sometimes you got to laugh, rockwood helps.

"History does not long entrust the care
of freedom to the weak or the timid."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
(ive noticed because I tend to include a lot of photos, a tendency for my blog to sometimes need to be loaded more than once to get all the graphics to show.)

"the clear & present danger" presented by islamo supremacists, radical islam and what it wants.

We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value. It has no sanctity.
-Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, head of the al Muhajiroun group in London.

Asked about his comments that he wanted to have the banner of Islam at 10 Downing Street, Muhammad said, "Yes, it's my dream. I believe one day that is going to happen. Because this is my country, I like living here."

Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily:"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

"Muslim institutions, schools and economic power should be strengthened in America. Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver themessage of Islam ...... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

Omar Ahmad Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

become aware find out about cair

Daniel Pipes has been researching Islam for the past three and a half decades. He directs the Middle East Forum - a Philadelphia think tank. Among his twelve books, four focus on Islam. In 2003, President Bush appointed him to the board of the U.S. Institute of Peace.
Pipes on islamofascists~~~ "militant Muslims are at war with America, not because of what America did, but because Islamists perceive themselves as being in a long-term conflict with the values of the West.
Excerpted from Arab & Iranian telecasts in March & April of this year. Available & thoughtfully subtitled by the indispensable MEMRI.
[suicide attacks] carried out by boys and girls… these redeem self-confidence and hope… because a nation that does not excel at the industry of death does not deserve life.
"The Muslim Students' Association on american campuses ~~
Queensborough Community College in New York in March 2003 "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."

Islamic fanaticism was not created by anything that we have done


Goodbye my Love,
I will carry Your memory within me,
as I await the travail of time.
Which I must cross,
before I will touch your face again.
resting in the warmth of your soul,
together again.

Friday, February 27, 2004


Richard Corliss reviews the "reviewers" of mel and his movie, they come up lacking.

Holy Hypocrisies

The media take its moral outrage out of mothballs to attack Mel Gibson’s Jesus movie

Friday, Feb. 27, 2004

Liberals—and being a member of the media, I of course count myself among them—can be a pretty funny bunch. When we are sympathetic to a controversial work of pop culture, we invoke the artist’s right to create in an climate of total freedom, whatever feelings of outrage the work may stoke among the ignorati. (That is: other people.) When we disapprove, we talk about his responsibility to the sensitivities and sensibilities of good people. (That is: us.) So, in the aesthetico-religious sphere, we defend Martin Scorsese’s “The Last Temptation of Christ,” which portrays Jesus as a human who slowly learns he’s divine, and Kevin Smith’s “Dogma,” a raw comedy about an abortion-clinic worker who is a lineal descendant of Jesus. Anyway, I defended these films in TIME, and I took at face value the testimony of Scorsese, who once contemplated entering the priesthood, and Smith, who describes himself as a devout Catholic, that their films were acts of faith.

The latest film of faith, by the movie industry’s other Church-going Catholic, Mel Gibson, has received a frostier, more fulminating response. Critics of the film—and I don’t mean film critics— haven’t been content with saying they hate the film. Actually, it would be hard for them to do that, since most of them hadn’t seen it when they spouted off. (Liberals used to deride those religious conservatives who organized protests of films they hadn’t yet seen.) Instead, they wrap their bludgeons in Scripture, or historical citations, or obscure pronouncements from a religious hierarchy, or dark threats of the harm a movie can do. Some of them seem to have have a cell-phone connection to the Throne of Heaven.

God spoke to Andy Rooney; he (Rooney) told us so on “60 Minutes” this week. The Almighty roused Mr. Eyebrows from the slumber of the senescent and confided, “Mel is a real nut case. What in the world was I thinking when I created him? Listen, we all make mistakes.” Then Rooney had a question of his own for Gibson: “How many million dollars does it look as if you're going to make off the crucifixion of Christ?”

As Bart Simpson would say, that’s funny for so many reasons. Only a few weeks ago, movie insiders were confidently predicting that Gibson would lose his hairshirt over this movie—the $30 million of his own money it took to produce, plus another bundle for prints and advertising. Now that the film has registered the highest opening-day midweek gross of any non-sequel in North American box office history, Gibson’s supposed to be a panderer, pimping Christ’s suffering to audiences who didn’t realize they needed to see their personal Redeemer get scourged for the longer part of two hours. You tell me, Andy: How many millions did Cecil B. DeMille make off his silent-film smash “The King of Kings”? How many billions do the movie and TV moguls make each year portraying, in a manner that doesn’t even attempt to be edifying, human suffering, mutilation and humiliation—for cheap thrills or cheaper laughs?

On Wednesday, PBS’ Charlie Rose convened a panel of savants to hash out the controversy of the film’s purported anti-Semitism and Gibson’s provocative and defensive public statements. A hash some of them made of it. Leading the attack, Vanity Fair’s Christopher Hitchens appropriated rhetorical tactics employed by both political fringes. Like some segments of the Christian right when “Last Temptation” and “Dogma” came out, he called for a boycott of a film he apparently had not seen. And he exhumed that favorite old pejorative of the Bolsheviks, fascist: he said the movie is “quite distinctly fascist in intention,” adding that it is “an incitement to sadomasochism, in the less attractive sense of the word.” Hitchens let viewers wonder for a moment which kind he preferred, then clarified his definition: the film, he insisted, is “an appeal to the gay Christian sadomasochistic niche market.” That must explain the movie’s $23 million opening day. Pretty big niche.

the rest is pretty good.


Wednesday, February 25, 2004


Lgf had this from from the village voice

Senator Covered Up Evidence of P.O.W.'s Left Behind

When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A.
by Sydney H. Schanberg
February 24th, 2004 1:00 PM

Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners—perhaps hundreds—were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.

The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried out this subterfuge a little over a decade ago— shredding documents, suppressing testimony, and sanitizing the committee’s final report—when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs.

Over the years, an abundance of evidence had come to light that the North Vietnamese, while returning 591 U.S. prisoners of war after the treaty signing, had held back many others as future bargaining chips for the $4 billion or more in war reparations that the Nixon administration had pledged. Hanoi didn’t trust Washington to fulfill its pro-mise without pressure. Similarly, Washington didn’t trust Hanoi to return all the prisoners and carry out all the treaty provisions. The mistrust on both sides was merited. Hanoi held back prisoners and the U.S. provided no reconstruction funds.

The stated purpose of the special Senate committee—which convened in mid 1991 and concluded in January 1993—was to investigate the evidence about prisoners who were never returned and find out what happened to the missing men. Committee chair Kerry’s larger and different goal, though never stated publicly, emerged over time: He wanted to clear a path to normalization of relations with Hanoi. In any other context, that would have been an honorable goal. But getting at the truth of the unaccounted for P.O.W.’s and M.I.A.’s (Missing In Action) was the main obstacle to normalization—and therefore in conflict with his real intent and plan of action.

........What did Kerry do in furtherance of the cover-up? An overview would include the following: He allied himself with those carrying it out by treating the Pentagon and other prisoner debunkers as partners in the investigation instead of the targets they were supposed to be. In short, he did their bidding. When Defense Department officials were coming to testify, Kerry would have his staff director, Frances Zwenig, meet with them to "script" the hearings—as detailed in an internal Zwenig memo leaked by others. Zwenig also advised North Vietnamese officials on how to state their case. Further, Kerry never pushed or put up a fight to get key government documents unclassified; he just rolled over, no matter how obvious it was that the documents contained confirming data about prisoners. Moreover, after promising to turn over all committee records to the National Archives when the panel concluded its work, the senator destroyed crucial intelligence information the staff had gathered—to to keep the documents from becoming public.

thiers much more and it is damning. kerry is an internationalist not a patriot. and he is not fit to be president. we do not need another president like clinton who puts everyone but americans first. we need a president who will take his oath to protect and serve america seriously not as a formality of taking office.


Tuesday, February 24, 2004


many of the weapons that we have used to win our fight against the terror regimes of afghanistan and iraq, and bring our boys and girls home alive were proudly put on the chopping block by senator kerry the extremist liberal senator who has allways had a problem with america having any kind of advanced ability to wage war.

citizen smash has Photocopies of Kerry's 1984 Senate campaign flyer and kerry proudly details his fight to disarm america to his constituents.

this from citizen smash:

many of the programs that Kerry would have canceled have become mainstays of our modern military, and helped us to win stunning victories in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The AEGIS cruisers (and the later class of destroyers based on the same technology) are now the backbone of the US Navy. The AH-64 Apache is the Army’s front-line attack helicopter. Tomahawk missiles have been used so frequently that the manufacturer often has trouble keeping up with demand.

What is particularly troubling, however, is that Kerry would have canceled production of both the F-14 and the F-15 in 1984. At the time, these were the front line Navy and Air Force jet fighters. The F-16 was too small and short-range to provide much cover. The F-18 was not yet in full production, and the F-4s had mostly been scrapped. He also proposed cutting the Patriot Air Defense system -- Kerry would have left our troops on the ground completely defenseless from aerial attack by any nation with the most rudimentary air strike capability.

definately worth looking at.


Monday, February 23, 2004

aaahhhh the beeb ever hard at work white washing for despotic regimes...... this info trickling in about unrest in iran over being under the thumbs of the mullahs

What the BBC Didn't Report from Iran Elections

February 23, 2004
Iran va Jahan
Iran va Jahan Network

Following the election sham in the Islamic Republic, several towns and cities in Iran have become unstable and widespread clashes are reported from them.

In Dehdasht (old name Belad-Shapoor) between 2 to 9 people are reported to have been killed in the clashes. People started protesting after the cheating just became too brazen.

In Firoozabad, Fars, people clashed with the Law Enforcement Forces when a cleric by the name of Yunesi-Sarcheshmeyi was declared the winner. One conscript soldier is reported killed. It is not certain whether he was on the side of the people or against them. The people have set fire to banks and all shops are shut.

In Miando-ab, West Azerbijan, some of the cheaters have publicly confessed how they were taught by a cleric to remove the voting stamp from their ID cards and vote again.

Marivan is still reported to be tense after several days. People have beaten up one of the candidates by the name of Ali Karimi, after he was seen in public.

In Izeh, the outgoing MP who clashed with the bodyguards of a judiciary official after pointing out the cheatings, is said to have died after going into a coma as a result of his injuries.

In Bam, the quake victims have protested at their ongoing conditions by gathering in Sardaran-shahid Square.

Today in Isfahan, more than 25000 people in three locations, Nikbakht Court, AhmadAbad Square, and in front of the provincial government building have gathered after a saving account was declared bankrupt one day after the elections. Even though the authorities knew about the bankruptcy before the elections. Several banks have been attacked and had their windows broken.

In Malekan in East Azerbijan, people were told that 45000 are eligible to vote, yet the number of declared votes for candidates totalled 50000! Everyone including children and old people have poured into the streets of Malekan and there is non-stop running battles with the Law Enforcement Forces.

and more..

Deadly clashes rocked, today, Izeh located in southern Iran, as the regime's security forces entered in action in order to smash the local popular rally against the evident fraud in the sham elections.

Special heliported troops were sent from Ahwaz to back the local Bassij force which was unable to block the protesters from occupying several official buildings. Noise of heavy shoutings were heard in several areas as especially fire was open from sky against the demonstrators.

Several demonstrators, including Abbas Moossavi a local banned candidate who had contested the ballots, have been killed so far and tens of others are injured.

Angry crowd helped by masked freedom fighters have destroyed several patrols and take over the arms and ammunitions kept in the local Bassij center.

A chase and run guerilla war is taking place and the situation has been reported as chaotic while most roads have been blocked.


Sunday, February 22, 2004

propaganda mills trying to pump out ideologues instead of people with critical thinking skills.....

Why Are Universities Dominated by the Left?

By Edward Feser

The hegemony of the Left over the universities is so overwhelming that not even Leftists deny it. Whether the institution is public or private, a community college or an Ivy League campus, you can with absolute confidence predict that the curriculum will be suffused with themes such as:

capitalism is inherently unjust, dehumanizing, and impoverishing;

socialism, whatever its practical failures, is motivated by the highest ideals and that its luminaries -- especially Marx -- have much to teach us;

globalization hurts the poor of the Third World;

natural resources are being depleted at an alarming rate and that human industrial activity is an ever-increasing threat to "the environment";

most if not all psychological and behavioral differences between men and women are "socially constructed" and that male-female differences in income, representation in various professions, and the like are mostly the result of "sexism";

the pathologies of the underclass in the United States are due to racism and that the pathologies of the Third World are due to the lingering effects of colonialism;

Western civilization is uniquely oppressive, especially to women and "people of color," and that its products are spiritually inferior to those of non-Western cultures;

traditional religious belief, especially of the Christian sort, rests on ignorance of modern scientific advances, cannot today be rationally justified, and persists on nothing more than wishful thinking;

traditional moral scruples, especially regarding sex, also rest on superstition and ignorance and have no rational justification; and so on and on.

Every single one of these claims is, in my view, false; in some cases demonstrably so. At any rate, in every case the opposite point of view can be, and has been, defended powerfully by thinkers as worthy as any the Left can muster. Yet you will, in the modern university, rarely hear these assertions seriously challenged. Each one is usually treated either as so obvious that any opposing view can be readily dismissed as motivated by ignorance or vested interest, or as so obvious that there is no opposing view worth the trouble of dismissing in the first place. The great thinkers of the past who defended such opposing views are treated as archaic museum pieces, silly caricatures of their arguments trotted out only to be ridiculed; thinkers of the present who defend them are, when not ignored entirely, also presented in cartoonish form before being consigned to the memory hole.
Should you visit a modern university campus, you will encounter the "diversity" mantra so mind-numbingly often you will want to scream. What you will not encounter is a kind of diversity that matters most in the academic context: diversity of thought

WOW talk about throwing out the constitution and winging it based on your own social engineering beliefs!!! since when is it the governments job to advance one religion over any other and suppress some for the goal of "diversity"???? ITS NOT! IT IS PATENTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!

Federal Judge Upholds City’s Ban of Christian Nativity in New York City Public Schools as a Means of Achieving “Parity”
Thu, Feb 19, 2004

A New York Federal Judge ruled Wednesday that it is constitutionally permissible for the New York City Department of Education to ban the display of the Christian Nativity during Christmas, while permitting the display of the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent during Hanukkah and Ramadan. The legal challenge to this policy was brought by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of Ms. Andrea Skoros and her two children, who attend public elementary schools in New York. Ms. Skoros and her children are devout Catholics.
The judge held it was constitutionally permissible for the City to promote non-Christian displays over Christian ones as a way to reduce what he perceived to be a dominance of Christian images during the winter holiday season. According to the opinion, the holiday displays in question were to be reviewed as perceived by children, “but not one hyper-sensitive Catholic child.”

The judge noted that this country “is still by and large Christian.” Therefore, he stated, “Without a diversity policy a winter holiday display in New York City’s public schools would be dominated by images representative of Christmas, as is true in most residential and commercial areas of the City. Efforts to inject variety into the winter holiday season have had the beneficial consequence of making both Chanukah and Ramadan more familiar to the public. . . . It is clear that the [City’s] policy is simply an attempt to diversify the season and provide non-Christian holidays with parity in the school-sponsored holiday displays.”

According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, “This federal judge has explicitly stated what Christians have feared for a long time: courts consider discrimination against Christians as legitimate because they are in the majority. Thus, in the name of ‘diversity,’ and ‘parity’ for non-Christian religions, judges find it constitutionally permissible to discriminate against Christians. Our Founding Fathers would no doubt be surprised by this conclusion.”

According to the judge, the City’s policy is permissible because it merely provides “parity” for other religions, such as Judaism and Islam. The judge stated, “The [City’s] holiday display policy is valid in its purpose and on its face as a neutral accommodation of the multiculturalism of New York city’s public school children which protects minority views and adequately safeguards a diversity of religious and non-religious beliefs.”



Saturday, February 21, 2004

the howling wolves of the media and thier open hatred of christianity disected in this opinion peice about Mel Gibson at RANDOM OBSERVATIONS

She's actually saying Mel Gibson can be -- not merely questioned, but abused -- because they thought he was this mainstream movie star, with a drug habit, just like everyone else, and suddenly the guy's 'got religion' and wants to do a movie on Jesus. "He snuck up on the media!" (In other words, they never would have let him become popular if they'd known he would eventually become a serious Christian.)

And Gibson has an agenda? Of course. So does every filmmaker! (Not to mention reporter, apparently.) Scorcese had an agenda. Robbins and Sarandon are rather well-known for their agendas. And let's not forget the vast scientology crowd: Tom Cruise, Nichole Kiddman (formerly), Kristie Alley, Travolta, etc, etc, etc. Even if it's just making money, every filmmaker has an agenda.

So it's clearly not that Gibson has an agenda per se -- or all these other people would get flack -- but it's obviously the specific agenda which is the problem.

Which justifies, according to Bernhart's arguments, abuse.

Look, I'm not shocked there's controversy. As Bernhart suggests, we should (sadly?) expect the story of Jesus to be controversial today, especially when it's told along traditional lines. Quite true!

But what's shocking is that we have this representative from the press in front of us, who wasn't even involved in another publication's distortions, yet who is also justifying telling less than half the story, and making allegations which are clearly untrue because she doesn't like his faith!

As if any disagreement could justify such a blatant lapse of journalistic integrity.

But clearly Bernhart sees his faith which as being the issue, plain and simple. She invokes it time and again: "Gibson has come out!" "he's a traditionalist!" "he snuck up on us!" "he built a church!" "this is his message!" In contrast to Scorcese's novel-based script, "he's using scriptures" and "select parts of the New Testament". (As if we could make a movie containing all of it.) And clearly Gibson's faith is causus belli to chuck away the rulebook of journalistic ethics.

In other words, this is a war, plain and simple. No holds barred.

why? because pure islamic law is incompatable with a just and democratic free society

Iraq’s U.S. administrator suggested Monday he would block any move by Iraqi leaders to make Islamic law the backbone of an interim constitution, which women’s groups fear could threaten their rights.
During a visit to a women’s center in Karbala, administrator L Paul Bremer said the current draft of the interim constitution, due to take effect at the end of this month, would make Islam the state religion and “a source of inspiration for the law” - but not the main source for that law.
However, Mohsen Abdel-Hamid, the current president of the Iraqi Governing Council and a Sunni Muslim hard-liner, has proposed making Islamic law the “principal basis” of legislation.
Iraqi women’s groups fear that could cost them the rights they hold under Iraq’s longtime secular system, especially in such areas as divorce, child support and inheritance.
Bremer was asked what would happen if Iraqi leaders wrote into the interim charter that Islamic sharia law is the principal basis of legislation. “Our position is clear,” Bremer replied. “It can’t be law until I sign it.”
Bremer must sign all measures passed by the 25-member council before they can become law. Iraq’s powerful Shiite clergy, however, wants the interim constitution to be approved by an elected legislature. Under U.S. plans, a permanent constitution would not be drawn up and voted on by the Iraqi people until 2005.
Under most interpretations of Islamic law, women’s rights to seek divorce are strictly limited and they only receive half the inheritance of men. Islamic law also allows for polygamy and often permits marriage of girls at a younger age than does secular law.

some editorial background by EuroPundits sheds light on europe. which helps explain why eurotrash are trying to railroad israel on the security fence.


Whether out of classic anti-Semitism or just because they're plain stupid, the Europeans do believe that were the US to allow Israel to be dismantled, there wouldn't ever more be any kind of problem anywhere with Arabs or Muslims in the whole world.
The Arabs after all, just like us, the Europeans, and unlike the US, understand clearly who the Jews are.
Thus, America endangers the whole world by shielding the Jews from their much deserved punishment.
And in the end, what is it they should be punished for? For perpetrating genocide against Arabs and/or Muslisms? Hardly.
Though that's what Europe says, the continent couldn't care less. The problem's not who is being killed, but who's doing the killing, and that is the Jews.

And it is also irrelevant if those Israel kills are few, mainly combatant and have died in combat, because if you allow a Jew to get as arrogant as to feel entlited to kill anyone, even his potential murderer or to act in self defense, then where will the world get? Jews defending themselves and, worse, much worse, doing it successfully, are, in European (and Arab) eyes, the utmost form of arrogance: actually the world turned upside down, something "contram natura". Who those damn Jews think they are after all? And since the Americans either don't much care or do even back Jewish arrogance, then they deserve being attacked too (as in 9/11)

2 US congressmen to protest ICJ hearing on Israeli barrier

WASHINGTON: Two US congressmen plan to be in The Hague next week to protest the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) decision to rule on the legality of an Israeli fence through the occupied West Bank.

Representatives Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat, and Ohio Republican Steve Chabot, a Republican, will be in Holland from Sunday to Tuesday to monitor the court’s session on the barrier, which Israel says is needed to fend off Palestinian suicide attacks. Wexler and Chabot are members of the House International Relations Committee.

“I am deeply concerned that the International Court of Justice is being hijacked by nations and groups for political purposes rather than for the good of both Israelis and Palestinians,” Wexler said in a written statement.

Wexler said the ICJ’s decision to rule on the barrier hurts the so-called roadmap for peace proposed by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia.

“The ICJ’s ill-advised involvement in this sensitive political issue runs contrary to the goals of the Quartet-led Roadmap - which has been endorsed by the UN Security Council, UN General Assembly, Israel and the Palestinian Authority — to bring both parties back to the negotiating table,” he said. —AFP

ya know,.... the "international court is an interesting phenomena, its kinda like it apeared out of no where. kinda like one day they just said "we are the International Court of Justice, everyone will now listen to us" kinda like I declared myself the International Court of Justice. and I see no equal treatment in this. it is a political kangaroo court. evidenced by these "security fences" that are not being ruled on. because hey whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

and more on the kangaroo court and the evil international interests that are in play to hurt israel~~~

MEANWHILE, the U.N. General Assembly, in the eyes of many thoughtful Israelis, has played into the hands of the extremists. When it placed the matter before the International Court of Justice, the General Assembly took the issue away from the Israeli and Palestinian negotiators charged with it under several U.N. Security Council Resolutions and agreements among the parties, including the U.S.-backed "road map." According to Daniel Taub, director of the General Legal Division at Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "there have been repeated attempts by Palestinians and the Arab group to refer issues in the conflict between us to international forums and specifically the International Court of Justice as part of a general campaign to internationalize the issues." In Taub's view, no good can come of this. In the first place, he argues, the court does not have jurisdiction: No dispute between states is supposed to come before the court without the consent of both parties. Moreover, the referral of the question of the legality of the fence shows bad faith, because the General Assembly had already passed a resolution condemning the fence as illegal.

Sitting across from Taub in his cramped office in Jerusalem, I ask him about a report of the U.N. secretary general summarizing the legal positions of the "Government of Israel" and the "Palestine Liberation Organization." Taub bristles. He tells me that the report badly misstates the Israeli legal position. Then, indignant, he reads me a passage indicating that there should be no tradeoffs between Israeli security and Palestinian freedom, that Israel must desist from any undertakings that infringe Palestinian rights or cause them hardships, even undertakings that Israel has concluded are necessary to defend itself from Palestinian acts of war.

More serious perhaps is the failure of the dossier put together by the United Nations to serve as the basis for the court's work to so much as mention Palestinian terror. A Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement that summarizes the legal position Israel adopted in its 130-page brief to the court (still confidential under court rules) minces no words:

Neither the question referred to the Court, nor the 20-paragraph General Assembly resolution referring it, makes any reference--not a single word--to the ongoing terrorism directed daily against Israel and its citizens. Similarly the extensive dossier of 88 documents on the question provided to the Court by the United Nations is, staggeringly, totally silent on the subject of Palestinian terrorist attacks. It is devoid of any of the United Nations resolutions condemning terrorism, as well as Israel's letters to the Secretary General detailing the terror attacks it has faced.

And this silence, Israel contends, is a fatal flaw:

It is inconceivable that the International Court of Justice should be requested to give an Advisory Opinion on the issue of Israel's security fence at the behest of the very terrorist organization which has been actively behind many of the murderous attacks which have made the fence necessary. It is even more inconceivable that the request should make no reference at all to the brutal reality of terrorism faced by Israel.


Tuesday, February 17, 2004

want to get an understanding of how noam chumpsky the rat bastard gained exalted leftist status? and has snookered so many with so little? how the naked king has convinced so many of the wealth of his finery?

read it here, at Amaravati: Abode of Amritas HOW NOAM BECAME NUMBER ONE

basically its an ivory tower pyramid scheme power scam , sorta like fucking amway!

aaah pure as the driven snow they are..... why whats a little blood money from an evil mass murderer, when your goal is so much loftier....

......keeping said murderer in power. and yourself too.

Iraq oil cash funded anti war MPs' campaigns

Businessmen handed on money illicitly siphoned from UN deals to pressure groups run by George Galloway and Tam Dalyell

David Leigh and David Pallister
Tuesday February 17, 2004
The Guardian

Money illicitly siphoned from the UN oil-for-food programme by Saddam Hussein was used to finance anti-sanctions campaigns run by British politicians, according to documents that have surfaced in Baghdad.
Undercover cash from oil deals went to three businessmen who in turn supported pressure groups involving the ex-Labour MP George Galloway, Labour MP Tam Dalyell, and the former Irish premier Albert Reynolds, it is alleged in documents compiled by the oil ministry, which is now under the control of the US occupation regime.

Separately, a dossier from the oil ministry in Baghdad has been handed by the British Foreign Office to Customs and Excise, which has been asked to investigate. They were also referred to the Cabinet Office because of their political sensitivity.

"The government has been given copies of certain documents [from Iraq]," a Foreign Office spokeswoman said yesterday. "They are being passed to the appropriate authorities for consideration."

Two of the three businessmen involved in UK campaigns, Burhan al-Chalabi and Riad al-Tajir, were based in Surrey; the other, Fawwaz Zureikat, a Jordanian entrepreneur, had offices in London.

Mr Chalabi and Mr Zureikat gave money to the Mariam Appeal, run by Mr Galloway, the MP confirmed. Mr Tahir said he ran another anti-sanctions campaign called Friendship Across Borders, which had Mr Dalyell as its official patron and organised visits to Baghdad by supportive politicians.

The three businessmen are alleged to have received money from Saddam via oil allocations. They sold the oil rights on at a profit of more than $1m (about £530,000), in an exploitation by Saddam of loopholes in the UN's then oil-for-food programme.

Mr Tahir agrees he profited from the oil deals. Mr Chalabi refuses to comment. Mr Zureikat confirmed to Agence France Presse in Jordan last week that he had made the oil deals.


Sunday, February 15, 2004

textbook case of projection, anyone open to reality, not propaganda has to admitt that if israel was as bad as this clown says, ......he would allready be dead. charles at LGF had this lovely gem from pali tv. (by the way keep in mind that it was the palistinians who dictated how many arab terrorists were to be released for the isreali bodies and prisoners...

Ahmad Nasser, Secretary of the Palestinian Legislative Council, as interviewed on PATV Feb. 6, 2004:

Nasser: “Israel is not deterred from anything. Israel was established on the basis of theft. Israel, the State of Israel, is the Satan’s offspring, a Satanic offspring. Israel was founded on theft from the first moment. It was founded on the basis of robbery, terror, killing, torture, assassination, death, stealing land and killing people. On this basis, Israel was founded and will continue this way, never able to exist because its [Israel’s] birth was unnatural, a Satanic offspring, and cannot exist among human beings. . . . Only in this way can Israel exist. It is not capable of existing naturally as other nations in the world.”

Woman Interviewer: “The very existence [of Israel] is unnatural, is not logical. The root, the root itself is rotten.”

Nasser: “This state is based on racism, biblical concepts, death, killing and destruction ....”

Nasser (on the exchange of 400 Arab prisoners for one Israeli and three bodies of Israeli soldiers): “. . . We see that Israel is trying to delude the world, and delude the Arabs and the Palestinians psychologically - that one Israeli will be exchanged for a thousand Palestinians. Meaning - Israel is interested in planting among the Palestinian, the Arab or the world the concept of value - the value of a Jew and the value of an Arab. But it is not true...” [Interrupted]

Interviewer: “This concept appears in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that they [the Jews] are at a high level [of existence] and the rest are at a low level.”

Nasser: “. . . It [Israel] does all it can to take as many prisoners of war as it can, for example, 10,000 Arab prisoners in exchange for the release of a hundred [Israeli] prisoners of war. By this, Israel is trying to put a value on an Arab and a value on an Israeli or Jew . . . Israel is an aggressive country, a racist country, an ideologically hostile country, which hates all the goyim, all the foreigners. Israel is a Satanic offspring.”

Ron at LGF put it succinctly

"Israel is an aggressive country, a racist country, an ideologically hostile country, which hates all the goyim, all the foreigners."

Now let's play a little game of substitution ...

Islamic countries are aggressive countries, racist countries, ideologically hostile countries, which hate all the infidels, all the foreigners.

Go back and look at the pictures of 9/11. Go back and look at the pictures of bus bombings. Go back and look at the pictures of the Bali bombing.

Now ask yourself which version of the statement is true.


Thursday, February 12, 2004


rebuttle to the cannard that isreal is an aparthied state. any one who still subscribes to that notion after reading this letter is a fool or a tool.

Dear Ms. Kates,

I think you are a remarkable woman. You are neither an Arab nor a Jew, you do not study the Middle East or any associated subject, and correct me if I am wrong, you have never visited this region.
Therefore I am somewhat astounded at your expertise and to your comments on Israel being an "Apartheid" state.

I have lived in Israel for many years and I would be delighted to take you on a little virtual tour of our country. Let me first give you a couple of minor points. Israel occupies 0.1% of the land mass of the Middle East and it is the only Jewish state, not only in this region, surrounded as we are by 22 Arab states, but in the world.

Let us begin your virtual tour!!

You have already been through immigration at Tel Aviv Airport with your boyfriend, whom we shall call Ken. You will have filled out a visitor's form. This form will not ask you, as it will in many of the countries that surround us, what is your religion, and it will certainly not ask you, as they do in Saudi Arabia, for a "certificate of religion."

The day is Sunday! You will want to attend a church service. No problem in the Apartheid State of Israel. We tolerate and freely allow worship for all religions. This is more than can be said for nearly all of the surrounding 22 Arab nations. In fact many of them would not even have a single church, let alone a synagogue.

After a lovely service, you and Ken would head for a leisurely lunch, maybe at one of the lovely beach front restaurants in Tel Aviv. You would most likely have returned to your hotel and put on a very casual outfit, as fitting the very hot Israeli summers.
This could be a pair of shorts and a tight fitting skimpy t-shirt. No problem in the Apartheid state of Israel. In Israel we allow freedom of dress, especially for women, who are not made to wear bulky long robes, a veil to cover their face, and, wouldn't it be a pity if you had to cover that lovely coiffed hairdo, as you would probably have to in most of the surrounding 22 Arab states.

During lunch Ken could gaze lovingly into your heavily painted eyes, complete with a good application of black mascara. He would be free to lean across and kiss your lips, finely painted with lip liner, 2 shades of burgundy lipstick and gloss. People would probably think you were in love, especially as Ken has proudly displayed a good wine on the table. Public displays of affection and consuming alcohol in the Apartheid state of Israel is nothing unusual and its not even scorned upon. That's more than can be said for most of the surrounding 22 Arab states, where your glossy lips would be considered whorish and alcohol is forbidden. But, Ken being a little flirtatious, pinched one of the young waitresses while you went to reapply your lipstick. It was harmless and luckily for the young girl in the Apartheid State of Israel, her father and 6 brothers will not take her to the family pool in the evening and drown her, as they would in some of the surrounding 22 Arab states.

After lunch you and Ken drive around. You are even allowed to drive. It is not forbidden in Israel. You stumble across a kindergarten. The children are running around and enjoying themselves. They are not made to sit for hours reciting by rote, pages of meaningless text from religious books. Their games are in the sand pit or on the swings. They are not infested with hate or told the only honor to their lives will be in death. In the Apartheid state of Israel we rejoice in life and living. We do not promote murder and violence by brainwashing our children with hatred, as they do in many of the surrounding 22 Arab states.

By the end of the day you and Ken come across a political rally. Many thousands have turned up. In the Apartheid State of Israel, all the citizens--men, women, Jew, Arab and Christian--are free to vote. We are allowed to openly criticize the government and our media, including the T.V. and newspapers, offer, without prejudice, a choice of opinions. Every person has the right to openly agree or condemn the government. This can certainly not be said for most of the surrounding 22 Arab states, ruled as they are by oppressive dictators, where any dissent is met with dire consequences.

Of course, most of the 22 surrounding Arab countries can't offer you a good old-fashioned homicide bombing as a tourist attraction. This can only happen in the apartheid state of Israel, surrounded as we are, by so many hostile countries, determined, as you are to wipe us of the face of the earth. Where else can you get on a crowded bus, often packed with children and come face to face with some poor, plighted Palestinian ghoul who thinks life isn't very jolly, having been fed and brainwashed by evil organizations like Hamas, to believe that the only way forward is to murder innocent people. This dehumanized creature will have been fed on a 24/7 diet of lies and hate incitement, he will have been coaxed with the reward of 72 vestal virgins waiting for him in Paradise. His demonic mother will be dancing in the street waving her $10,000 check.

While Israelis are scraping their dead children off the sidewalks, the Palestinians will be lighting fireworks and dancing in the street, to honor this mass murderer as a hero, often to their children who are being systematically nurtured to be the next generation of mass murderers.

The Apartheid state of Israel. Forgive me, Ms. Kates, but you seem somewhat confused as to the meaning of the word. It usually refers to segregation. It's funny isn't it that a large section of the Jews who live in this apartheid state had to flee for their lives from nearly all of the surrounding 22 Arab states. These countries not only have no tolerance for Jews, they refer to anyone who is not a Moslem as an Infidel and an enemy. I find it somewhat curious that you find nothing "apartheid" about these countries. Maybe you should do a project on how many churches there are in Saudi Arabia. Let me help you - there are none. It would not be tolerated.

I am proud to live in this Apartheid State. In 55 years we have become one of the most technologically advanced nations on this planet, with many innovations that have made Israel a true leader in many fields. It is tragic that we have to live in a region that feels threatened by our achievements. Israel is not an apartheid state and it is appalling that a so-called intelligent and thinking person like you can go around finding feeble excuses for mass murder. Ms. Kates there is no justification, in any society, for getting on a crowded bus, often packed with children, detonating an explosive belt, often packed with nails and shrapnel and destroying innocent lives. This is not a freedom fighter, or a person seeking justice, but a chronically and irreversibly evil human being.

I can only assume that one day in the near future, Ms. Kates, you will chip off that heavy layer of make up and discover your conscience.

As always,


update: I was informed that the information on the specific players in this letter were misidentified to me, I did a search and it was wrong. so ive updeated this post minus the identifiers, the letter still stands alone on its merits in refuting the cannard that israel is an "aparthied" state.

just what the kerry camp needs, jane fonda's support.......

Jane Fonda Defends John Kerry

(Feb. 12) - The publication of an old photo of Jane Fonda and John Kerry at an anti-Vietnam War rally is raising questions about the antiwar activities of the Democratic presidential front-runner.

Kerry, a much decorated Vietnam War veteran, became an antiwar activist after he returned to the United States.

The photograph, taken on Labor Day 1970, shows Fonda at an antiwar rally in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. Kerry, who at the time led a group called Vietnam Veterans Against The War, can be seen in background behind her.

John Kerry is seen behind Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally in 1970.

Kerry's campaign confirmed that he was at the rally and spoke.

But aides stressed that Kerry and Fonda were only acquaintances, and the meeting took place two years before Fonda took a controversial trip behind enemy lines and posed for pictures on a North Vietnam army anti-aircraft gun which prompted her angry detractors to dub her "Hanoi Jane."


Wednesday, February 11, 2004

this cought by James Taranto from From OpinionJournal.com

Best of the Web Today - February 11, 2004

'I'm a Multilateralist'

John Kerry has been trying to make the 2004 campaign about events that occurred 30 years ago. He keeps mentioning his naval service in Vietnam and of late has been implying that President Bush is somehow less than patriotic because he served in the Texas Air National Guard rather than the regular military.

Well, as long as this campaign is about the past, it's fair to make note of Kerry's foreign-policy views back in 1970. (Did we mention he served in Vietnam?) The Harvard Crimson reports that in February of that year, Kerry, then "an obscure underdog in the Democratic Congressional primary," held forth in an interview with the paper:

*** QUOTE ***

"I'm an internationalist," Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

Kerry said he wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care."

*** END QUOTE ***

Thanks to 40-cent-an-hour Cambodian typists hired by the Crimson, the original article is here . It also reveals that Kerry enlisted in the Navy after "he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, [and] the draft board refused." Then the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat by the way served in Vietnam.

The Kerry campaign "declined to comment" on the senator's 1970 remarks, but we hope someone asks him about them in a debate. Judging by his inconsistant attitude toward the liberation of Iraq, it seems he still sympathizes with the idea that the U.N. should dictate U.S. military policy--which in 1970 meant the Soviet Union would have a veto over our foreign policy, and today means France would.


Tuesday, February 10, 2004

Muslim terrorists step up activities in Latin America

By Amir Oren

Muslim terror groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, have recently stepped up their efforts to consolidate their power in distant areas of Latin America, particularly in the triangle of borders of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, say Israeli and American security sources.

The sources in Israel confirmed information provided last week by the deputy chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, Gen. Peter Pace, who told the Armed Forces Committee in the House of Representatives that the area is a center for trade in drugs, weapons, money laundering, forgery, and activity that supports Islamic terror in Latin America.

According to Israeli sources, Hamas and Hezbollah, alongside Al-Qaida and World Jihad groups, are busy training recruits, collecting arms, and gathering intelligence about targets, including Jewish and Israeli targets. They prefer hard-to-reach areas, far from local security and law enforcement agencies, and the decision to conduct activities in Latin America, say Israeli sources, is meant to take the terror front beyond the Lebanon-Israel borders.


Monday, February 09, 2004

from algore the loon, projecting his own betrayal on to the president to the twisted logic of the rest of the left, Mona Charen has an answer. but if you lack logic and reason you better skip it.

A matter of integrity

With David Kay's testimony on the fruitless search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the time has come for an accounting.

In a more reasonable environment, politicians and opinion-makers would absorb the new facts and make the needed reforms. Reasonable people cannot avoid the conclusion that our intelligence agencies were badly mistaken.

But are the Democrats reasonable? Their preposterous interpretation of events has become mainstream. It goes as follows. No stockpiles of WMDs were found in Iraq therefore: a) George W. Bush knew that there were none to be found and b) took the nation to war on false pretenses.

Let's examine the logic. The Democrats claim that Bush wanted war in spite of the fact that there were no WMDs. Why? To put himself in political jeopardy when this fact was discovered? And if he knew that there were no WMDs, why did he speak about them so often and so forcefully? Also, how many times must we remind the Democrats that the president never argued that the threat was "imminent?" He urged, to the contrary, that it would be reckless to wait until a threat was imminent.

But the most amazing thing about the Democrats' argument is its glaring disregard of very recent history. Everyone -- the Democrats, the French, the Republicans, the Clinton administration, the Russians, the United Nations Security Council -- believed that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs. It wasn't disputed by anyone. Here is a small sample of quotations from leading Democrats on the matter:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has 10 times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Clinton, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction program." -- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others, Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Dec. 16, 1998.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sept. 27, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002.


Sunday, February 08, 2004

wretchard at the belmont club covers an article by Ian Buruma describing Occidentalism and its history, as wretchard puts it explaining "why Osama Bin Laden believes we must die not so much for what we have done, but for what we are." wretchard has more links and commentary delving into this.

"... a war against a particular idea of the West, which is neither new nor unique to Islamist extremism. The current jihadis see the West as something less than human, to be destroyed, as though it were a cancer. This idea has historical roots that long precede any form of "U.S. imperialism." Similar hostility, though not always as lethal, has been directed in the past against Britain and France as much as against America. What, then, is the Occidentalist idea of the West? ...

Clearly, the idea of the West as a malign force is not some Eastern or Middle Eastern idea, but has deep roots in European soil. Defining it in historical terms is not a simple matter. Occidentalism was part of the counter-Enlightenment, to be sure, but also of the reaction against industrialization. Some Marxists have been attracted to it, but so, of course, have their enemies on the far right. Occidentalism is a revolt against rationalism (the cold, mechanical West, the machine civilization) and secularism, but also against individualism. European colonialism provoked Occidentalism, and so does global capitalism today. But one can speak of Occidentalism only when the revolt against the West becomes a form of pure destruction, when the West is depicted as less than human, when rebellion means murder.

Occidentalism figuratively takes the view that Original Sin came not upon mankind but exclusively on the men of the West. In the tale, the Occidentals, armed with knowledge of the devil, strode forth to corrupt an Edenic world. In the popular liberal mind, no less than the extremist Islamic one, the pre-Columbian peoples of the world, Islam, China and India included, lived in harmony with both plant and animal under a regime of universal brotherhood until the cursed day when the white man touched their shores, shattering Paradise forever. Only one other malign kindred did the Occidentals find, a race so evil in itself that had not the West come, they would have invented the pestilences of the world on their own: the Jew.

And so Israel, in the eyes of its enemies, is the colonial outpost of "Westoxification." Its material success only added to the Arab sense of historic humiliation."


Friday, February 06, 2004

more signposts of our coming orwellian future.

From James Taranto at OpinionJournal.com

Here's a good rule to follow: When someone on the liberal-left tells you he's for freedom, don't believe him. Somehow when "social liberals" have their way, it quickly turns out that anything that isn't mandatory is forbidden. A case in point: gay rights. Those of us with libertarian impulses agree that government shouldn't prohibit gay sex between consenting adults. We may even be sympathetic to the call for marriagelike benefits for same-sex couples. But we also believe in free speech and thus are quite troubled by stories like this one, from the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.:

*** QUOTE ***

A high school teacher in British Columbia, punished for writing publicly against homosexuality, is not protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the province's Supreme Court has ruled. . . .

In 2002, the British Columbia College of Teachers suspended [Chris] Kempling for one month for "professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a BCCT member."

It had been investigating a complaint received after Kempling wrote a series of letters to his local newspaper between 1997 and 2000 saying homosexuality was wrong.

*** END QUOTE ***

Reuters quotes Justice Ronald Holmes, who wrote the decision: "Discriminatory speech is incompatible with the search for truth."

Even if we accept for the sake of argument the proposition that Kempling's speech was "discriminatory" and false, it is still arrant nonsense to call it "incompatible with the search for truth." The search for truth inevitably entails exposure to many false ideas, some of them obnoxious. The "liberal" agenda Holms advocates is actually a profoundly illiberal one: the imposition by bureaucrats and judges of a preapproved "truth."

life uder the "kerry doctrine will be very safe....... ......for terrorists...

From James Taranto at OpinionJournal.com

The Kerry Doctrine

John Kerry, as we've noted before, thinks that the war on terror isn't really war, but "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation." The New York Times reports from Hamburg, Germany, on an example of the Kerry Doctrine in action:

*** QUOTE ***

A German court on Thursday acquitted a former roommate of Mohamed Atta who was accused of providing support to suicide pilots in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The court cleared Abdelghani Mzoudi, the second suspect to be tried for involvement in the attacks, of accessory to murder and membership in Al Qaeda. . . .

"You are acquitted," said the judge, glancing at the defendant, who was allowed to leave jail in December. "Not because the court is convinced of your innocence, but because the evidence was not enough to convict you." . . .

The acquittal of Mr. Mzoudi is also a setback for the German government, which has asserted that terrorist suspects can be tried in criminal courts rather than in military tribunals, which the United States favor as a venue for many of the suspects it now has in custody.

*** END QUOTE ***

Indeed. Also--let us hope--a setback for Kerry. Predictably enough, the Germans blame America for their decision to let Mzoudi go--specifically, "the Bush administration's reluctance to make captured terrorists available for testimony and to allow prosecutors to make use of intelligence information on the terrorist network." But does anyone doubt the administration is right not to want this information in open court?

Extending to the enemies of civilization the full panoply of due-process protections criminal defendants enjoy--the presumption of innocence, protection from self-incrimination, the right to a lawyer, and so on--makes it harder to gather intelligence and prevent future attacks. Three thousand people died on Sept. 11, but at least Mohamed Atta's civil liberties were never violated. Don't you wish they had been?


Wednesday, February 04, 2004

LGF spotted this and it makes some good points,... if your a rational person, if your part of the loony left dont bother it wont make a dent in your propaganda armour anyway...

The alternative to war was simple: defeat
By Mark Steyn

"I certainly wouldn't want to live under New Labour, but, even so, with so many other available cudgels with which to beat Blair, I would caution against using the notion that he "misled" Britain into war, tempting though the scenario evidently is for Michael Howard. As things stand, it seems unlikely that WMD will be found in Iraq. Doesn't bother me. In these pages a few days after 9/11, I stated that I was in favour of whacking Saddam pour encourager les autres. There was no sharper way to draw a distinction between the new geopolitical landscape and the September 10 world than by removing a man who symbolised the weakness and irresolution of "multilateralism". He was left in power back in 1991 in order, as Colin Powell airily conceded in his memoirs, to keep the UN coalition intact. Lesson number one: don't form coalitions with people who don't share your war aims.

If the Gulf war was a cautionary tale in the defects of unbounded multilateralism, the Iraq war is a lesson in the defects of even the most circumscribed coalition. The Americans settled on WMD as the preferred casus belli because it was the one Blair could go along with: as one of his Cabinet ministers told me, they were advised that a simple policy of regime change - the Clinton/Bush line - would have been illegal. So they plumped for WMD. American and British intelligence were convinced Saddam had 'em, as were the French and Germans. Saddam thought he had 'em. So did his generals. It's believed that they were ordered to be used against the Americans as they galloped up to Baghdad from Kuwait. But when Saddam got there, the cupboard was bare. Strange, but apparently true. Anyone who's really fearless in his search for the truth can read David Kay's conclusions: it's a much more interesting story than "Blair lied!"

So Saddam didn't have WMD. Conversely, Colonel Gaddafi did. And hands up anyone who knew he did until he announced he was chucking it in. The only way you can be absolutely certain your intelligence about a dictator's weapons is accurate is when you look out the window and see a big mushroom cloud over Birmingham. More to the point, it's in alliances of convenience between the dictatorships and freelance groups that the true horrors lie - and for that you don't need big stockpiles, just a vial or two of this or that. You can try and stop it day by day at the gate at Heathrow, but, even if you succeed, you'll bankrupt the world's airlines.

The Left is remarkably nonchalant about these new terrors. When nuclear weapons were an elite club of five relatively sane world powers, the Left was convinced the planet was about to go ka-boom any minute, and the handful of us who survived would be walking in a nuclear winter wonderland. Now anyone with a few thousand bucks and an unlisted number in Islamabad in his Rolodex can get a nuke, and the Left couldn't care less.

The Right should know better. If he wants, Mr Howard can have some sport with Mr Blair. But, if he aids the perception that Blair took Britain to war under false pretences, the Tories will do the country a grave disservice. One day Mr Howard might be prime minister and, chances are, in the murky world that lies ahead, he'll have to commit British forces on far less hard evidence than existed vis à vis Saddam. Conservatives shouldn't assist the Western world's self-loathing fringe in imposing a burden of proof that can never be met. The alternative to pre-emption is defeat. If you want a real "underlying issue", that's it."


Tuesday, February 03, 2004


kangaroo World court rejects Israeli demand to dismiss Egyptian judge
Then members all laugh at Israel wink, and nudge each other with thier elbows, while mouthing platitudes about the courts "fairness"

THE HAGUE (AFP) - The International Court of Justice (ICJ) rejected a request by Israel to stop an Egyptian judge from examining with the Court the legality of a controversial barrier being built in the West Bank.

"The International Court of Justice decided, by 13 votes to one, that certain matters brought to the attention of the Court by letters from the government of Israel, were not as such as to preclude Judge Nabil Elaraby from participating in the present case," the ICJ said in a statement.

Israel contended that Elaraby was biased in favour of the Palestinians as he had in the past "actively engaged in opposition to Israel including on matters which go directly to aspects of the question now before the Court".

The United Nations (news - web sites) referred a protest about the controversial Israeli barrier to the court, which is set to rule on the matter on February 23.

Palestinians say the route of the barrier, which at points juts deep into their territory, proves it is little more than a bid to pre-empt the borders of their promised state and grab some of its most fertile land.

But Israel insists it is merely designed to prevent attacks on its soil, such as the suicide bombing of a bus in Jerusalem on Thursday which left 12 people dead as well as the Palestinian bomber.

Israel has said it hopes the court will decline to debate the legality of the barrier on grounds that it is not the appropriate forum in which to discuss what is an essentially political issue.


Monday, February 02, 2004


james and his staff,.... man I love those guy's. when the king has no clothes on I can allways count on James Taranto to point it out.

From http://OpinionJournal.com

Best of the Web Today - February 2, 2004
A Good Reason to Dodge the Hajj

Two hundred fifty-one Muslims are dead in Saudi Arabia--not in a terrorist attack, but in a religious ritual. Muslim pilgrims on the annual hajj were in Mina, near Mecca, for the rite, in which they throw rocks at two pillars that symbolize Satan. The victims were crushed to death in a stampede.

This was a normal occurrence, not a freak accident. "Pilgrims also have been trampled to death on their way to the stoning ritual in 1994, 1998, 2001 and last year," reports the Associated Press. According to this roundup of the "worst disasters" at the hajj, the death toll was 270 in 1994, 180 in 1998 and 35 in 2001, for a grand total, including this year, of 736 dead. (The roundup gives no figure for 2003; presumably that year saw one of the hajj's better disasters.)

Isn't there something barbaric--in practice, if not in principle--about a religion whose rituals routinely result in such bloodshed? That seems an obvious question, and yet somehow we have the sense we're being either daring or terribly rude by posing it.

Along similar lines, consider this passage from an earlier AP report

*** QUOTE ***

In a show of equality, men wear seamless white robes and women are covered from head to foot except for their hands and faces.

*** END QUOTE ***

Describing Islam's starkly disparate treatment of men and woman as "a show of equality" is downright Orwellian. For whatever reason, Western journalists, commentators and politicians engage in an awful lot of self-censorship and convoluted reasoning to avoid casting an unfavorable light on Islam.

**************************************************************************** Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?


this mans essays on the defense of and value of western culture are amazing and if you are a liberal you need to read them, maybe when you are done (if you have a moral compass or soul) you might turn your self around from a life spent attacking america. and if you are of right mind but feeling down, again they are a must read.
  • Eject! Eject! Eject!

  • STRENGTH (part 1).
  • STRENGTH (part 2).

  • *************
  • eurabiantimes
  • armies of liberation
  • Aaron’s Rantblog
  • The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
  • The British Pickle
  • Blackfive
  • mypetjawa
  • USS Clueless
  • The Official Al Franken Website
  • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  • bastardsword
  • exellent critical analysis on the news. this guy can chew the propagandists up and spit em out. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  • History's End
  • history in the making is being taught at this blog. I like it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  • command-post
  • lgf: contains petroleum distillates
  • http://junkyardblog/
  • voice of reason form iraq
  • AlphaPatriot
  • Pink Flamingo Bar & grill
  • coincidently I used to work at a nightclub called the pink flamingo bar & grill, good times good booze, good food and bad girls what a great combination...
  • blaster's blog
  • haganah
  • jihad watch
  • Armies of Liberation
  • IMAO
  • Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons
  • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ this guy has a grasp of history, its nuances, and an ability to make comparative analysis that blows my socks off.
  • Belmont Club
  • want to know what real critical analysis is? here's must read homework from Belmont club
  • Smoke and Mirrors Versus Gunsmoke
  • Smoke and Mirrors Versus Gunsmoke Part 2
  • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  • Allah Is In The House
  • funny stuff sharp and to the point
  • iowahawk
  • new political satire blogger (and really funny unlike that washed up jackass al franken who would'nt know funny if it was stenciled to the front of a city bus that just ran him over.)
  • grandvizier
  • grandvizier is a fellow traveler in the verbal war against the death cultists
  • A.E.Brain
  • IRAQ NOW an american soldier with boots on the ground
  • A Nice Jewish Boys' Weblog
  • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If like me, you enjoy a good cigar, but hate paying retail this is the joint. I've bought hundreds of good cigars from them, allways with great service
  • ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ meet the bouncers gunther,tasha, sweetpea & the new kid ottzie

  • Friends of Israel
  • archives
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Free Web Page Hit Counters
    Manhattan Lasik ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    this site listed on

    Blogarama - The Blog Directory ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Fallen Patriot Fund