[9/29/06]

[Nick Winter-administrative editor] 7:02 am [permalink]
Prelutsky on Medved TODAY:  Just a reminder to visitors that contributor, scriptwriter and author Bert Prelutsky, is appearing on the Michael Medved show TODAY.  It should be a treat... And he’s sure to talk about his book “Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco.”

[9/28/06]

[Laura Mansfield - author, Strategic Translations] 12:01 am [permalink]
New Zawahiri tape announced: Bush, the Catholic Pope, and Darfur: The Crusader's War

Yesterday morning jihadist websites featured the above banner, prominently posted, announced the imminent release of a new tape from Al Qaeda second-in-command Dr. Ayman al Zawahiri.

According to the banner, the tape is entitled: "Bush, the Catholic Pope, and Darfur: The Crusader's War".

Previously announcements of this nature have been followed by the release of the tape within a few hours to two days.

We will continue to monitor the websites and advise our readers when this tape is released.

[9/27/06]

[Daniel Pipes - author, activist, activist] 12:01am [permalink]
Is Allah God? - Continued Is "Allah" the same deity as "God"? I broached this topic in June 2005 in "Is Allah God?" and it has taken on new urgency in the course of the uproar over Pope Benedict XVI's comments about Islam, prompting the pope to state that Muslims "worship the one God and with whom we promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values for the benefit of all humanity."

This brings to mind Pope John Paul II's statement in August 1985, while visiting Casablanca, Morocco that Catholics and Muslims "believe in the same God, the one God, the living God." (September 21, 2006)

Update: Pope Benedict reaffirmed this point, and this time even more forcefully, by quoting the Second Vatican Council in the course of a statement he made to Muslim ambassadors:

The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves whole-heartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God. (Declaration Nostra Aetate, 3)

The pope called this 1965 statement "the Magna Carta of Muslim-Christian dialogue."

[9/2606]

[Julia Gorin pundit/comedian] 12:01 am [permalink]
“Squandered” Good Will Just as a small p.s. to the recently passed fifth anniversary of 9/11, it’s worth addressing the sentiment we’ve heard repeatedly over the past four years — namely, that we’ve “squandered all the good will that came our way” from the world after 9/11.

Essentially, this means that if you’re a liberal on 9/11 and you see airplanes crashing into our buildings, you’re thinking, “They’ll like us! They’ll like us! They’ll really, really like us!” It’s almost surprising that libs haven’t coordinated with al Qaeda to keep that good will coming.

They were upset when we invaded Iraq, warning that it would anger Muslims. But the latter are either mad and bombing us, or they’re not mad — and bombing us. Do you really care which it is? A liberal does. Because a liberal doesn’t mind getting bomed, just as long as no one gets mad. [Go to Julia Gorin's Glob]

[9/2506]

[Julia Gorin pundit/comedian] 12:05 am [permalink]
Know Thy Audience My friend Heather, who is Jewish, got an email advertisement today from Telecharge, the premier ticket-buying service for Broadway and off-Broadway shows. This one was offering a last-chance special price of $49.50 for tickets to “My Name is Rachel Corrie,” the play about the dead American extremist who interfered with an Israeli military operation that was destroying tunnels used to smuggle weapons that are used against civilian targets.

“What are these morons thinking!” remarked Heather, “sending this advertisement out to ‘Hymie-town?’” (If you recall, that was what Jesse Jackson dubbed the heavily Jewish-populated New York metropolitan area.)

Indeed, is the world so accustomed to Jews as self-loathers, to Jews voting against their own self-interests, to the Jewish over-enlightenment that brings about their self-destruction — the citadel of which is the Jewish-owned, anti-Semitic New York Times?

A short two years after her death, Rachel Corrie’s story was already in production, to be shared with the world. Meanwhile, six years since my sister’s death, her brilliant autobiographical novel still doesn’t have any takers — apparently because she didn’t die trying to help get Jews killed. [Go to Julia Gorin's Glob]

[9/18/06]

[Cliff Kincaid columnist] 12:05 am [permalink]
Al-Jazeera's "Muslim Scholar" Attacks Pope Stories about the controversy over the Pope's remarks on Islam have featured the views of  Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi, who has a regular show on the Al-Jazeera television network. Demanding a personal apology from the Pope, Qaradawi declared on Al-Jazeera that "Muslims have the right to be angry and hurt by these comments from the highest cleric in Christianity." Yet, Qaradawi, a supporter of violent Jihad, is living proof of what the Pope was warning about.

Tracy Wilkinson of the Los Angeles Times said that Qaradawi's broadcasts on the Arabic TV network, which now wants to expand into the U.S. through an English-language affiliate called Al-Jazeera International, make him "one of Islam's most influential scholars." Such is the power of Al-Jazeera. And the power now reaches into the U.S. media.

The Pope, whose "offensive" comments consisted of quoting an historical observation about Islam's violent past, has now said that he is "deeply sorry" over the reaction to what he said. It's the reaction, including violent protests, bombs at Christian churches, and threats against Christians, that deserves condemnation.

According to the article in USA Today featuring Qaradawi's criticism of the Pope, Qaradawi is a "prominent Muslim scholar" who asserts that Islam is a religion of peace and reason.

Yet Qaradawi declared in June of this year that John Kerry lost the U.S. presidential election because he "was supported by homosexuals and nudists." Explaining the George W. Bush victory over Kerry, Qaradawi asserted that the President was backed by Christians and right-wingers and that "the religious overcame the perverted.

It's true that the homosexual lobby supported Kerry, and Bush got support from the religious right, but I wasn't aware that nudists had emerged as a significant voting bloc.

Later in the interview, which was translated and transcribed by MEMRI, Qaradawi declared homosexuality a crime and said punishment should include the option of burning the perpetrators.

On one occasion, Qaradawi, the advocate of peace, declared, "There is no dialogue between us and the Jews except by the sword and the rifle."

While he is said to have condemned the 9/11 attacks, he supports Palestinian suicide bombings and even specifically authorizes using women to carry them out.

If much of this is new, you will begin to understand how our media have turned into a propaganda vehicle for global Islam, some of whose leaders react to any perceived criticism with lies and distortions about what they represent. It is significant that Al-Jazeera has made Qaradawi into someone worth quoting in the Western press. His undeserved elevation in such matters makes a mockery of the claim that the American media are "pro-Israel."

Why has the coverage been so obsequious when it doesn't take much effort to dig out the truth about him? With their memories fresh of the violent Muslim reaction to a few papers printing the controversial Mohammad cartoons, it would appear that our media are afraid of telling the truth. They will take on President Bush and Karl Rove but not Islamic radicals.

They know that simply drawing attention to the historical record can generate death threats—or perhaps even death itself. We all remember what happened to Theo Van Gogh, the director of a film critical of the treatment of women under Islam. He was murdered in cold blood in the streets of the Netherlands.

Ironically, of course, our media will end up encouraging more violence by making Qaradawi into someone whose views deserve respect and whose influence will expand.

Qaradawi's emergence as an international spokesman for Islam, despite his history of violent utterances, stems from his association with Al-Jazeera, the Arab channel infiltrated by and a vehicle for al-Qaeda. The Middle East Quarterly reports that Qaradawi "was forced from Egypt for his views, and he lives in Qatar, where he has become a media star by virtue of his immensely popular television show on Al-Jazeera television.

That's the same Qatar that is supposed to be a pro-U.S. "friendly" Arab government. The truth is that it is an Arab dictatorial regime which had links to al-Qaeda before 9/11 and has a current seat on the U.N. Security Council that it used to vote against requiring Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program. The vote was 14-1, with Qatar voting with Iran. Qatar is the base of operations and major underwriter of Al-Jazeera and Al-Jazeera International.

All of this should matter not only because Qaradawi has falsely surfaced in the American press as a peaceful and reasonable critic of the Pope, but because Al-Jazeera International is putting in a major public relations campaign designed to garner carriage on U.S. cable and satellite systems. A new public opinion poll conducted for Accuracy in Media finds the American people strongly opposed to this development.

We are being told by former CNN journalist Riz Khan and others associated with Al-Jazeera International that they will be objective and independent. But evidence of connections to the Arabic Al-Jazeera keeps surfacing.

It turns out that an Internet firm called iHorizons has been hired to create and launch Al-Jazeera International's new website. The company created AlJazeera.net, the official website channel of the Arabic TV channel, and is also behind Qaradawi.net, the website for the "moderate" scholar who had become so popular with the U.S. media. [AIM]

[9/16/06]

[Nick Winter-administrative editor] 12:01 am [permalink]
Why is Hitchens a better investigator than a whole Senate committee staff? Hitchens in Weekly Standard... Saddam's Man in Niger - What was the Iraqi regime's nuclear expert doing in Africa?

Let us credit the Senate Intelligence Committee with almost getting the name right. On pages 25-26 of its latest report appears the following:

The head of Iraq's pre-1991 nuclear weapons program, Ja'far Diya' Ja'far, stated that after 1998, Iraq had two contacts with Niger and neither was regarding uranium. In 1999, Iraq's ambassador to the Holy See, Wissam Zahawie, traveled to Niger to invite the President of Niger to visit Iraq and, in 2001, a Nigerien minister visited Iraq to discuss purchasing petroleum. The ISG [Iraq Survey Group] recovered a draft contract between Niger and Iraq supporting the purchase of crude oil by Niger in exchange for cash.

And, on page 54 we read, under the heading "Conclusions":

Iraq had two contacts with Niger after 1998, but neither involved the purchase of uranium. The purpose of a visit to Niger by the Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican, Wissam al-Zahawie, was to invite the president of Niger to visit Iraq. The other visit involved discussions of a Nigerien oil purchase from Iraq.

Since the report does not trouble to supply any reasoning from the evidence to its conclusions, we are left to infer that there is nothing odd about Saddam Hussein's envoy (to the Vatican) paying a visit to Niger, and nothing unusual about Niger's desire to buy ("for cash") crude oil from a country under international sanctions that is much less close and convenient a source of oil than, say, its neighbors Nigeria and Algeria.

It takes only a very little work to find that neither of these assumptions is a safe one. [more at Weekly Standard]

[9/15/06]

[Nick Winter-administrative editor] 12:02 am [permalink]
Islam-Haters, Ralph Peters, Fog of Confusion and Robert Spencer... Ralph Peters is - and has been - a good friend of CaliforniaRepublic as well as an editorial contributor. Recently he wrote and op-ed entitled “Islam-Haters: An Enemy Within.” Evidently Robert Spencer [of Jihad Watch fame] took exception to the piece and wrote a piece himself entitled “Ralph Peters' Fog of Confusion on Islam” which is at Human Events site.

We asked Ralph if he was thinking of rebutting the argument and we offered our opinion page for an op-ed. He didn't want to write a piece, but his email answer was…

Thanks. No, I don't intend to reply to Spencer, Bostom and Co. Replying only gives them what they crave so desperately: Attention. Bostom, for example, has been panting for attention for his book and his views in my columns for years (he doesn't mention that, does he?). I'm tempted to publish some of the sycophantic e-mails this crowd has sent me over the years--just to let their groupies know how little integrity they have. But this shouldn't be a personal matter--it's about ideas, about freedom, about defending our country, about getting it right. And I simply don't find close-minded loonies helpful--so I don't respond to their pleas for my time.

By the way, that's why I didn't "name names." First, it would have given them attention. And, second, it's my belief that it's okay to attack those more powerful than me by name, but it's ungentlemanly to attack the weak as individuals. And you shouldn't exaggerate the reach of these guys. The blogosphere inflates the image of a lot of little men, from the Timothy McVeigh Fan Club to pedophiles. If their views had genuine merit, they would be widely published in forums where they have to get past the editorial gates. But they're not widely published because they don't pass the quality or sanity tests. Their stuff is just self-important net-dweller hate-porn. And in a nation of 300 million, they'll be able to find a good number of fellow haters.

And please note that my attack was on their positions--their attacks (very poorly written, by the way) have been on me personally...on my integrity, my military services, etc. I have not attacked their personal lives, and won't. That's Brownshirt stuff. I've been out there risking my life, often alone, in the Muslim world while they've been sitting at home. They're like professors who've never really done anything but only know the world (in this case, Islam) from books. If they haven't seen the Muslim world first-hand, how do they know what it's really like? Just reading about it here in the USA is like trying to understand what sex is like just from the manuals.

As you know, I'm for waging a harder war on terror than we currently do. But what is the point of alienating a billion Muslims with our own hate speech? These guys are bigots. Period. No matter how they dress up their prejudices with quotes from dead Muslim clerics. Otherwise, they wouldn't have gone nuts over another person (me, in this case) expressing his views. They cannot bear dissent from their narrow doctrines (sounds rather like the case they put against Islam). They are resolutely against free speech and insist that their views are the only possible views--a very good definition of a fanatic.

Finally, conservatism has always defended the individual against the mass. The left has raised the mass above the individual. Bostom, Spencer and co. describe Muslims as an undifferentiated mass. Is that conservatism? Sounds like a bizarre form of anti-Muslim Marxism to me. Of course, in the end extremists are all the same--whether they end up on the ultra-right or ultra-left is just an accident. We forget that Nazi was an abbreviation for "national socialist."

Conservatism should be a big tent--but we have to keep the tentpoles out of the sewer.

I just have to draw the line at damning Islam as totally beyond hope. I'm not optimistic about the religion in the Middle East, that's certain. It faces self-imposed handicaps that may prove insurmountable. But Muslims elsewhere offer at least some glimmers of hope. Let's not extinguish those glimmers ourselves.

Finally, Spencer and Bostom are whiners and fear-mongers. But they don't offer serious solutions. Spencer, for example, never addressed the questions I've raised in interviews (he edits and mis-edits my remarks very selectively, lifting things wildly out of context--he'd be boohooing from here to Christmas if someone did that to him): First, if Islam is totally hopeless, what do they propose to do about it (and I don't mean silly nonsense about a Muslim Vatican II)? Second, if all Muslims are in on a conspiracy to get us, why have the overwhelming number of victims of Islamist terror been other Muslims? Not just Sunni killing Shia, but Sunni killing Sunni. How about our Kurdish allies? Are they in on the jihad? Do Sunnis and Shi'as get together at secret-handshake meetings to plan our doom? On the contrary, the great bloodshed looming ahead for Islam is the next round of Sunni-Shi'a warfare--they hate each other with an even deeper passion than Catholics and Protestants hated each other a few centuries ago.

Islamist terror must be dealt with ferociously. But we must not suggest that a hundred-billion Muslims are all Salafist violent jihadis. They're just not.

 

We all need to apply a little common sense.

Personally, I would rather stand side by side with an honest Muslim-American than with a bigot whose ancestors came over on the Mayflower. Conservatism doesn't engage in mass hatred. And America gives the individual a chance.

Best regards,

Ralph

>Update 9/16: Robert Spencer has posted up comments of his own.

----------------------------------------------------

[9/14/06]

[Steve Finefrock - scriptwriter] 12:05 am [permalink]
WaPo at it again..... Tom Toles cartoon

[9/13/06]

[Daniel Pipes - author, activist, activist] 12:01am [permalink]
Defaming Islam? The Islamic Society of North America annual conference hosted a panel earlier this month titled "Countering Islamaphobia in the Media." The all-CAIR line-up of Arsalan Iftikhar, Ibrahim Hooper, Corey Saylor, and Ahmed Rehab is discussing this topic: "From Ann Coulter to Daniel Pipes, certain pundits and policymakers continue to make a living out of defaming Islam on print and broadcast media outlets." No, CAIR, I make a living trying to figure out the nature of the enemy, and I have often said it is not Islam but it is CAIR.

[9/12/06]

[Joel Rosenberg - novelist] 12:01 am [permalink]
Never Again: To misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blindsided by it. The hard, cold truth is that America was blindsided on 9/11, by an evil few saw coming. What’s more, those attacks were just the beginning of a long war against the forces of radical Islam. The most important question we face in the post-9/11 world is whether we have learned anything as a result of that terrible Tuesday. Do we truly understand that the forces of evil are preparing to strike us again when we least expect it? Do we truly grasp that the ultimate goal of the jihadists is not to terrorize us but to annihilate us? Are we willing to take any actions necessary to defend Western civilization from extinction? Or are we going to elevate peace over victory, retreat from the world, and simply hope for the best?

Ours is an age of kamikazes and snipers, anthrax and suicide bombers, ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads. While we no longer face Saddam Hussein, now we face a new Iranian regime threatening to wipe the U.S. and Israel off the map, a regime joining forces with three nuclear powers -- Russia, China and North Korea. All of this raises troubling new questions: What is coming next? How bad will it be? Where will I be when it happens? And am I ready to meet my Maker if, God forbid, I’m in the wrong place at the wrong time when evil strikes again?

Five years ago we were blindsided. Today we have no excuse. The threat is clear. What is not yet clear is our national resolve to defend ourselves, no matter what the cost.

Today, I thank God for President Bush, for his Cabinet and advisors, and for the incredibly brave and dedicated and tireless men and women who are working 24/7/365 to defeat the forces of radical Islam and keep us safe. We are on offense, and it's working. We have gone 1,825 days without another major attack. That is no small thing. And I am grateful. The administration has not been perfect. It has made numerous mistakes, and it will make more. But this President understands the nature and threat of the evil we face, and we must constantly pray for him to have the courage to face it down consistently and relentlessly until victory. And we must pray for the right person to succeed him in 2009, someone who also fundamentally understands what we face and will continue to keep America on offense. For let us be clear: if we cut and run and refuse to win the war against radical Islam over there -- in the Middle East, in the heart of Islamic fascism -- then the jihadists are coming here to destroy everything we hold dear.

Yesterday morning I will flew to the West coast on a jumbo jet for a series of speeches on the new threats we face. I did so confident of the security this President has fought so hard to provide, grateful for the grace of the Almighty, and determined to help people understand what is coming over the horizon. For once was enough. Never again.

[9/11/06]

[Joel Rosenberg - novelist] 12:15 am [permalink]
Russia Helping Islam Go Nuclear Russian President Vladimir Putin is helping yet another Islamic country go nuclear.

First was Iran, where Russia is building an $800 million nuclear reactor and nuclear research facilities, has trained more than 1,000 Iranian scientists, and is hoping to build between 5 and 20 additional nuclear sites, despite Iran's apocalyptic rhetoric and growing evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Now comes word that Putin has cut a deal with Moroccan King Mohammed VI to build a nuclear site in the North African Islamic state. Putin also explored the possibility of dramatically boosting arms sales to Morocco. "Russia's nuclear power monopoly, Atomstroiexport, said Thursday it would bid for a contract to build Morocco's first nuclear plant, ITAR-TASS reported, Bidding has not yet opened for the plant, expected to go on line in 2016-2017." Morocco is arguably one of the most moderate Islamic country on the planet, as I have written about before. Still, I find it troubling that Putin is being so aggressive in helping Islamic powers go nuclear. Russia is eager to help Turkey go nuclear, despite the fact that Turkey is drifting away from support for the West and is increasingly close to the new Iranian regime. Recent reports say Moscow also wants to build some 40 to 50 nuclear sites around the world, particularly in the Islamic world. So where is this all heading? Why exactly is Moscow helping Islam go nuclear? I address this question at length in Epicenter, describing at length how aggressively Russia is pursuing military, economic and energy alliances with the Islamic world. It is a serious and growing concern, and one that President Bush should confront directly in his address at the U.N.

[9/8/06]

[Joel Rosenberg - novelist] 12:15 am [permalink]
Ahmadinejad Coming To U.S. To Challenge Bush For Global Supremacy A clash of words and wills -- if not yet of weapons -- is coming fast between the U.S. and an Iranian regime that believes the end of the world is rapidly approaching and that the way to hasten the coming of the Islamic Messiah is to launch a global jihad against the U.S. and Israel. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly plans to come to the United States and speak at the United Nations General Assembly in Manhattan on September 19th, apparently to provoke a debate with President Bush who is scheduled to speak at the U.N. the same day. The White House needs to take this challenge seriously. It must have an answer to the Iranian nuclear threat -- a clear, convincing, and decisive plan of action to stop this religious fanatic before it's too late.

Ahmadinejad has been agitating for a direct confrontation with President Bush and the nation he calls the "Great Satan" for some time. He believes he was chosen by Allah to bring about the downfall of Judeo-Christian civilization, and to usher in the End of Days, and he is getting more brazen and more dangerous with each passing month. Last fall when Ahmadinejad spoke at the U.N., he concluded his speech by calling upon the arrival of the Islamic Messiah, known as the "Hidden Imam," or the "Twelfth Imam," or the "Mahdi." He prayed: "O mighty Lord, I pray to you to hasten the emergence of your last repository, the Promised One, that perfect and pure human being, the One that will fill this world with justice and peace." Back in Iran, Ahmadinejad stunned a group of Islamic clerics by claiming that during his UN speech, he was "surrounded by a light until the end" and that "all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there, and for 27 or 28 minutes all the leaders [in the audience] did not blink; it's not an exaggeration, because I was looking. They were astonished, as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."

The following month, Ahmadinejad gave a speech in Tehran in which he further clarified his objectives, calling for the annihilation of the U.S. and Israel. “Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?” he asked a gathering of terrorist leaders from such groups as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. “You had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved.” He then urged Muslims around the world to prepare for the day when Israel would be wiped "off the map" and when “our holy hatred expands” and “strikes like a wave.” Six months later, Ahmadinejad upped the ante yet again, declaring in a nationally televised address that Iran had successfully enriched uranium and joined the “nuclear club,” leading a number of Western intelligence agencies and experts to predict that Iran could have operational nuclear weapons in the next two or three years ­ just in time for the Bush administration to leave office, and, presumably, for the end of the world to begin.

Can Ahmadinejad be stopped by debate or negotiations? If -- God forbid -- he gets the nuclear weapons he so desperately wants and needs to accomplish his genocidal aspirations, is there an effective way from deterring him from striking the U.S., Israel, or our other allies? I know this is not a popular position, even among some conservatives, but I must tell you that I do not believe we can successfully negotiate with or deter Mr. Ahmadinejad. Rather, I am increasingly convinced that the only way to protect ourselves from this growing and existential threat is to remove Ahmadinejad and his regime, even if it requires using military force if necessary.

On Tuesday, I was in Atlanta where I had the privilege of speaking to several dozen military commanders, Homeland Security officials, and disaster preparedness experts about these very issues. We specifically discussed the End Times beliefs of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the implications of such views for U.S. foreign, defense and homeland security policy. We talked about how Russia is helping Iran go nuclear and arming Iran with state-of-the-art weaponry, and why they might be doing so. We talked about Iran's alliance with Hezbollah and how the recent war against Israel was just a prelude of things to come. At the request of the briefing organizer, each of the participants received an advance copy of EPICENTER: Why The Current Rumblings In The Middle East Will Change Your Future, set for nationwide release on September 18th. It will be, to my knowledge, the first book of its kind to explain Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic beliefs, describe the alliances and arsenal Iran is currently building to bring their end of the world scenario to pass, explain Russia's growing alliance with Iran and the radical Islamic world, and consider various scenarios that could result from this showdown. More on that in the days to come.

[9/7/06]

[Julia Gorin pundit/comedian] 12:01 am [permalink]
Serbs Still Being Framed The AFP reported last month that there was an explosion at the grave of Bosnia’s wartime president and Muslim hero Alija Izetbegovic. Izetbegovic, who was finally, reluctantly, being investigated by the Hague for war crimes against Serbs and others at the time of his death, is buried in a “martyrs’” cemetery, as he requested.

Naturally, we are meant to think that the terrorist act was committed by a Serb or Serbs, especially with AFP adding this tidbit: “Tensions have risen in Bosnia in recent days after the broadcast of footage showing a former Muslim general, Atif Dudakovic, ordering his troops to burn down Serb villages at the end of the country’s 1992-1995 war.” And this add-on: “Bosnian Serbs, however, are strongly antagonistic about Izetbegovic, whom they accuse of war crimes.” And this one: “Bosnian Serb officials remained silent about the incident.”

The attack “drew strong condemnation from Muslim leaders and the international community’s top envoy in Bosnia, Christian Schwarz-Schilling, who called for calm and said he felt ’shocked and saddened’.”

Here’s the update that AFP didn’t carry; only Serbia’s traditionally anti-Serb, Soros-funded “B92? news agency had it: B92 cited local daily Nezavisne Novine, which reported that police have arrested Rahim Amulj in connection with the bombing. He was already a suspect in three explosions in November in a Bosnian town called Travnik. From B92: “Ramulj, who had confessed to placing the three bombs in Travnik, was set free due to the Municipal court’s error. In May 1999 he was convicted, along with six others, to three and a half years in prison for mining Croatian homes and placing explosive devices in front of the Bugojno Municipal council chairman Ivo Mrs¹a’s house.”

Let’s recall that last year bombs were found at the Srebrenica memorial for Muslims killed in the Bosnia war. In that case, too, evidence pointed toward a Bosnian-Muslim, and a man was arrested and later released because of a lack of evidence. It was yet another anti-Serb frame-up — happening while Fox News along with every other news outlet on the planet was broadcasting footage of Bosnian-Serb paramilitary killing six Muslim fighters, to reinforce the same old propaganda we swallowed throughout the 90s.

Meanwhile, Albanian Muslims are prone to dressing up as Serbs when attacking UN installations, as former UN Major General Lewis MacKenzie wrote in 2004. [Go to Julia Gorin's Glob]

[9/6/06]

[Julia Gorin pundit/comedian] 12:01 am [permalink]
The Palestinian Plight could be Worse than we Thought I missed this stunning revelation earlier in the summer, when the Jerusalem Post reported that “a group of Palestinian children were sent towards the Gaza Strip border fence holding toy guns on Thursday in order to test the vigilance of the soldiers on duty.”

Do you realize what this means? There are Palestinian children who have actual toy guns! What kind of use is it of Israeli and international aid money — when there are Palestinian children whose parents can’t even afford to buy them real guns like the other kids have?

Furthermore, this development justifies concerns of Muslim parents everywhere that the killing their children do could lead to playing violent video games.
Anyway, if the toy gun incident isn’t proof of the ineffectuality of the UN presence there, I don’t know what is. [Go to Julia Gorin's Glob]

[9/5/06]

[Joel Rosenberg - novelist] 12:15 am [permalink]
Gingrich Opposes Military Action Against Iran: Will conservatives go with him? IAEA inspectors have found traces of highly enriched uranium at a nuclear facility inside Iran, reports the New York Times this morning, raising fresh concerns of just how aggressively the Iranians are pursuing nuclear weapons. Yet Russia now officially rejects slapping Iran with sanctions, and continues to sell Iran nuclear technology, missiles, and other high-tech weaponry. Not good, but no surprise on either account.

What is truly surprising and disturbing this morning is news that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich -- who says we are witnessing the early stages of World War III -- now says he opposes military action against Iran. In a speech aboard a cruise ship in the Mediterranean, Gingrich told about 900 people, including a group of conservative activists, "I am opposed to a military strike on Iran because I don't think it accomplishes very much in the long run," reported the Washington Times.

If true, this is a striking change of position by the widely-respected Republican leader, who is increasingly touted as a 2008 presidential candidate. Times reporter Ralph Hallow notes that earlier this year, Gingrich said: "A nonviolent solution that allows the terrorists to become better trained, better organized, more numerous and better armed is a defeat. A nonviolent solution that leads to North Korean and Iranian nuclear weapons threatening us across the planet is a defeat." Now Gingrich seems to advocate a "nonviolent solution" -- supporting a popular overthrow of the Iranian regime instead of direct military action by the U.S. or our allies.

Regime change in Iran would be welcome indeed, and we should do everything we can to make it happen. But is there time to get it done before Iran gets the Bomb? I have my doubts. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes the end of the world is rapidly approaching. He believes that it is his religious duty to usher in the arrival of the Islamic Messiah known as the "Hidden Imam" or the "Mahdi" by annihilating Israel (the "little Satan") and the U.S. (the "great Satan.") In a speech last October, Ahmadinejad not only called for Israel to be wiped "off the map." He also urged the Muslim world to envision a world without the United States, and insisted this was an achievable objective if the jihadists stay unified in their "holy hatred." As I see it, Ahmadinejad is using international negotiations simply to buy sufficent time to complete his genocidal arsenal and to solidify his alliances with three nuclear powers (Russia, China and North Korea) before launching his apocalyptic war.

The clock is ticking. War with Iran one way or the other is steadily approaching. For a conservative leader of Gingrich's caliber to take the military option off the table at this moment, after years of failed diplomacy and amidst reports that Iran's nuclear weapons program is accelerating, is disturbing, to say the least. No one wants another war in the Middle East. I certainly don't. And let's be clear, a war with Iran would be bloody and costly indeed. But the question President Bush, his war council and Congress must wrestle with -- and soon -- is whether we really have any other options. The President rightly insists that we cannot let a religious fanatic like Ahmadinejad get nuclear weapons. We must stop Iran no matter what the cost. We cannot count on support for such an approach from the American Left. Now a major leader of the American Right has ruled out such a course as well. Such hesitancy in the face of a rising nuclear Hitler doesn't bode well for the security of Western civilization over the next few years. And the clock keeps ticking.

[9/4/06]

[Daniel Pipes - author, activist, activist] 12:01am [permalink]
Al-Qaeda Invites Me to Join Its Ranks In a statement Saturday, Al-Qaeda's American rep, Adam Gadahn (né Adam Perlman, whom the FBI seeks "in connection with possible terrorist threats against the United States"), has this to say:

If the Zionist crusader missionaries of hate and counter-Islam consultants like Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer, Michael Scheuer, Steven Emerson, and yes, even the crusader-in-chief George W. Bush were to abandon their unbelief and repent and enter into the light of Islam and turn their swords against the enemies of God, it would be accepted of them and they would be our brothers in Islam."

So, Al-Qaeda wants me and my "sword" (a reference, presumably, to my computer keyboard) to join its efforts. My response to Gadahn:

I note your offer for me to change sides in the current war. But I am faithful to my own religion, to my own country, and to my civilization. I will do my part to defeat radical, totalitarian Islam and to usher in the emergence of a modern, moderate, and good-neighborly Islam in its place.

By way of postscript, Gadahn praises three Westerners: Seymour Hersh, George Galloway, and Robert Fisk. This is in keeping with Osama bin Laden's praising William Blum. (September 2, 2006)

[9/1/06]

[Laura Mansfield - author, Strategic Translations] 12:01 am [permalink]
As Sahab Announces New Zawahiri Video A banner was placed on multiple jihadi websites this evening advertising the release "soon" of a new video from Al Qaeda second in command Dr. Ayman al Zawahiri.

The banner and accompanying post indicate that the video will feature Zawahiri along with Azzam the American in an "Invitation to Islam".

The banner is of the style and format consistent with previous releases from As Sahab.
We will continue to monitor the websites and post the video as soon as it becomes available.