LEFTISTS CONTINUE ASSAULT ON TRUTH

A HIGH-PROFILE NORWEGIAN doctor who has said the September 11 terrorists were justified in their attack is now treating patients in Gaza and is being accused of presenting "hard-core propaganda" to TV interviewers in his telling of the conflict between Hamas and Israel.

Think you know your neighbors?

Yes indeed, Dr. Mads Gilbert has become an unofficial advocate of the Palestinian cause, his critics say.

International media reports, including those from the BBC, CBS, CNN and FOX’s sister station Sky News, present Gilbert as an ordinary doctor.

But a look at his record shows that Gilbert, 61, is a political activist and member of the Norwegian Maoist "Red" party, and he has been involved in solidarity work for the Palestinians since the 1970s. He has criticized the international aid organization Doctors Without Borders for refusing to take sides in conflicts.

Gilbert volunteers at the Al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza with the Norwegian Aid Committee (NORWAC), an aid organization funded by the Norwegian government, and he has been interviewed by the media on a variety of issues. Israeli government officials have said Hamas hides weapons in the hospital where Gilbert works.

NGO Monitor, an Israeli human rights watchdog group, says Gilbert presents one-sided criticism of Israel to the media and has accused Israel of deliberately targeting civilians in its Gaza offensive to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israel.

In addition to being supportive of the terrorist organization Hamas, Gilbert has voiced support for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

"The attack on New York did not come as a surprise after the policy that the West has led during the last decades," Gilbert told the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet on Sept. 30, 2001. "The oppressed also have a moral right to attack the USA with any weapon they can come up with."

When asked if he supported a terror attack on the U.S., Gilbert said, "Terror is a bad weapon but the answer is yes within the context which I have mentioned."

Gerald Steinberg, executive director of NGO Monitor, said Gilbert's characterization of the situation in Gaza is "in the form of incitement of hatred."...

Sounds like all the silly leftists I know. And here's a tidbit that will leave you shaking your head at the asinine lengths the left will go to commit treason against their own ability to reason.

A research paper that won a Hebrew University teachers' committee prize finds that the lack of IDF rapes of Palestinian women is designed to serve a political purpose. The paper shows that "the lack of organized military rape is an alternate way of realizing [particular] political goals." The paper further theorizes that Arab women in Judea and Samaria are not raped by IDF soldiers because the women are de-humanized in the soldiers' eyes.

Read it all.

Some wayfarers apparently need to hate, loathe, and desecrate their own nest and its defenders. We may each, whether from our dirty hovels or sprite shiny McMansions, pray this terrible madness ends before all civilization is lost and a new dark age arises from the ashes, but I fear this mental disease is not mental at all, but is purely a spiritual gambit, and while the endgame dance of fore and brimstone is probably still a convenient distance off yet in the future, the Armageddon-disproving madness of the Far Left equals and is in fact, precisely the same phenomenon that the Far Right Neocons salivate to usher in upon us just to prove their point. The Islamicists are giddy to oblige both groups their holy war. Opposing teams, different uniforms, different playbooks, same sorry agenda.

All stand condemned—sharing the fate of staring through the Judas hole, blinded by their own reflections.

STUCK ON STUPID SUPERIORITY

THE LEFT AS A WHOLE, while individuals do vary, that needs a harsh dose of wake up calls and to get out of the Land of Nod, pass by me in the crossroads of Grey and then move into the waking world as their somnambulism and media dreamland are leading to no good end, whatsoever. While there has always been defeatist and anti-Americanism on the Leftward side of the Ship of State, I have yet to recall such a mass group donning life preservers—and then heading straight to the pool and jumping in claiming that they are overboard.

Perhaps if they would put down their cocktails and apply some sun lotion they might also complain about the heat in their being overboard.

The Western Left, as a whole, has turned against Nations as an idea. Their general wish to impose some benign, cancerous socialist State upon the world is running straight into another group also trying to impose a Global cancer—The Islamic Fascistic Fundamentalists.

Now here we have the wonderful dissonance of two groups trying to put forth pre-20th century 'perfect dreams' of how people 'should live': The Left embracing a Global Socialist ideal of the Internationale from the 19th century, and the Islamic Fascistic Fundamentalists trying to impose an Empire of Religion straight out of the 11th century. Both wish to use division imposed by definition upon peoples to divide them and bring them down. Both require the dissolving of Nations as their means to do so.

And both mean to enslave the World to their dreams of making the World more like they want it to be.

Read it all in a most interesting article posted in 2006 by one of the leading lights of the fledgling Jacksonian Party movement.

NONE SO BLIND

WHO WROTE THE KORAN, and why? Don't tarry, read what one ex-Muslim has to say on this most idiosyncratic theme. Some say Allah was the author. Others say it was Gabriel the archangel. Others maintain that Muhammed himself dictated it to his scribes. The more truthful answer may surprise certain readers.

Don't take this infidel's word. Read what the rational apostate Abul Kasem has revealed in his own search for clarity.

And while we are at it, how about some statistics to put some autumn chill in the late August air.

The CIA World Fact Book (2007) indicates that as long as the Muslim population remain a distinct minority, i.e. less than 2% in any country they inhabit, they are peace-loving and not a threat. At 2%+ they begin as if on signal to rear their ugly heads and begin to proselytize. Testing the reactions of host country, they then spew venom in their mosques against host country natives.

From 5% onward they begin to push for everything halal, demand separation in schools, institute the hijab, begin the setting up of islamic schools with the introduction of Islam in native education curriculum, demanding mosques for prayers when in actuality it is to have a mass of several thousand ready to murder the natives at the given signal, and hassle for recognition and implementation of Sharia, first on their own Muslims but in reality to convert the whole world to Sharia.

When these sex maniacs (95% of rapists in the West jails are Muslims) reach 10% of the population, lawlessness is naturally increased as a right to perceived offense resulting in threats, property damage, placard carrying, burning cars and buildings/embassies as an allah-given decree.

When Europe's Muslim parasites reach 40% natives should willingly enjoy widespread massacres, terror gangs, rapes of women, girls, and babies in the open. Maintain your silence lemmings with multi-culti political correctness. At 60% forced conversions begin. Accept the slap that will be given to you when you pay jizya and do it with a smile.

At 80% expect ethnic genocide. Then nearing 100% the West can get the peace they got suckered into by their loony leftists, whacky liberals who would by then either have their throats slit ala Theo Van Gogh who was a leftist, or would have embraced the murderous cult and metastasized into "soldiers of Islam" hunting down their own brethren and kin in a bloodbath of terror. Think that this is not possible in the West? Just recall the French Revolution and the Communist Revolution. And Nazi Germany. Fear is a powerful motivator.

Once Islamicized, then you'd start killing each other in a race to prove oneself more Islamic than your neighbor. Note the terminal Shia-Sunni divide.

To their favor, Russia and China, despite their own penchant for totalitarian control, understand full well the death knell of the cult called Islam and do not resort to this namby pamby so-called political correctness that stymies the West but identifies each threat, confronts it, and snuffs it. Along with India, these two regimes embrace the 21st century and all that is in front of them. On the other hand, the West seems to prefer to slide into suicide through self-hatred, hatred of country, culture, religion and allow themselves to be ushered back to 7th century.

Be warned. The future is clear, if the blind continue to insist on coddling this self-declared enemy.

GETTING ALONG SWIMMINGLY

A SWIMMING POOL CONTROVERSY over in Hackney neighborhood of London is in the news.

I'm only surprised that anyone is surprised by this. This is Islam—gender and religious apartheid in action, and endless, arrogant demands and appropriation of infidel territory. It won't ever stop unless it is stopped by force. Islam knows no limitations except those of "necessity", so the more it is accommodated, the more it will take.

With each passing year, and with greater and greater Muslim immigration, situations like this will become more frequent, and the *community* atmosphere more and more tense.

Islam ALWAYS expropriates. It NEVER reciprocates.

And why, indeed, should it? Why reciprocate to individuals who are seen as utterly worthless subhumans? This situation is the natural and entirely expected result of allowing a bunch of supremacist/chauvinist bile to divide, unopposed, all of mankind into a pure/impure group dichotomy. Furthermore, this view, unfortunately is embraced by both islamist extremists and large numbers of so-called moderates, the wolves in sheep's clothing.

Many on the Left are confused and knocked off-balance because this new form of vicious "Far Right" is not based on the usual, obvious and time-worn criteria, that of skin tone. How easy and straightforward things used to be. And what a hoot to watch hospitable anti-fascist thinkers flounder and flail, incapable, as they are, of extracting the salient points of a chauvinistic and fascistic mind-set, and completely unable, thus, to recognise, stop and effectively rollback the new Naziism. Islam is just National Socialism—kicked up a notch.

It is not 'abrahamaic, it is not 'religion', it is not divinely ordained; it is merely the ongoing expression of a hate-filled, steal-the-loot ideology, as concocted by a murderous, desert brigand. It deserves our contempt, not our respect.

One can either live in a liberal democracy with secular, universal standards (of public accomodation, among all else) or not. Clearly, many soft Leftists think there must be some sort of third way.

THE AL QAEDA READER

Orginally published by Jihad Watch

Given that war, as both Sun Tzu and Mohammed preached, is deception, it behooves us to understand accurately the enemy's motivations and not be fooled by his deceiving propaganda. Yet in the current war against Islamic jihad, the West has stubbornly refused to take seriously what the jihadists tell us, believing instead what Thucydides called the "pretexts" with which an enemy rationalizes his aggression. Osama bin Laden and his theorist Aymin al Zawahiri in particular have provided us with numerous texts outlining the Islamic foundations of their war against the West. A few of these pronouncements and manifestoes have long been available, but now thanks to Raymond Ibrahim's The Al Qaeda Reader, writings previously unavailable in English can be studied and analyzed. Such study will provide powerful evidence that contrary to the deceptions of apologists and the naïve delusions of some Westerners, the bases of the jihadists' actions lie squarely within Islamic tradition, not in the alleged Western crimes against Islam.

Fluent in Arabic and trained as a historian in the ancient Middle East, Ibrahim is currently a technician in the Library of Congress' Near East Section, where he discovered al Qaeda documents that had not been translated into English. He has organized these writings into two sections: theology, writings intended for fellow Muslims that ground al Qaeda's war against the West in the traditional Islamic doctrine of jihad; and propaganda, writings meant for Westerners that cast bin Laden's war as a just response to the depredations of Western powers.

The documents in the first section make a sustained, coherent argument for offensive jihad based on the Koran, the Hadith (the traditions of the words and deeds of Mohammed), and the Ulema (past and present scholars of Islam). Indeed, as Ibrahim notes, "Zawahiri's writings especially are grounded in Islam's roots of jurisprudence; in fact, of the many thousands of words translated here from his three treatises, well more than half are direct quotations from the Koran the Sunna [words, habits, and practices] of Mohammed, and the consensus and conclusions of the Ulema." This extensive grounding weakens the "highjacking" charge apologists use to explain Islamic jihad. On the contrary, al Qaeda's arguments are unexceptionally traditional—which is why, of course, millions of Muslims accept them.

In these writings addressed to fellow Muslims, bin Laden and Zawahiri argue against the notion of "moderate" Islam; the compatibility of Sharia (laws governing Islamic society) with democracy; the idea of accommodation with the enemy; and the prohibition against killing women and children. In other words, they meticulously attack as distortions of Islam all the popular assertions about Islam's nature promulgated by apologists, Westernized Muslims, and even many Christians. As bin Laden himself writes in "Moderate Islam Is a Prostration to the West"—a letter written to the Saudi theologians who in 2002 publicly advocated coexistence with the West—such moderation necessitates the adoption of Western values: "They [the Saudi theologians] first acknowledge their [Westerners'] values and ideologies in their entirety, while shying away from evoking the truth valued by the Religion [Islam] and its foundations."

Even the notion of "co-existence" is a Western idea contrary to Islam: "As if one of the foundations of our religion is how to coexist with infidels!" Quite the contrary: the traditions and foundations of Islam urge believers to "wage war against the infidels and the hypocrites, and be ruthless against them" (Koran 66:9), a verse Zawahiri quotes along with the commentary of al Qurtubi, 13th-century author of a 20-volume exegesis of the Koran: "There is but one theme—and that is zeal for the religion of Allah. He commands the waging of Jihad against the infidel by use of sword, sound sermons, and the summons to Allah."

So too with other Western notions such as tolerance and "dialogue," which bin Laden correctly asserts are "built on Western conceptions, which themselves rest upon the most loathsome, secular principles." Indeed, bin Laden has a strong case, for he appeals for evidence to the life and practices of Mohammed and his companions—along with the Koran the Muslim's guide to every aspect of life—and asks sarcastically, "What evidence is there for Muslims for this [dialogue and shared understanding]? What did the Prophet, the companions after him, and the righteous forebears do? Did they wage jihad against the infidels, attacking them all over the earth, in order to place them under the suzerainty of Islam in great humility and submission? Or did they send messages to discover 'shared understandings' between themselves and the infidels in order that they may reach an understanding whereby universal peace, security, and natural relations would spread—in such a satanic manner as this?"

History shows that bin Laden has the better understanding of Islam than do Western apologists; as Ibrahim summarizes the argument, "'radical' Islam is Islam—without exception." In this same vein, Zawahiri argues in his "Loyalty and Enmity" that the only relationship one can have with the infidel is enmity. Zawahiri buttresses this argument with numerous quotations from Islamic theology, the most important coming from the Koran 60:4: "'We disown you and the idols which you worship besides Allah. We renounce you: enmity and hate shall reign between us until you believe in Allah alone.'" On this authority comes the necessity to wage jihad against the infidel.

Perhaps the most important document in Ibrahim's collection is Zawahiri's "Jihad, Martyrdom, and the Killing of Innocents." For years, we have been told that terrorism is un-Islamic because Islam forbids suicide and the killing of non-combatants. Zawahiri, however, teases out from Islamic tradition a perfectly rational and coherent argument in support of terrorism and suicide bombings.

Zawahiri starts by repeating Islam's acceptance of deception in war as justified, thus legitimizing suicide bombings, which are deceptive by nature. Next, he builds his argument on selected hadiths, which as Ibrahim notes requires some interpretive stretching. Zawahiri gets around this difficulty by resorting to analogy, "a legitimate tool of Islamic jurisprudence," as Ibrahim reminds us. Zawahiri focuses on intention, why the Muslim kills himself, not who kills him: "Thus the deciding factor in all these situations is one and the same: the intention—is it to service Islam [martyrdom] or is it out of depression and [despair]?"

As for killing women and children, Mohammed himself provides a precedent during the siege of Ta'if, where he used catapults. The Prophet's response to the question of killing women and children, which of course catapult missiles would do perforce, was "They [women and children] are from among them [infidels]." Again, the ultimate intention is the key: referring to al Shafi' and the Hanbalis, two schools of Islamic jurisprudence, Zawahiri argues that it is permissible "to bombard the idolators even if Muslims and those who are cautioned against killing are intermingled with them as long as there is a need or an obligation for Muslims to do so, or if not striking leads to a delay of the jihad."

Zawahiri's reasoning in defense of suicide bombing may be ultimately unconvincing to many Muslims, or unsustainable by more careful exegesis. But the mere fact that such a case can be made—something impossible to do in the Christian, or Hebraic, or Hindu, or Buddhist traditions—and that millions of faithful Muslims accept the case, speaks volumes about the "religion of peace."

These leftist bromides appear over and over in subsequent speeches and manifestoes, and testify to bin Laden's shrewd recognition of the West's Achilles heel: the appeasing proclivities of its elite intellectuals who, riddled with self-loathing guilt, are incapable of defending their way of life and its highest goods.

The Al Qaeda Reader, simply by letting our enemies speak in their own voices, explodes the popular delusion that Western crimes and policies are responsible for the "distortion" of Islam that al Qaeda represents. As Ibrahim writes, "This volume of translations, taken as whole, prove once and for all that, despite the propaganda of Al Qaeda and its [global] sympathizers, Radical Islam's war with the West is not finite and limited to political grievances—real or imagined—but is existential, transcending time and space and deeply rooted in faith."

This means that the fight will be long and hard, that leaving Iraq or creating a Palestinian state will not buy peace, and that the side that accurately understands its enemy and has confidence in its own beliefs will ultimately triumph. Thanks to Raymond Ibrahim's The Al Qaeda Reader, we have the means for achieving that understanding.

THE PROVERBIAL DEAL WITH THE DEVIL

Everyday as the sheets are continually pulled back a bit more on the political bedfellows in the West, I am flummoxed by the realization that this twisted alliance of Leftists and Islamists is hardly puzzling at all. But as some of us who are standing up against this alliance have realized they can not maintain their ties indefinitely and will come to blows at some point.

The saying...

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is surely undergoing modification in this case to "the enemy of my greater enemy is my friend until they help me defeat my greater enemy, then this weak friend can be disposed of".

The greatest threat to the Islam takeover is Judeo-Christian traditionalists in power, and Leftists are the idealogical enemy native to the West. Thus, Islamic interests generate taquiyya, and use these frothing idealists in alliance to attack the Judeo-Christian powerbase.

These Leftists making the proverbial deal with the devil in their mutual hatred of anything Judeo-Christian with Islam don't have a clue obviously to the true nature and history of Islam, but a quick litmus test would show that these willing partners to our enemies are infidels just like the rest of us and are destined to the same fate as any other resister under sharia.

BEATING TO DIFFERENT DRUMS

From a Jihad Watch poster named Jimmy the Dhimmi:

The more the “Muslim world” acts like animals, the more they are treated like animals - which is exactly what they want. It is an exploitation of what Bruce Thorton calls “Third-worldism” that is prevalent amongst the western left. It is the perception that exotic, dark-skinned denizens of impoverished countries are like animals in a nature documentary. They are "Noble Savages;" don’t disturb them in their natural habitat or they might bite you.

It is like that filmaker who was eaten by bears. No one blames the bears because they are mere beasts whos behavior is governed by instinct. In fact, the filmaker was to blame because of his deliberate agitation. So it is amongst elite, academically trained, liberals and their so called expertise in human sociology. The weaker socio-economic classes in society have been denied too much wealth and education to fully understand the nuances of moderation and self-discipline. Like starving dingos snatching babies, the oppressed proletariat will often lash out unreasonably at their masters in despiration. But of course the oppressor’s behavior is the "root cause."

To the Left, even “moderate muslims” are what Tim Blair refers to as “terrorist forming insects,” who can only react to stimuli and will metamorphasize into bloodthirsty terrorists because of some offense that we have done to them, like the war in Iraq, support for Israel, drawing cartoons, or knighting Salman Rushdie.

This childish vision of humanity is exactly what Muslim radicals want, because the solution propsed by liberal elites becomes that of more capitulation to their demands—creeping sharia law and the cessation of the persecution of jihadists, which will enable the eventual Muslim Hegemony they seek. It is like demanding the stoppage of suburban sprawl to protect the habitat of some endangered species - one that is higher than you on the food chain and will unrepentantly eat you at the first chance they get. Even womens rights activists avoid adressing issues like the burqa, wife beating, and female genital mutilation in the muslim world in fear of stimulating the wild beast of Islam with western ethnocentrism.

The problem is, of course, that Mulsims as well as every other “third worlder,” are human beings. They have the same rights and responsibilities of everyone else, and therefore, their actions must be judged with the same universal standard that the left places on white people and Jews.

THE EMPEROR'S NEW AXIS

While the Left generally agrees with the following report, the Right vomits. And I just cringe...

TEHRAN (Reuters) - The commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Sunday the United States, Britain and Israel were an "axis of evil" trying to drive a wedge between Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims. President Bush originally labeled Iran, North Korea and Iraq—before U.S. troops invaded—as part of an "axis of evil." Washington accuses Iran of backing terrorism and trying to build atomic bombs, charges Tehran denies.

"America, Britain and the Zionist regime (Israel) are an axis of evil against the Islamic world and the whole of humanity," Guards Commander-in-Chief Yahya Rahim Safavi was quoted as saying by Iran's student news agency ISNA.

"They are trying to make enmity among Islamic countries and to make divisions among Shi'ites and Sunnis," he said.

He was echoing comments by other Iranian officials who have accused Washington of stoking sectarian tensions in Iraq where the majority of Iraqis are Shi'ite Muslims, like most Iranians. Washington blames Iran for fuelling violence in Iraq.

"Our powerful country does not worry about American and Zionist regime threats and in case of any kind of attack by intruders, we are able to defeat them," he added.

Well, okay. Read this if you want agreement in ends, if not means. And characterizations and caricatures? I think the sticks and stones nursery rhyme a propos.