only benefit the rich, why would the Treasury “lose” more money from the non-rich than it would “lose” from the rich? “The Bush tax cuts caused the deficit.”

CNN’s liberal host Fareed Zakaria said, “The Bush tax cuts are the single largest part of the black hole that is the federal budget deficit.” False. In 2002, tax revenues were $1.85 trillion. In 2007, revenues had grown to $2.57 trillion — a 39 percent increase. Unfortunately, outlays increased almost as much. In 2002, outlays were $2.01 trillion. In 2007 — the last year before the recession and before TARP, the various “stimulus” programs, bailouts and ObamaCare — outlays were $2.73 trillion, a 36 percent increase.

“Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11.” Thirty-five percent of Democrats, according to a 2007 Rasmussen poll, believe President Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11, and 26 percent are “not sure.” False. This was investigated years earlier and refuted by the 2004 bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report.

“George W. Bush ’stole’ the 2000 election.” False. In November 2001, The New York Times wrote: “A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year’s presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore.”

Mosque opponents can and do distinguish between a right to do something and the appropriateness of doing it. Polls show 60 percent of Americans oppose the mosque near the World Trade Center — the same percentage that believe the Muslim group has the right to build it.

Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 01:35 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Newsweek: Stealth jihad? What stealth jihad?

Newsweek: Stealth jihad? What stealth jihad?

Fiction? We'll see

As the stealth jihad becomes more obvious, my 2008 book Stealth Jihad is starting to look prescient to many who dismissed this threat at the time the book came out. And Newsweek, which famously called for surrender to the jihad back in March 2009, can't have that. "The Misinformants: What 'stealth jihad' doesn't mean," by Lisa Miller for Newsweek, August 28:
Here is the latest semantic assault from the party that brought you "Islamo-facism" (circa 2005) and "Axis of Evil" (2002). The term "stealth jihad" is suddenly voguish among politically ambitious right wingers who see President Obama's approach to terrorism as insufficient. If it sounds like a phrase from a military-fantasy summer blockbuster, that's on purpose: in its cartoonish bad-guy foreignness, "stealth jihad" attempts to make the terrorist threat broader and thus more nefarious than it already is. The only thing scarier than an invisible, homicidal, suicidal enemy with a taste for world domination is one who's sneaking up on you. In the words of former speaker of the House Newt Gingrich at a July speech at the American Enterprise Institute, "stealth jihad" is an effort "to replace Western civilization with a radical imposition of Sharia."

The term wasn't Gingrich's invention. It's the title of a two-year-old book by Robert Spencer, whose hyperventilating antiterror blog, Jihad Watch, is cited and circulated widely on the far right.
"Hyperventilating" is good. You see, folks, there isn't really any threat. There really isn't any stealth jihad, or jihad at all. Those who think that there is are just hyperventilating. Of course, among the hyperventilators who imagine an aspiration and effort among Muslims in America to subvert Constitutional freedoms and impose elements of Sharia are these:

"We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress. The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it. . . . Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah." -- Muhammad Faheed, Muslim Students Association meeting, Queensborough Community College, 2003

"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth." -- CAIR cofounder and longtime Board chairman Omar Ahmad, 1998 (denial noted and full story explained at link)

"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future." -- CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, 1993

"If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate." -- prominent American Muslim leader Siraj Wahhaj, 2002
But the recent vicious debate over the proposed community center and mosque near Ground Zero gives Gingrich an excuse to use "stealth jihad" and its variants frequently--not just at the AEI but in an interview with this magazine. (In an essay on the conservative Web site Human Events, he referred instead to "creeping sharia.") Gingrich's like-minded peers have seized on the language, too. "Muslim Brotherhood operatives, like [Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the center's founder and leader] are extremely skilled at obscuring ... their true agenda," said Frank Gaffney, founder of the Center for Security Policy, on FOX's Glenn Beck show. "It's part of the stealth jihad."

Words matter, and if you say them often enough and with enough authority, they start to sound true--even if they're not. Abdul Rauf, for instance, has no affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood and is an "operative" (another nefarious word) only in the sense that running a small, progressive interfaith nonprofit is an "operation."
Actually, on the copyright page of Rauf's book What's Right with Islam, it declares: "This edition was made possible through a joint effort of the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) and the office of Interfaith and Community Alliance of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Funding for this project was provided by IIIT." Both IIIT and ISNA are known to be Muslim Brotherhood groups. ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation jihad terror funding case involving Hamas, which describes itself as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. And Rauf also refuses to denounce Hamas. So maybe he has no affiliation with the Brotherhood, but he hasn't shunned links with it, either.
As for his "stealth jihad," it's virtually impossible to imagine how such an event would--logistically--occur. Would the construction of an Islamic prayer site near Ground Zero inevitably lead American women to wake up one morning and find themselves veiled and confined to their homes? "The term is ever-so-slightly goofy," says Geoffrey Nunberg, a linguist at the University of California, Berkeley. The paranoia conveyed by "stealth jihad" brings to mind the anticommunist campaigns of Sen. Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s, Nunberg adds. Just as McCarthyites imagined a communist behind every lamppost, the word "stealth" conflates all Muslims with terrorists. In a stealth campaign you never know who your friends are. Also, simply put, foreign words freak people out. "Jihad" and "Sharia" reinforce the sense among Americans that Muslims in general have an unfathomable world view. During World War II, formerly obscure words like "hara-kiri" and "kamikaze," which suggested the "warlike ferocity" of the Japanese, became common parlance, Nunberg says. "There was this sense of being confronted with this hostile, alien culture." The Japanese were "literally demonized," he says....
Actually, there is nothing unfathomable about Sharia, or about the imperative to introduce elements of Sharia into American life. And unless and until Muslim groups in America renounce all aspects of Sharia that are at variance with Constitutional principles and freedoms, and do so in deed, not just in word, then to be concerned that they might be acting to bring Sharia here -- when that's exactly what they say they're doing -- is not paranoia or demonization. It is a concern for and defense of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, equality of rights for women, and other things that Newsweek just might miss once they're gone.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 02:50 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow The real reason the Left hurls its ugly insults of racism and bigotry

The real reason the Left hurls its ugly insults of racism and bigotry
by Rick Moran

Mayor Michael Bloomberg is a very tolerant fellow. Don’t believe me? Just ask him:
[L]et me declare that we in New York are Jews and Christians and Muslims, and we always have been. And above all of that, we are Americans, each with an equal right to worship and pray where we choose. There is nowhere in the five boroughs that is off limits to any religion.
Well, that’s a relief. Good thing we got that squared away before those wild-eyed bigots and Muslim-haters who are opposing the construction of an Islamic community center and mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero got it in their heads to try and prevent the free exercise of anyone’s religion. After all, isn’t that what this whole foofaraw is all about? Tolerant, courageous, benign lefties manning the battlements against the ignorant, savage, peons who, in their hate for non-Christians, are seeking to deny peaceful, moderate Muslims their constitutional rights?

To raise such a ridiculous strawman as the idea that opponents of the Park 51 project are seeking to suppress Islam gives Bloomberg and other lefties the opportunity to indulge in their favorite fantasy; the illusion created in their mind’s eye that their tolerance makes them heroic figures to the rest of us mere mortals. It isn’t enough that they believe what they stand for is right. There must also be the ancillary benefit of others admiring them for it.

This is why they must ascribe the most outrageously false motives to their opponents, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. Only by overcoming perceived evil can their tolerance be recognized as a sacrifice truly worthy of worship and awe. How can the rest of us look upon these warriors for ecumenicism with doe-eyed wonder unless the forces that are opposing them can be represented as malevolent fanatics? Demonization has its uses in the lexicon of leftist ideology — no more so than when it is done in service to the illusion of tolerance.

The self-gratification that comes from feeling morally superior to your opponent is worth ignoring even obvious counter-arguments such as Park 51 backers being insensitive to the feelings of others, or the danger of encouraging extremists, or even exposing the doubletalk of Imam Rauf.

Bloomberg, as with politicians on both sides of the Park 51 issue, is seeking to make political hay out of the imbroglio. There are very few things politicians enjoy doing more than posturing, and this goes double for lefties who can’t resist demonstrating their street cred when it comes to what they perceive as moral issues. They believe that being down with racial and other oppressed minorities, as well as fashionable religions like Islam, imparts an authenticity to their politics that raises their moral masquerade to a level beyond the grubby, conniving jostling for power to the sublime and elevated plane of revealed truth.

This notion of undeniable truth has taken a fantastical turn lately as the latest argument in favor of Park 51 makes the rounds of the leftist punditocracy; we better support the project or Muslims around the world won’t like us.

Bloomberg again:
Bloomberg brought home the point that the propaganda war now being waged on Islam in America threatens to undercut our counterinsurgency battle for “hearts and minds” in Iraq and Afghanistan. “If we do not practice here at home what we preach abroad–if we do not lead by example–we undermine our soldiers,” he said. “We undermine our foreign policy objectives. And we undermine our national security.
Apparently, Park 51 opponents are not only mouth breathing rubes who hate Islam, but now we’re gumming up President Obama’s extra good foreign policy while stupidly inviting the jihadis to attack us. If I were Bloomberg, I’d lock these people up before the world goes up in flames as a result of their machinations against innocent Muslims.

Telling opponents to shut up or Muslims will hate us is an interesting exercise in wishful thinking — or a demonstration of ignorance so profound as to elicit serious questions regarding the mental acuity of leftists who are pushing this idea. “Leading by example” when it comes to religious tolerance is what America has been doing for 222 years and it hasn’t seemed to take yet in the Islamic world.

Why allowing Park 51 to go forward would alter anything believed by any Muslim anywhere in the world relating to tolerating other religions is a question that goes unanswered. Would a Catholic church suddenly spring up in Mecca? Would the dire straits of Christians seeking to worship in Muslim countries be eased? Would Muslims make peace with Israel?

All because opponents’ concerns were stifled and “justice and tolerance” were to triumph at Ground Zero?

That’s the problem with “setting an example.” Tolerance is a two way street and you can set a million examples, but if the other side is unwilling to alter the fundamental tenets of their faith to accommodate the lessons we are trying to teach, the end result is simply another politician blowing a lot of hot air, while those who agree with him get to feel good about themselves for being such great human beings.

If Park 51 were to be built tomorrow and we all held hands in a circle surrounding the structure in some grand gesture of ecumenical unity, 10,000 radical imams all over the world would still address their benighted followers that same day and preach hatred against the US and the West. What example can we set for them that could possibly make a dent in their fanatical views?

Even if they don’t take the obvious cue and boast of Islam’s power and prestige in erecting a community center containing a mosque in plain sight of their victory over the vanquished infidels who dared insult Islam by their very existence, what possible relevancy is there in setting an example of pluralism and respect for other faiths? The debate itself might be more instructive to the majority of Muslims, not to mention our fellow countrymen who think that opposing Park 51 is akin to hating Islam.

By falsely conflating opposition to building the center with the supposed bigotry of opponents, leftists are, in fact, responsible for feeding the venomous attacks on the U.S. by extremists, as well as confusing the majority of Muslims whose experience with democratic debate is extremely limited. What do most Muslims around the world make of opposition to Park 51? Whatever they read and hear in their media. Needless to say, their media is full of quotes from American media containing all the over-the-top, over-hyped, exaggerated, and false accusations of Muslim hating by opponents. With little in the way of balance, one can imagine what most Muslims are thinking of America right about now.

If Bloomberg wants to set an example, perhaps he can start by realizing that demonizing Park 51 opponents only serves the interests of Muslim extremists. He and supporters of this ill-conceived, fantastically inappropriate project should stop worrying about setting examples and care more about what the vast majority of the country thinks of this idea.

Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2010, 04:03 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow BOYCOTTS, DIVESTMENT, SANCTIONS (BDS) against Israel: Not what you think

Leftists, Socialists, and Islamists all around the world are demanding boycotts, divestment initiatives, and sanctions against the state of Israel. NOT because they oppose the so-called ‘occupation.’ but because they are seeking the total annihilation of Israel.

This video exposes the real agenda of the IslamoFacists and their partners in crime, the Leftists.

CONSUMER BOYCOTT- Individual consumers can show their opposition to Israel’s project by participating in a consumer boycott of Israeli goods and services. A consumer boycott works in two ways: firstly by generating bad publicity for the offender and secondly by applying economic pressure for change. Pressurise supermarkets and shops into removing goods of Israeli origin – from their shelves. Encourage companies who make use of Israeli technology and components to find alternatives and join the boycott. Focus the attention of the world on Israeli occupation and apartheid and expose those who bankroll the Israeli regime; and to foster an environment in which it is unacceptable to promote Israeli policies.
ACADEMIC/CULTURAL BOYCOTT - Academic and cultural collaboration boosts Israel’s image on the international stage. By refusing to participate in cultural exchange, artists and cultural institutions globally can send a clear message to Israel that theiroccupation and discrimination against Palestinians is unacceptable. In particular, the academic boycott can have significant impact on the establishment that is responsible for promoting theories and knowledge necessary for the pursuit of Israeli policies of occupation and discrimination.

SPORTS BOYCOTT - To stop Israel from promoting itself as a “fair player” via the participation of its sporting teams and individuals in international and bilateral competitions and to raise public awareness about discrimination and occupation of Palestinians. Exclude Israel from sporting events and within global competitions such as the World Cup, Olympics etc. Promote Palestinian presence and right to participate in international sporting events as a way to support their right to identity and self-determination.
DIVESTMENT Encourage and pressure individuals, financial institutions and companies to shed their investments in Israel in order to curb the profits of Israel’s war and apartheid economy. To raise awareness about Israel’s policies and true nature among companies, and encourage them to use their economic influence to put pressure on Israel to end the discrimination and expulsion of the Palestinian people and the occupation of their land.

The campaign against cooperation agreements with Israel targets free or preferential trade agreements, joint research and development agreements and projects as well any other sort of bilateral or multilateral agreements forged by Israel.

• Ensuring that Israel is not rewarded for its crimes with preferential treatments
• Curbing Israeli profits from its apartheid and occupation policies
• Acting as targeted sanctions, the end of cooperation agreements paves the way for a full scale sanctions regime

Action at the level of local and regional governments aims to cut all ties between municipalities or regional councils and Israel at cultural, economic, and diplomatic levels. This can be achieved by passing measures or resolutions targeting Israeli produce, institutional ties and cooperation or investments and bonds the local government may hold in Israel.

Raise awareness among the general public about Israel’s extensive involvement in the arms trade and the role of the arms trade in the continuing occupation. Bring the debate about Israel´s nuclear and conventional weapons arsenal and its criminal use as well as the implications of arms trading with Israel into the mainstream of public debate. Pressure governments to implement a blanket arms embargo on Israel. Bring forward legal prosecutions of Israel’s war criminals and arms traders and companies supporting Israeli war crimes.

A trade union boycott of Israel means that trade unions cut economic, social and political ties with Israel and build ties with Palestinian unions. Trade unions should respond to the BDS call that has, among others, been put forward by the major Palestinian trade unions. Palestinian workers are suffering under Israeli apartheid policies of exploitation that aim to bring in the profits necessary to maintain the occupation. Trade unions globally must transform workers solidarity into practice and ensure that they are not indirectly providing financial support to the Occupation by propping up the Israeli economy. H/T Debbie in Israel
Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2010, 04:05 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow CNN's Zakaria Praises Hezbollah, Slams Israel

Remembering that CNN’s president, Jon Klein, has touted its down-the-middle coverage and claims it is situated in the “center” of American politics, on a recent episode of Fareed Zakaria GPS, host Zakaria tried to claim that Lebanon’s terror group Hezbollah was some sort of model for religious tolerance. Someone should inform CNN that claiming Hezbollah is “religiously tolerant” is hardly a centrist position.

If we can discern “religious tolerance” in a group that says that the state of Israel should be wiped from the earth, then there is a new definition of “tolerance” that no one is aware of. But unbelievably here is CNN’s Zakaria coloring this murderous terror group as a “tolerant” organization.

At the end of his August 22 show, Zakaria turned to discuss the re-construction of a Synagogue in Beirut, Lebanon, a project that Zakaria claims proves how open minded and tolerant Hezbollah is towards Jews.
So why did this nation, often teetering on the brink of religious hostilities and hostilities with Israel, restore a Jewish house of worship? To show that Lebanon is an open and tolerant country.

And indeed, the project is said to have found support in many parts of the community, not just from the few remaining Jews there, but also Christians and Muslims and Hezbollah. Yes, Hezbollah — the one that the United States has designated a foreign terrorist organization.

Hezbollah’s view on the renovation goes like this. “We respect divine religions, including the Jewish religion. The problem is with Israel’s occupation of Arab lands … not with the Jews.” Food for thought.

The first question that so easily strikes when listening to Zakaria’s rosy assessment is contained in the second paragraph. If Lebanon is so open and warm to other religions, why is it that this synagogue is wonderful not just for “the few remaining Jews there”? If Hezbollah and the state they control were so “tolerant” why is there only a “few remaining Jews” there? Why did those Jews leave if everything is so wonderful?

And of course the propaganda that Zakaria allows the spokesman for Hezbollah to babble, all about how they “respect divine religions including the Jewish religion,” is appalling.

Zakaria fails his viewers miserably to allow Hezbollah’s spokesman to dole out his lies without questioning him. As the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) notes, “Hezbollah has not been shy about admitting that, in its view, Israel occupies not just the West Bank but also Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa and every other inch of its sovereign territory.”

The fact is Hezbollah is wholly intolerant of the existence of Israel.
As Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah put it in a Sept. 18. 2009 speech, “Historic Palestine, from the sea to the river, belongs to the people of Palestine and to the whole [Muslim] nation.” Israel, he elaborated, “is a usurper and occupation entity, aggressive, cancerous, illegitimate, and illegal presence,” and nobody is permitted to recognize its existence.

The Jewish state, he continued, must be “wiped out”:

“[We] will never recognize ‘Israel.’ We will not work with ‘Israel.’ We will not normalize ties with ‘Israel.’ We will not surrender to ‘Israel.’ We will not accept ‘Israel’ even if the whole world recognizes it. Our faith, belief, and declaration will remain unchanged, that ‘Israel’ is an illegal presence [and] a cancerous gland, and must be wiped out of existence.”

Nasrallah has a long history of denouncing Israel and the Jews and has repeatedly called for their elimination. Additionally, Hezbollah has been linked to bombings and the murder of Americans, Jews, and people of other religions at least as far back as 1982, some of these incidents happened in other countries, too. And many western nations have classified Hezbollah as a terror organization.

But to CNN and Fareed Zakaria, why those nice Hezbollah folks are the very modern model of religious tolerance, don’t you know. Quite the “down-the-middle” position CNN has there, isn’t it?

Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2010, 03:01 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow Muslim Brotherhood pleased with Newsweek's trashing of "stealth jihad" concept

Muslim Brotherhood stealth jihadists pleased with Newsweek's trashing of "stealth jihad" concept

The Muslim Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." -- "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991.

Eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house -- that's the very definition of the stealth jihad modus operandi. And so it comes as no surprise that the Brotherhood, which knows it can only operate by stealth under the cover of darkness and ignorance, is mightily pleased with Lisa Miller's trashing of the stealth jihad concept in Newsweek. The Brotherhood praises the Newsweek piece here: "Stealth Jihad and Creeping Sharia, truly racist terms," from Ikhwanweb, the Muslim Brotherhood's English website.

Good dhimmi, Lisa!
Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 01:49 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Lightbulb Who are the Real Racists? »

Who are the Real Racists?
Why does the media have amnesia about the racial derangement and anti-Semitism of black leaders?
by Larry Elder

How does one discredit the massive back-to-the-values-that-made-this-country-great rally in Washington at the National Mall?

Easy. Call Glenn Beck, the leader and organizer of the rally, a “racist” — as does former Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean.

What makes Beck a racist? The question presupposes the need for a reason.

Ever heard of Journolist? Apparently, neither have network news anchors Diane Sawyer, Katie Couric and Brian Williams — none of whom saw fit to spend one second reporting on this astonishing story.

Journolist was a confidential Listserv of 400 members of the media. It included people from Time, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, The New Republic, The Nation and other outlets. No Journolist member was a conservative. (Liberals would give a confidential Listserv of conservative media a somewhat different name: The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.)

Journolist was founded and run by a Washington Post blogger. It was exposed by The Daily Caller and written about on and by Andrew Breitbart, who offered $100,000 for a complete Journolist archive. Shortly after this exposure, Journolist was shut down.

What was the purpose of Journolist?

The most innocuous explanation — offered by a writer for the left-wing New Republic — is that it was a mere “chat room” where people would yak about stuff like the NBA finals or where a Journolister working on a piece could solicit suggestions for an expert. Big deal.

The most sinister explanation is that it served as a forum/echo chamber for liberals to strategize with other liberals on how to advance their agenda, craft arguments and discredit conservatives. Paranoia, you say?

Recall that during the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama’s candidacy was rocked by YouTube videos of his unhinged, America-denouncing, whitey-condemning, anti-Semitic pastor of 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Several Journolist members cried Mayday! and traded e-mails on how to control the damage.

Spencer Ackerman’s Huffington Post bio describes his position with The Washington Independent as “senior reporter.” This Journolist “journalist” offered this game plan: “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares (emphasis added) — and call them racists.” You know, eenie, meenie, minie, moe.

To be fair, some lefties actually want a plausible reason to call someone a racist. So, what makes Beck one?

As we were constantly reminded this past weekend, Beck once called President Obama “a racist” with a “deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture.”

Beck says he regrets what he said.

He says he should have referred to and condemned the “black liberation theology” preached by Wright. But only liberals are allowed regrets.

Here is The Glenn Beck Rule: When one recklessly, irresponsibly and with absolutely no basis calls someone a racist, or accuses him or her of racism or of racial insensitivity, or uses incendiary, racially tinged language — the person who makes the accusation is the racist.

Let’s apply The Rule:

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.: Then-President George Herbert Walker Bush is “a racist.”

Sen. (then-candidate) Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.: Then-President George W. Bush “let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black.”

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y.: “George (W.) Bush is our Bull Connor,” referring to the racist Southern lawman who sicced dogs and turned water hoses on civil rights marchers. Of the GOP, Rangel said, “It’s not ’sp—’ or ‘n——-’ anymore; they just say, ‘Let’s cut taxes.’”

Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign manager: The GOP has “a white-boy attitude,” which means the GOP “must exclude, denigrate and leave behind.”

Rep. (then-state Sen.) Diane Watson, D-Calif., on black affirmative action foe Ward Connerly: “He’s married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black.”

Then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.: In a speech in a black Baptist church, she said: “When you look at the way the (then-Republican-controlled) House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation. And you know what I’m talkin’ about.”

Director Spike Lee: Then-Sen. Trent Lott is a “card-carrying member” of the Ku Klux Klan; and about his dislike for interracial couples, Lee said, “I give interracial couples a look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street.”

The Rev. Al Sharpton: Falsely accused an assistant district attorney of sexually assaulting a black teenager; called the Central Park Jogger “a whore”; called black then-New York Mayor David Dinkins a “n——- whore”; denounced as “white interlopers” people wishing to do business in Harlem; and, during the deadly Crown Heights affair, said, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”

The Rev. Jesse Jackson: Jews are “Hymies,” and New York is “Hymie-Town.” First he denied saying it. Then came an admission, after that an apology, followed by collective media amnesia.

Any questions?

Last edited by Paparock; 09-02-2010 at 01:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2010, 05:32 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow WaPo spreads myths about mosques in America while claiming to clear them up

WaPo spreads myths about mosques in America while claiming to clear them up

More tendentious, misleading and false information from yet another blinkered ideologue given a platform in a major "news" source. "Five myths about mosques in America," by Edward E. Curtis IV in the Washington Post, August 29:
In addition to spawning passionate debates in the public, the news media and the political class, the proposal to build a Muslim community center near Ground Zero in New York has revealed widespread misconceptions about the practice of Islam in this country -- and the role of mosques in particular.

1. Mosques are new to this country.

Mosques have been here since the colonial era. A mosque, or masjid, is literally any place where Muslims make salat, the prayer performed in the direction of Mecca; it needn't be a building. One of the first mosques in North American history was on Kent Island, Md.: Between 1731 and 1733, African American Muslim slave and Islamic scholar Job Ben Solomon, a cattle driver, would regularly steal away to the woods there for his prayers -- in spite of a white boy who threw dirt on him as he made his prostrations....
See, folks? Curtis is here semaphoring that Muslims are a victim class, that they always have been, and that opposition to them is racially-based. As for Job Ben Solomon, I suspect that Curtis's source here is a Muslim one, as the story is curiously reminiscent of this one about Muhammad:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud:
Once the Prophet was offering prayers at the Ka'ba. Abu Jahl was sitting with some of his companions. One of them said to the others, "Who amongst you will bring the abdominal contents (intestines, etc.) of a camel of Bani so and so and put it on the back of Muhammad, when he prostrates?" The most unfortunate of them got up and brought it. He waited till the Prophet prostrated and then placed it on his back between his shoulders. I was watching but could not do any thing. I wish I had some people with me to hold out against them. They started laughing and falling on one another. Allah's Apostle was in prostration and he did not lift his head up till Fatima (Prophet's daughter) came and threw that (camel's abdominal contents) away from his back. He raised his head and said thrice, "O Allah! Punish Quraish." So it was hard for Abu Jahl and his companions when the Prophet invoked Allah against them as they had a conviction that the prayers and invocations were accepted in this city (Mecca). The Prophet said, "O Allah! Punish Abu Jahl, 'Utba bin Rabi'a, Shaiba bin Rabi'a, Al-Walid bin 'Utba, Umaiya bin Khalaf, and 'Uqba bin Al Mu'it (and he mentioned the seventh whose name I cannot recall). By Allah in Whose Hands my life is, I saw the dead bodies of those persons who were counted by Allah's Apostle in the Qalib (one of the wells) of Badr.
Back to the WaPo. Their second "myth" is really a whopper:
2. Mosques try to spread sharia law in the United States.
In Islam, sharia ("the Way" to God) theoretically governs every human act. But Muslims do not agree on what sharia says; there is no one sharia book of laws. Most mosques in America do not teach Islamic law for a simple reason: It's too complicated for the average believer and even for some imams.
The Saudi, Iranian and Sudanese authorities don't seem to have notable trouble sorting it out. In any case, the idea that Sharia is some complex and nebulous collection of arcana is a myth that is growing increasingly popular as Islamic supremacists try to advance Sharia in the U.S. In reality, "the four Sunni schools of Islamic law, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, and Hanbali, are identical in approximately 75 percent of their legal conclusions..." ('Umdat al-Salik, p. vii). Islamic law regarding the stoning of adulterers, the amputation of the hand for theft, the institutionalized discrimination against women and non-Muslims, is not hard to understand, and is not subject to notable disagreement.

Anyway, what do mosques in America teach? As long ago as January 1999, the Naqshbandi Sufi leader Sheikh Muhammad Hisham Kabbani declared in a State Department Open Forum that Islamic supremacists controlled most mosques in America: "The most dangerous thing that is going on now in these mosques," he said, "that has been sent upon these mosques around the United States - like churches they were established by different organizations and that is ok - but the problem with our communities is the extremist ideology. Because they are very active they took over the mosques; and we can say that they took over more than 80% of the mosques that have been established in the US. And there are more than 3000 mosques in the US. So it means that the methodology or ideology of extremism has been spread to 80% of the Muslim population, but not all of them agree with it."

Terrorism expert Yehudit Barsky affirmed the same thing in 2005, saying that 80% of the mosques in this country "have been radicalized by Saudi money and influence." The Center for Religious Freedom found in 2005 a massive distribution of hateful jihadist and Islamic supremacist material in mosques in this country. And in June 2008 federal investigators found that the Islamic Saudi Academy in Virginia, despite promises to stop teaching such material, was still using books that advocated that apostates from Islam be executed and that it was permissible for Muslims to kill and seize the property of "polytheists."
Islamic law includes not only the Koran and the Sunna (the traditions of the prophet Muhammad) but also great bodies of arcane legal rulings and pedantic scholarly interpretations. If mosques forced Islamic law upon their congregants, most Muslims would probably leave -- just as most Christians might walk out of the pews if preachers gave sermons exclusively on Saint Augustine, canon law and Greek grammar. Instead, mosques study the Koran and the Sunna and how the principles and stories in those sacred texts apply to their everyday lives....
This is just silly. Christian preachers may convey the substance of what is contained in "Saint Augustine, canon law and Greek grammar" in simplified form in their sermons if they choose to do so. So also may Muslim preachers convey in simplified form the content of Sharia if they so choose. In any case, "if anyone changes his religion, kill him" (a statement of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, and a universal among the schools of Islamic law) is not really all that arcane.
4. Mosques are funded by groups and governments unfriendly to the United States.
There certainly have been instances in which foreign funds, especially from Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf region, have been used to build mosques in the United States. The Saudi royal family, for example, reportedly gave $8 million for the building of the King Fahd Mosque, which was inaugurated in 1998 in Culver City, a Los Angeles suburb.
Apparently the WaPo is admitting here that the Saudi government is unfriendly to the United States.
But the vast majority of mosques are supported by Muslim Americans themselves. Domestic funding reflects the desire of many U.S. Muslims to be independent of overseas influences. Long before Sept. 11, 2001, in the midst of a growing clash of interests between some Muslim-majority nations and the U.S. government -- during the Persian Gulf War, for instance -- Muslim American leaders decided that they must draw primarily from U.S. sources of funding for their projects.
In reality, it is estimated that as many as 80% of mosques in America are Saudi funded.
5. Mosques lead to homegrown terrorism.

To the contrary, mosques have become typical American religious institutions. In addition to worship services, most U.S. mosques hold weekend classes for children, offer charity to the poor, provide counseling services and conduct interfaith programs.

No doubt, some mosques have encouraged radical extremism. Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind Egyptian sheik who inspired the World Trade Center's first attackers in 1993, operated out of the Al-Salam mosque in Jersey City, N.J. But after the 2001 attacks, such radicalism was largely pushed out of mosques and onto the Internet, mainly because of a renewed commitment among mosque leaders to confront extremism.

There is a danger that as anti-Muslim prejudice increases -- as it has recently in reaction to the proposed community center near Ground Zero -- alienated young Muslims will turn away from the peaceful path advocated by their elders in America's mosques. So far, that has not happened on a large scale.

Through their mosques, U.S. Muslims are embracing the community involvement that is a hallmark of the American experience. In this light, mosques should be welcomed as premier sites of American assimilation, not feared as incubators of terrorist indoctrination.
All right, so some mosques promote "radical extremism," and some don't, and since some don't, mosques should not be "feared as incubators of terrorist indoctrination," despite the fact that "alienated young Muslims" might "turn away from the peaceful path advocated by their elders in America's mosques" in their rage over "Islamophobia."

Funny how no amount of rage would ever lead me to blow myself up in a crowded restaurant. But that's just me.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2010, 05:57 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation The Moral Blindness of PBS

The Moral Blindness of PBS
Why Travis Smiley thinks violent whites of Christian heritage are no different than jihadists
by Dennis Prager

There was one thing more than any other that turned this New York, liberal, Jewish, Columbia University graduate student from modern liberalism. It was its use of moral equivalence to avoid confronting evil during the Cold War.

There was a time when liberalism was identified with anti-Communism; the liberal-led Korean and Vietnam Wars were examples. But the Vietnam War led liberals into the arms of the left, which had been morally confused about communism since its inception and had become essentially pacifist following the carnage of World War I.

After the Vietnam War, even liberals who continued to describe communism as evil were labeled “right-wingers” and “Cold Warriors.” And the United States, with its moral flaws, was often likened to the Soviet Union. I recall asking the pre-eminent liberal historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., in a public forum in Los Angeles in the late 1970s, if he would say that the United States was a morally superior society to that of the Soviet Union. He would not.

Little has changed regarding the Left’s inability to identify and confront evil. And its moral equation of good guys and bad guys was made evident again in recent weeks by hosts on three major liberal networks — ABC, NPR and PBS.

First, on May 25, PBS host Tavis Smiley interviewed Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the ex-Muslim Somali writer and activist for human, especially women’s, rights in Islamic countries. After mentioning American Muslim terrorists Maj. Nidal Hasan (who murdered 13 and injured 30 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood) and Faisal Shahzad (who attempted to murder hundreds in Times Square), this dialogue ensued:

Ali: “Somehow, the idea got into their (Hasan’s and Shahzad’s) minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the hereafter.”

Smiley: “But Christians do that every single day in this country.”

Ali: “Do they blow people up?”

Smiley: “Yes. Oh, Christians, every day, people walk into post offices, they walk into schools, that’s what Columbine is — I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians — and I happen to be a Christian.

“There are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country, where you live and work.”

Then, on Aug. 22, Michel Martin, host of NPR’s “Tell Me More,” in discussing whether the Islamic Center and mosque planned for near ground zero should be moved, said this on CNN’s “Reliable Sources” with Howard Kurtz:

“Should anybody move a Catholic church? Did anybody move a Christian church after Timothy McVeigh, who adhered to a cultic white supremacist cultic version of Christianity, bombed (the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City)?”

And third, on Aug. 26, ABC “20/20″ anchor Chris Cuomo tweeted this to his nearly one million followers:

“To all my christian brothers and sisters, especially catholics — before u condemn muslims for violence, remember the crusades….study them.”

I have known Smiley since the 1980s when we both worked at the same radio station in Los Angeles.

He is smart, and he is a gentleman who has accorded me great respect both on his television show and off air.

How, then, does such a man equate Muslims who murder in the name of Islam with Americans who “murder every day,” none one of whom commit their murders in the name of Christianity?

How does Martin equate the thousands of Islamic terrorists around the world, all of whom are devout Muslims, with a single American — one who, in any case, professed no religion, let alone Christianity?

And how does Cuomo claim that Christians cannot condemn Muslims for violence because of the Christian Crusades?

First of all, the Crusades occurred a thousand years ago. One might as well argue that Jews cannot condemn Christian and secular anti-Semitic violence because Jews destroyed Canaanite communities 3,200 years ago.

Second, it is hardly a defense of Muslims to have to go back a thousand years to find comparable Christian conduct.

Third, even then there is little moral equivalence. The Crusades were waged in order to recapture lands that had been Christian for centuries until Muslim armies attacked them and destroyed most Christian communities in the Middle East. (Some Crusaders also massacred whole Jewish communities in Germany on the way to the Holy Land, and that was a grotesque evil — which Church officials condemned at the time.) As the dean of Western Islamic scholars, Princeton Professor Bernard Lewis, has written, “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad — a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war.”

So how did Smiley, Martin and Cuomo make such morally egregious statements?

The answer is not that these are bad people, let alone that they are not repulsed by terrorist violence.

The answer is leftism, the way of looking at the world that permeates high schools, universities, news and entertainment media. Those indoctrinated by leftist thinking become largely incapable of accurate moral judgments: They regarded America and the Soviet Union as morally similar. And today, they claim that people they call “extremists” within Christianity (who are they?) and Islamist terrorists and their supporters pose equal threats to America and the world.

That is how bright and decent people become moral relativists and thereby undermine the battles against the greatest evils — communist totalitarianism in its time and Islamic totalitarianism in ours.

The only solution is to keep exposing leftist moral confusion. One problem, however, is that in countries without talk radio, an equivalent to the Wall Street Journal editorial page, conservative columnists and a vigorous anti-left political party, this is largely impossible.

The other major problem is that the media that dominate American life have little problem, indeed largely concur, with the foolish and dangerous comments made by their mainstream media colleagues. That is why these comments, worthy of universal moral condemnation, were ignored by the mainstream (i.e., leftwing) media. Instead, they directed mind-numbing attention and waves of opprobrium toward Dr. Laura.

Those who don’t fight real evils fight imaginary ones.

Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2010, 03:25 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Exclamation Islamic supremacists, dhimmis plead with Justice Department to deny free speech to an

Islamic supremacists, dhimmis plead with Justice Department to deny free speech to anti-jihadists

Note first of all the conflation of "anti-Muslim rhetoric" with actual crimes like the stabbing of the taxi driver and the fire at the mosque in Tennessee, despite the fact that those who are speaking out against the jihad and Islamic supremacism have consistently disavowed and opposed violence and vigilantism. Note also the mention of the stupid and wrong Qur'an burning in Florida. This illustrates what I have noted here many times: Islamic supremacists want and need hate crimes against Muslims, as they will attempt to use them to shut down all legitimate opposition to the jihad and Islamic supremacism, and to tar all their opponents as advocates of violence and hatred.

It is likely that this appeal, although the DOJ made no official comment, fell on fertile ground in the Obama Justice Department, given Obama's long-standing tendency to appoint foes of the freedom of speech to influential positions: Kagan, Sotomayor, Koh, Sunstein, Genachowski, etc. etc. etc.

"Anti-Muslim Rhetoric: Free Speech or Hate Speech? Faith Coalition Calls on DOJ to Take Public Stance Against Anti-Muslim Rhetoric," by John R. Parkinson for ABC News, August 31:
WASHINGTON, Aug. 31, 2010 -- A coalition of faith groups met with Justice Department officials Monday to encourage the Obama administration to take a more public stance against anti-Muslim hate speech and hate crimes.

Farhana Khera, president and executive director of Muslim Advocates, said the community leaders requested the meeting due to an "alarming rise in anti-Muslim hate" that has become commonplace as the debate over the so-called "Ground Zero mosque" in New York City continues.

"Unfortunately, this very escalating trend of hate speech in the country has now transformed into actual acts of violence and the attorney general, as the nation's chief law enforcement officer, has an obligation to really enforce the laws, including the hate crime laws and holding those that engage in hate crimes responsible," Khera said.

Last week in New York City, a taxi cab driver was repeatedly stabbed allegedly by a passenger who asked him, "Are you a Muslim?" before the attack.

On Saturday, a fire was discovered at the construction site for a mosque and community center in Murfreesboro, Tenn., that has been a topic of controversy in the city. Police said the fire is being investigated as a possible arson and hate crime.

And a church in Gainesville, Fla., has announced it plans to burn copies of the Quran on Sept. 11, to mark the anniversary of the 2001 terror attacks.

"We are a thriving democracy, we appreciate free speech, but when it crosses the line into violence, that's against the law," she said. "And the [Justice] Department, the federal government, the nation's chief law enforcement officer is going to prosecute and hold them responsible to the fullest extent of the law....
Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2010, 05:48 PM
Paparock's Avatar
Paparock Paparock is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Southern California High Desert Mountains
Posts: 48,313
Paparock is on a distinguished road
Arrow TIME Magazine’s Latest Blood Libel About Israel

TIME Magazine’s Latest Blood Libel About Israel

Prof. Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She also is an author and appears often in international media interviews. She lives in New York City.

The September 13, 2010 issue of TIME Magazine arrived yesterday. The cover story is titled “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” and is illustrated by a large Jewish star composed of daisies. Yes, daises—as in “counting daisies, don’t have a care in the world.”

This is precisely the point of Karl Vick’s article. He writes:

Israelis are no longer preoccupied with the matter [of peace with the Palestinians]. They’re otherwise engaged: They’re making money; they’re enjoying the rays of the late summer … they have moved on.

Vick quotes an Israeli real estate agent in Ashdod, one Eli, who tells him:
People are indifferent. They don’t care if there’s going to be war. They don’t care if there’s going to be peace. They don’t care. They live in the day.

According to Vick, Israelis don’t care about peace, peace negotiations, or about the Palestinians because they are simply having too good a time: sunbathing, swimming, café-hopping, profiting from start-up companies, and, according to polls cited by Vick, utterly disconnected from “politics;” indeed Vick suggests that Israelis resemble Californians more than they resemble Egyptians. These are all points which scream: Israel does not fit in; if Israelis were only more impoverished, more indolent, and paradoxically, even more “laid back,” they might be recognizable as indigenous to the region, a true part of the Middle East.

These are Vick’s thoughts, not mine.

Of course, Jews are the original Palestinians and the most indigenous of the region’s inhabitants; yes, there are many impoverished Israelis, both Jews and non-Jews; and, let’s not forget that there are even some Israelis who remain permanently on high alert for the next terrorist attack, permanently scarred by the last ones. For a moment, let’s forget about all that. Allow me to ask: Why doesn’t Vick also point out that Palestinians are leading the high life on the West Bank and in sumptuous villas on both the West Bank and in Gaza; that they, too, are sunbathing, swimming, shopping, dining out, and relaxing at the beach—at least as much as the Islamist thugs who run the lives of Palestinians will allow it?

Vick and his editors at TIME seem to think that showing six photos of Israelis at leisure: blowing smoke on a beach chair, lounging on a beach chair, resting in an army uniform on the beach without a chair, playing with one’s baby in a stroller, sitting at a café—are proof that Israelis are engaging in activities which are not admirable, are, in fact, “proof” that they are not suffering but rather, proof that Israelis simply don’t care about peace with the Palestinians. And Vick brings in polls as well as expert and person-in-the-street opinions to back up this claim.

Vick writes that real estate is booming, as is business in general, Israeli “brainiacs” have helped their nation avoid the economic disasters that have plunged Europe and America into a recession. He literally writes this. “Israel avoided the debt traps that dragged the U.S. and Europe into recession. It is known as a start-up nation—second only to the U.S. companies listed on the Nasdaq exchange.”

Is Vick aware that, consciously or not, intentionally or not, he is counting on the world’s long-held resentment about Jewish creativity, genius, and scientific and economic success—counting on the world’s willingness to scapegoat Israel once again for crimes that it has not committed? Or because Jews seem to “know something,” maybe they are channeling God directly and thus, the deck is stacked against non-Jews. Vick presents Israel’s “success” as somehow unseemly, because it makes other nations look bad. Does he harbor the suspicion that Jewish prosperity has been “stolen” from non-Jews or is he merely advertising that Jewish gold is there, ripe for the taking?

Buried—but really buried-- in Vick’s four page cover piece are snippets of true facts: That the Israelis are weary of peace negotiations which never succeed because the Palestinians do not want peace; that Arabs and Palestinians want to destroy the Jewish state and as many Jews as possible.

But Vick fails to convey that negotiations cannot work as long as the ultra-Nazified Arab Islamic propaganda against Jews and Israel continues to turn out children who hate Jews and who become human homicide bombs, snipers, kidnappers, kassam rocket throwers, etc.

Here is what Vick utterly fails to comprehend, namely, that the Israelis are not merely tired, disenchanted, living in la-la land a la southern Californians (hence, the Jewish star made of daisies on the cover). The Israelis are actually showing the entire world how to embrace life, even as they live, trembling, in the shadow of death. They are teaching the world how to “love life more than they fear death.” A new and wonderful book A New Shoah. The Untold Story of Israel’s Victims of Terrorism by Italian journalist Giulio Meotti, which is not yet out, makes precisely this point.
Pictured: Prof. Phyllis Chesler The Jewish insistence on life may be the key to our survival as a people despite ceaseless persecution. It might be the lesson, the model, for all humanity in an era of genocides, civil wars, torture chambers, tyrannies, and totalitarian regimes. Why is TIME turning things on their head and refusing to recognize the courage and the heroism of Jewish Israelis who choose to live in the moment when the moment is all they have? Against all odds, the Jews simply refuse to give up. As Meotti writes of the numerous victims of terrorism during the ongoing Intifada of 2000, “Israel teaches the world love of life, not in the sense of a banal joie de vivre, but as a solemn celebration.”

Meotti begins where I began in early 2004, when I wrote about a new Holocaust in the pages of The Jewish Press, a Holocaust which is now based in Israel. At the time, I was not heard beyond a small circle. I did what Meotti now does in his opening pages. Meotti fully understands that Israel is the “first country ever to experience suicide terrorism on a mass scale: that more than 150 suicide attacks have been carried out plus 500 have been prevented." According to Meotti, there have been “1,723 people (murdered) and 10,000 injured” in Israel. Meotti does what I did: He converts these numbers into the demographic equivalent of attacks on Americans. When I did so there were somewhat fewer people in both categories. Thus, Meotti writes that in American population terms, this means that “74,000 Americans” would have been killed and “400,000 injured.”

Vick does not factor this grave reality into his article. Nor does he seem to know how high the Jewish population growth was in the DP camps right after the Holocaust. Can he comprehend that permanently endangered Jews—a people that has survived as a people for nearly six thousand years—the Chosen People—have always chosen life in the moment, have chosen to seize life with both hands, even as they memorialize their dead and make sense of their persecution in a way that illuminates this particular Hell for all humanity?

What Meotti is doing is remembering the lives and the deaths of the Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism during the last decade. I have only read the first few chapters but cannot put it down. These are unknown stories, unnamed victims, whose mortal remains have often evaporated, disintegrated as surely as those Jews who literally went up in smoke during the Nazi Holocaust. His stories are mainly of victims who were unarmed and helpless and who, it turns out, were actually exceptionally kind to others, often to the very Arab Palestinians who shot them down, bludgeoned them to death, or blew them up into unrecognizable bone fragments, drops of blood, perhaps a few teeth.

I look forward to completing Meotti’s book. I hope that people more fully understand that TIME Magazine as well as countless other media in the Western world, can no longer be trusted to tell the truth.

Reprinted with permission of Newsrealblog and sent to Israel National News by the author.

Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2010, 06:00 PM
bladeofdarkness's Avatar
bladeofdarkness bladeofdarkness is offline
Gold Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 442
bladeofdarkness is on a distinguished road

Israel doesn't "fit in" with the middle east ?
who the **** WANTS to fit in to the middle east ?
why conform to the standards of the middle east just because we happen to live there ?

our goals have never been to be a "middle eastern country"
our goals have always been about 3 stages
step 1 : become Europeans
step 2 : become Americans
step 3 : become what the Europeans and Americans WISH they were.
we're not trying to belong.
we're trying, and succeeding, to raise above mere geography.

as for her claim that we're just too well off, it completely misses the point.
we're well off now, because we WORKED HARD FOR IT.
we're moving on, past the stupid conflict and past the peace process.
if the Palestinians want peace, let them come and make peace with us.
if they would rather keep fighting us, so be it.
their choice, we don't care.
Reply With Quote
Israel Forum

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Israel Military Forum