Thursday, June 30, 2011
A Major U.S. Policy Shift Toward the Muslim Brotherhood DisguisedThis is actually by Barry Rubin. I was going to do the usual blog thing and copy some of it, then offer my own erudite comments. But I decided to show mercy on any readers I may still have and just reprint Rubin's piece. It really says it all.
Here’s the headline: “U.S. to resume formal Muslim Brotherhood contacts.” But that’s not true. In fact, as the Reuters article itself admits there have never been “formal” contacts before but only informal ones. Let’s examine the language, which stems from a “senior U.S. official” to see what the Obama Administration thinks about the Muslim Brotherhood.OK, one quick comment. There are many tactics being used, and many groups dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. I believe Obama is allied with those groups, and he is using a variety of methods to make us slaves to Islamic barbarism. Things were bad enough under the Bush Administration, when it was forbidden to admit that the terrorist thugs who were our declared enemies were Muslim. Now, under Obama, we're set to recognize those terrorist thugs, who are dedicated to our downfall, and negotiate with them. No good can come of this.
“A step that reflects the Islamist group’s growing political weight but that is almost certain to upset Israel and its U.S. backers.”
Note how it is portrayed as an Israel-related issue. Won’t it upset people who care about U.S. interests? Won’t it upset Egyptian Christians? The Saudis and Jordanians and other relatively moderate Arab regimes? Won’t it upset Muslims who oppose revolutionary Islamism?
We are supposed to believe that only Israel and the Jews will be upset about the Obama Administration moving closer to a radical antisemitic, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Western, pro-terrorist group that wants to repress women, kill gays, and overturn pretty much every existing government in the region. But just those Jews and their friends will be upset. You know, just like in the 1930s when certain people said that opposition to the totalitarian threat of those years was just coming from the Jews.
Reuters portrays the Brotherhood, as do many, as “a group founded in 1928 that seeks to promote its conservative vision of Islam in society.” Conservative? You mean they are like the Republican Party? You mean they are for the status quo? And of course one of the things they did since 1928 was to ally with Nazi Germany and the Brotherhood continues to voice the same political line toward Jews that it did back then
We are also told that the Brotherhood “long ago renounced violence as a means to achieve political change in Egypt….” This is simply not true. The Brotherhood merely temporarily renounced violence within Egypt because they knew that any resort to it would get them wiped out by the regime and the army. They postponed using violence until the revolutionary era arrived. Of course, if they can take over Egypt without violence they are happy to do so.
But there’s more. Every day for decades the Brotherhood has supported violence against Israel. It has supported violence against Americans in Iraq, and on various other fronts. Why is this so hard to see?
“The result has been a dilemma for the Obama administration. Former officials and analysts said it has little choice but to engage the Brotherhood directly, given its political prominence after the February 11 downfall of former President Hosni Mubarak.”
That is arguably true but by recognizing the Brotherhood and having contacts with it, the Obama Administration also makes a unilateral concession encouraging the Brotherhood. People who know the Middle East understand how this works: Soon many Egyptians will say (as they said in Iran and as they now say in Turkey) that the United States wants the Islamists to win.
But, the article continues:
“U.S. President Barack Obama will surely face criticism for engaging with the Brotherhood, even tentatively.” And who do they go to, Middle East analysts who can explain why this is dangerous? No, to the head of AIPAC in order to perpetuate the theme that this is merely a problem with the Jewish lobby! And who is presented to refute this? Former American diplomats. So it is the people who know versus the Jews.
And what are we told about the Brotherhood’s goals? This:
“The group says it wants a civil state based on Islamic principles, but talk by some members of an `Islamic state or `Islamic government’ have raised concerns that their goal is a state where full Islamic sharia law is implemented. The group says such comments have been taken out of context.”
“Some members” include the leader and deputy leader of the group. It is apparently too much trouble to read and quote what Brotherhood officials say, or their publications openly state, or their political platform calls for. Never are these statements fully quoted. Always they are dismissed as insignificant, like the statements of the late Usama bin Ladin once were.
Moreover, Egypt under Mubarak could be reasonably said to be a “civil state based on Islamic principles.” And since “Islamic principles” are mandated by Allah democracy is ultimately unacceptable since no human vote could alter those principles. How can an elected parliament pass a law limiting a man to one wife, or accepting religious conversion, outlawing amputations, or maintaining peace with Israel—to cite just a few examples—since those are “Islamic principles,” at least under the interpretation of Islam held by the Brotherhood.
So we just can’t tell if the Muslim Brotherhood wants a radical Islamist state before it takes power” Just like it was presumably a mystery about what Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini wanted to do in Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hizballah in Lebanon, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
And finally the article doesn’t even mention the most important development in U.S.-Muslim Brotherhood relations during that group’s eighty-year history: President Barack Obama’s explicit (and uninvited) statement accepting the Brotherhood being in government. U.S. policy is paving the way for a radical, possibly Islamist, Egypt. It is a catastrophic strategy.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Hate Crimes in CanadaI saw the report, but I forget where I saw it originally, that in Canada, where Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently proclaimed and demonstrated his unwavering support for Israel, that 71 percent of hate crimes of a religious nature in 2009, were committed against Jews. While I appreciate Harper's principled stand on Israel, something needs to be done about the attacks against Jews in Canada. The first thing that needs to be done is to ask the simple question: who is doing the attacking? That was my first question. That was Barry Rubin's question too.
Now the figures for "hate crimes" in Canada have been issued and guess what? Like the FBI's statistics for the United States, the number one victims of hate crimes are...Jews. Indeed, 71 percent of the hate crimes in the religion category are against Jews. The Jewish proportion of Canada's population? Around 1 percent. That's 71 percent of the hate crimes on a religious basis against 1 percent of the population.Of course, we know that answer to the question. And for those who are still having difficulty admitting to the answer, let me help by asking, which religion do you desperately try not to think of when you read reports like this?
For Canada, 4 per cent of the crimes were motivated by race or ethnicity, 29 per cent by religion and 13 per cent by sexual orientation
Makes you think, right?
Apparently not. Because the report is vague about just who might be attacking Jews and why these numbers have tended to rise. Skin-heads? Neo-Nazis? Russian peasant pogroms? Crusaders? The Klu Klux Klan? Peronists? Anti-Dreyfusards? Know-Nothings? Knights of the Camellia? Republicans? Tea-Partiers?
Because if we don't know who did it, then how can the situation be improved? Was it Anglicans? Bahai? Catholics? Dunkers? Episcopalians (oh, wait, they're the same thing as Anglicans), Franciscan monks or Fire-worshippers? Greek Orthodox? Hawaiian traditionalists? Idolotors or Illerati or Inuit? Jacobites? Kansans? Lutherans?
But to admit to anti-Semitic attacks by Muslims destroys the "Muslim as victim of Western Society" paradigm that must be upheld at all costs, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics are required to maintain that ridiculous idea. There are people who will fight tooth and nail to force that paradigm on others and battle fiercely against those who point out its falseness. And some of them aren't Muslims. They are the happy dhimmis.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
Klavan's One-State Solution: Give the Middle East to the JewsYeah, sure, it sounds silly, and it may even generate a few laughs. But if you think about it, Klavan's plan makes more sense than Obama's plan to effectively eradicate the Jewish state slowly while claiming to be a friend of Israel.
OK, so it really is silly and impractical. But it still faces the reality of the situation better than Obama.
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
We're Fighting Who, Where?So this "war on terror" is a big deal that's been going on ever since 19 Islamic jihadists, who were in our country legally, flew some airliners into some prominent buildings and murdered almost 3000 Americans in the name of Allah. In response, then President Bush sent our armed forces after the perps - well, the ones who didn't sacrifice themselves in the name of the Ummah, rather they went after the brains behind the attack, and thanks to the tenacity, training, and skill of our armed forces, got the suckers.
In addition, we've had troops battling jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq ever since. Our soldiers have removed tens of thousands of these terrorist scum (or Michael Moore's minutemen depending on the accuracy of your moral compass) from polluting our Earth. So why, oh why, does our government, under both Bush and Obama continue to welcome them into our country?
Before being granted refugee status in the U.S. and settling down in Bowling Green, Ky., Waad Ramadan Alwan was allegedly a sniper and skilled bomb maker targeting U.S. forces who bragged that his "lunch and dinner would be an American."So all the jihadists have to do to survive the onslaught from American forces, is to claim their lives are in danger for proper and politically correct reasons and get relocated to a comfortable American suburb. Once acclimated to life in America and added to local welfare lists, they are free to resume their Jihad against the Great Satan.
Alwan is one of two Iraqi refugees who the Justice Department announced Tuesday had been charged for participating in an alleged plot to send cash, explosives and Stinger missiles to Iraq for use against Americans.
The men are among 56,000 Iraqis who took advantage of special programs to come to the U.S. for people who demonstrated they were in danger from militias in Iraq for their religious beliefs or because they were translators for U.S. government or media organizations.
Alwan was admitted into the U.S. even though his fingerprint was found in 2005 on an unexploded roadside bomb that was set to blow up a U.S. convoy in Iraq. The print was loaded into a Department of Defense database, but a search of that database was not then a part of the application process for refugee status in the U.S.
Even better, if they're caught committing jihadist activities, rather than facing the business end of a Hellfire missile or a marine's rifle, and ending up as temporary decoration scattered over portions of the landscape, they get a jail cell, three meals a day, a Qu'ran untouched by infidel hands, (probably fan mail and marriage proposals) and a team of lawyers as dedicated to the overthrow of the United States as they are. And if they're convicted, they get a nice long prison stretch where they have years and years of access to the most deranged members of American society who they can convert to Islam in order to spread their poisonous message. Because some of them will get out and will be only too happy to engage in the same anti-social behavior that got them locked up in the first place. But this time, as a special bonus, their violence, any murder or mayhem they wish to engage in, is done in the name of Allah. For them it's win-win. Slaughter to their heart's content, and gain paradise because of the slaughter.
It's not so great for the rest of us, but I don't think that's of any concern to the DHS or State Department weasels who are supposed to be working in the interest of the American people, not phony Islamic refugees who are invited into Dar al-Harb to wreak havoc.