Give War a Chance

Thomas Sowell is right on the money:


Pacifists vs. Peace


One of the many failings of our educational system is that it sends out into the world people who cannot tell rhetoric from reality. They have learned no systematic way to analyze ideas, derive their implications and test those implications against hard facts.

"Peace" movements are among those who take advantage of this widespread inability to see beyond rhetoric to realities. Few people even seem interested in the actual track record of so-called "peace" movements -- that is, whether such movements actually produce peace or war.

Take the Middle East. People are calling for a cease-fire in the interests of peace. But there have been more cease-fires in the Middle East than anywhere else. If cease-fires actually promoted peace, the Middle East would be the most peaceful region on the face of the earth instead of the most violent.

Was World War II ended by cease-fires or by annihilating much of Germany and Japan? Make no mistake about it, innocent civilians died in the process. Indeed, American prisoners of war died when we bombed Germany.

There is a reason why General Sherman said "war is hell" more than a century ago. But he helped end the Civil War with his devastating march through Georgia -- not by cease fires or bowing to "world opinion" and there were no corrupt busybodies like the United Nations to demand replacing military force with diplomacy.

There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.

"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.

That has been a formula for never-ending attacks on Israel in the Middle East. The disastrous track record of that approach extends to other times and places -- but who looks at track records?

Remember the Falkland Islands war, when Argentina sent troops into the Falklands to capture this little British colony in the South Atlantic? Argentina had been claiming to be the rightful owner of those islands for more than a century. Why didn't it attack these little islands before? At no time did the British have enough troops there to defend them.

Before there were "peace" movements and the U.N., sending troops into those islands could easily have meant finding British troops or bombs in Buenos Aires. Now "world opinion" condemned the British just for sending armed forces into the South Atlantic to take back their islands.

Shamefully, our own government was one of those that opposed the British use of force. But fortunately British prime minister Margaret Thatcher ignored "world opinion" and took back the Falklands.

The most catastrophic result of "peace" movements was World War II. While Hitler was arming Germany to the teeth, "peace" movements in Britain were advocating that their own country disarm "as an example to others."

British Labor Party Members of Parliament voted consistently against military spending and British college students publicly pledged never to fight for their country. If "peace" movements brought peace, there would never have been World War II.

Not only did that war lead to tens of millions of deaths, it came dangerously close to a crushing victory for the Nazis in Europe and the Japanese empire in Asia. And we now know that the United States was on Hitler's timetable after that.

For the first two years of that war, the Western democracies lost virtually every battle, all over the world, because pre-war "peace" movements had left them with inadequate military equipment and much of it obsolete. The Nazis and the Japanese knew that. That is why they launched the war.

"Peace" movements don't bring peace but war.

Arrested Development

One picture is worth a thousand words. Thanks to The People's Cube.

Why There Is No Islamic Intellectual Tradition

Okay, this just shook me from the reverie of my prior post... Yuck! What are they doing? And why?

These are some sick dudes!

Reflection

Been having some information overload on what’s going on with Islam and Jihad. Yes, I think war is imminent. Yes, I think we should fight Islamofascism with every fiber of our being and with every strength we have. Yet there is something I read somewhere, on some remote blog, perhaps, that has stuck in my mind.

That something came as a result of reading two Muslim youths’ comments in response to someone’s angry post towards Islamic terrorism and encroachment. Both wrote asking why they should accept Western values and traditions when the West has been producing so many disturbing trends and products. Glorification of sex, adultery, drugs, lurid music and film, women who have no modesty in their dress, pornography, homosexual marriage, disturbing images in art, amoral trends in science… they both criticized these things, and an amazing thing happened: I found myself agreeing with them.

Don’t get me wrong. I do not want to live under Sharia. I don’t want some imam or mufti (such a deceptively innocent sounding word, “mufti”) telling me what I can and cannot read or watch or say. Yet I can’t help but contemplate about us. About the West. To look at ourselves with some scrutiny, a “gimlet eye“…

We do put out a lot of crap. Sheer garbage. Just look at the nearest multiplex cinema and see what’s playing:

Jackass Number Two. The Black Dahlia. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Anything with Rob Schneider in it. It’s rather embarrassing.

And what about the filth on television? Desperate Housewives, Sex and the City… hardly wholesome.

If you stand in line at the supermarket you will see dozens of magazines dedicated to extending one‘s life, how to get and keep a man, how to look young and sexy, and other mindless hedonistic drivel. It’s not impressive.

Abortion, cloning, euthanasia - the use of science without ethical or moral considerations - dominates our public debate heatedly. Why? Because there is disturbance of conscience there.

It’s true. There is a lot in American society and culture which warrants self reflection and improvement. If we cannot enforce a ban or censure what we create, then we ought to stop supporting it. I have friends who go to movies regularly. If there is junk playing they go see it. Occasionally they see good films too. That that kind of habit breeds a mindless lack of discrimination. Soon one becomes inured to offensive or lowbrow entertainment and it becomes part of everyday life. It’s like junk food.

If we all stopped buying that Cosmo magazine or stopped watching soap operas they will go away. That’s one of the beautiful things about capitalism.

Those two Muslim fellows were right. There are seriously objectionable things about the West’s lifestyle and it would do us well to take an internal look at ourselves while we battle with the enemy. If only they could do the same…

From Naseem, With Love

Naseem (aka The Pakistani Pigsty) is the Tokyo Rose of WWIII. She comments at Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch; this is her latest:

Assalamau-Laikum American Crusader,
You say "Muslims will be the majority in Russia during our lifetime and over 40% of today's Russian conscripts are of Muslim identity".
Ofcourse the situation is stacked even better for muslims that this prediction. The important statistic I think you will find is the ratio numbers of the "15 to 25" age group between the polluted Kaffur and the pure muslims.
Almost in each and every european country muslims have about a 10% (or more) positive margin of this age group over the Kaffur.
These youngersters and their childrens will form the majority of populations in Europe and the Russ too..and ofcourse will run the government/economy and the defence too.
As to feeding/education/housing etc....the infedel governments do no discrimination... muslims WILL be fed, housed and clothed thanks you very much.
In effect the Kaffur scientists of today are developing WMD for the muslim of tomorrow...all at the cost of the Kafur...Allah SWT truly works in mysterious ways.
American crusader...the 21st Centuary IS for the muslim and he shall spread the light of Islam to you too via the Koran...hopefully you will see this wonderful change in your lifetime.
As to the Russ...it looks like he understands the situation very well...he knows that his future is lost to Islam....Putin and his generation want to enjoy thier life as Kafur while they can....the kids can look after themselves
...after all they will be muslim anyway.
Posted by: Naseem at September 25, 2006 10:49

And Liberals think this is a religion of peace.

The Dogs of War

From DEBKAfile another war in the Middle East:


A new Middle East war is in the offing. DEBKAfile’s exclusive military sources in Iraq and sources in Iran reveal that Turkish and Iranian air units as well as armored, paratroop, special operations and artillery forces are poised for an imminent coordinated invasion of the northern Iraqi autonomous province of Kurdistan.

Our sources pinpoint the target of the combined Iranian-Turkish offensive as the Quandil Mountains (see picture), where some 5,000 Kurdish rebels from Turkey and Iran, members of the PKK and PJAK respectively, are holed up. Iranian and Turkish assault troops are already deployed 7-8 km deep inside Iraqi territory.

Turkey to the northwest and Iran to the east both have Kurdish minorities which have been radicalized by the emergence of Iraqi Kurdistan in the last three years. The three contiguous Kurdish regions form a strategic world hub.

A jittery Washington foresees a Kurdish-Iranian military thrust quickly flaring into a comprehensive conflict and igniting flames that would envelop the whole of Iraqi Kurdistan as well as southern Turkey and Armenia.

Read it all. Now the war with Iran is upon us.

No Car Bombs Here

From Fox News an ad from a Columbus, OH car dealership has some up in arms with its cheeky content:

A car dealership's planned radio advertisement that declared"a jihad on the automotive market"has drawn sharp criticism for its content but will not be changed, the business said Saturday.
Several stations rejected the Dennis Mitsubishi spot, which says sales representatives wearing"burqas"_ head-to-toe traditional dress for Islamic women _ will sell vehicles that can"comfortably seat 12 jihadists in the back."
"Our prices are lower than the evildoers'every day. Just ask the pope!"the ad says."Friday is fatwa Friday, with free rubber swords for the kiddies."A fatwa is a religious edict.
Dealership president Keith Dennis said the ad does not disrespect any religion or culture. He said it was"fair game"to poke"a little fun at radical extremists."
"It was our intention to craft something around some of the buzzwords of the day and give everyone a good chuckle and be a little bit of a tension reliever,"he said.
The Columbus chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations decried the ad as disrespectful.
"Using that as a promotional pitch when so many are dying from the criminal activity of suicide bombers, that's not funny,"chapter president Asma Mobin-Uddin said."I don't think it's appropriate when it causes real pain. It exploits or promotes misunderstanding in terms already misunderstood or misused."

Jihad Watch says that CAIR is not amused. Of course not. Muslims have no sense of humor.

UPDATE: Damn! Dennis Mitsubishi caved to CAIR.

Tidbits

Rumors are flying that Ousama bin Laden is dead. Or Usama Bin Laden is dead. I can't decide which way I want to spell the bastard's name. Either way, I wish he was dead. Not that it'd matter one iota on the war against terror. Those Muslims breed terrorists like maggots on a piece of rotten meat. But I doubt if he's really dead. I think they'd all be howling and screaming on the streets like they did when the Ayatollah Khomeini (may he rot in doo doo forever) died.

BBC News says that 73 year old Louis Farrakhan is seriously ill and will postpone further activities with the Nation of Islam. Good news for us. Bad news for him. Rumor has it that the illness has something to do with an ulcer located in his anal area. Ugh. Maybe all that hatred he spewed against Jews and whites is catching up with him. Nasty business. Hope he uses this time to do some honest soul searching.

Over at Mike's America you can watch a video of Bill Clinton doing what he does best: Self aggrandizement. You see, Bill coulda, woulda killed OSB and invaded Afghanistan if it weren't for those bureaucratic FBI and CIA dimwits who just didn't give him the right stuff to do it. Watch the video, if you can stomach it.

Wordsmith gives us a few photos of that Venezuelan intellectual giant, Hugo Chavez, with a couple of his favorite books... Look closely. Laugh out loud.

Over at Jihad Watch we see that the Religion of Love wants to crucify the Pope. I wonder if we could work out a deal with them: Take Madonna instead. But they can only have her if they scourge the slut first.

The Muslims also called the Pope "illiterate". Funny thing, the man has 7 doctorates, speaks over half a dozen languages and has probably read, no, WRITTEN more books than any of those raghead apes have ever collectively read in a lifetime. Charming people.

My New Addiction

I can't keep away from Jihad Watch. I've learned so much about the pervasive encroaching influence of Islam there. This week Robert Spencer posted some photos of what the Religion of Peace is up to:


Burning an effigy of the Pope.


Defacing a photo of the Pope.


And generally practicing other pyrotechnic displays. I like this one because it shows how literate their women are.

Great War Poster

Over at Foehammer's Anvil I grabbed a poster he created, or rather, updated from an old WWII war poster.

It's free, just be nice and give credit where credit's due. (And of course don't change the text).

Sober Reality

Charles Krauthammer gives us some cold hard facts about the impending war. Yes. It's inevitable.

The costs will be terrible:

· Economic . An attack on Iran is likely to send oil prices overnight to $100 or even to $150 a barrel. That will cause a worldwide recession perhaps as deep as the one triggered by the Iranian revolution of 1979.
Iran might suspend its own 2.5 million barrels a day of oil exports and might even be joined by Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, asserting primacy as the world's leading anti-imperialist. But even more effectively, Iran will shock the oil markets by closing the Strait of Hormuz, through which 40 percent of the world's exports flow every day.
Iran could do this by attacking ships in the Strait, scuttling its own ships, laying mines or just threatening to launch Silkworm anti-ship missiles at any passing tanker.
The U.S. Navy will be forced to break the blockade. We will succeed, but at considerable cost. And it will take time -- during which the world economy will be in a deep spiral.

· Military . Iran will activate its proxies in Iraq, most notably, Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Sadr is already wreaking havoc with sectarian attacks on Sunni civilians. Iran could order the Mahdi Army and its other agents within the police and armed forces to take up arms against the institutions of the central government itself, threatening the very anchor of the new Iraq. Many Mahdi will die, but they live to die. Many Iraqis and coalition soldiers are likely to die as well.
Among the lesser military dangers, Iran might activate terrorist cells around the world, although without nuclear capability that threat is hardly strategic. It will also be very difficult to unleash its proxy Hezbollah, now chastened by the destruction it brought upon Lebanon in the latest round with Israel and deterred by the presence of Europeans in the south Lebanon buffer zone.

· Diplomatic. There will be massive criticism of America from around the world. Much of it is to be discounted. The Muslim street will come out again for a few days, having replenished its supply of flammable American flags, most recently exhausted during the cartoon riots. Their governments will express solidarity with a fellow Muslim state, but this will be entirely hypocritical. The Arabs are terrified about the rise of a nuclear Iran and would privately rejoice in its defanging.


The Europeans will be less hypocritical because their visceral anti-Americanism trumps rational calculation. We will have done them an enormous favor by sparing them the threat of Iranian nukes, but they will vilify us nonetheless.
These are the costs. There is no denying them. However, equally undeniable is the cost of doing nothing.

In the region, Persian Iran will immediately become the hegemonic power in the Arab Middle East. Today it is deterred from overt aggression against its neighbors by the threat of conventional retaliation. Against a nuclear Iran, such deterrence becomes far less credible. As its weak, nonnuclear Persian Gulf neighbors accommodate to it, jihadist Iran will gain control of the most strategic region on the globe.

Then there is the larger danger of permitting nuclear weapons to be acquired by religious fanatics seized with an eschatological belief in the imminent apocalypse and in their own divine duty to hasten the End of Days. The mullahs are infinitely more likely to use these weapons than anyone in the history of the nuclear age. Every city in the civilized world will live under the specter of instant annihilation delivered either by missile or by terrorist. This from a country that has an official Death to America Day and has declared since Ayatollah Khomeini's ascension that Israel must be wiped off the map.

Against millenarian fanaticism glorying in a cult of death, deterrence is a mere wish. Is the West prepared to wager its cities with their millions of inhabitants on that feeble gamble?

These are the questions. These are the calculations. The decision is no more than a year away.

Papal Strategies

A friend of mine who subscribes here sent me this fascinating analysis of the Pope's motives for choosing the words he did for that fateful address in Germany:

Faith, Reason and Politics: Parsing the Pope's Remarks

By George Friedman

On Sept. 12, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture on "Faith, Reason and
the University" at the University of Regensburg. In his discussion (full
text available on the Vatican Web site ) the pope appeared to be trying to
define a course between dogmatic faith and cultural relativism -- making
his personal contribution to the old debate about faith and reason. In the
course of the lecture, he made reference to a "part of the dialogue carried
on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite
Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the
subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both."

Benedict went on to say -- and it is important to read a long passage to
understand his point -- that:

"In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor
touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that Sura
2,256 reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion.' According to the
experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was
still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the
instructions, developed later and recorded in the Quran, concerning holy
war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment
accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels,' he addresses his
interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us
astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion
and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that
was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.' The emperor, after
having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the
reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable.
Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.
'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is
contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever
would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason
properly, without violence and threats ... To convince a reasonable soul,
one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means
of threatening a person with death ...'

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is
this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The
editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: 'For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped
by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim
teaching, God is absolutely transcendent.'"

The reaction of the Muslim world -- outrage -- came swift and sharp over
the passage citing Manuel II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was
new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Obviously, this
passage is a quote from a previous text -- but equally obviously, the pope
was making a critical point that has little to do with this passage.

The essence of this passage is about forced conversion. It begins by
pointing out that Mohammed spoke of faith without compulsion when he lacked
political power, but that when he became strong, his perspective changed.
Benedict goes on to make the argument that violent conversion -- from the
standpoint of a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, and therefore shaped
by the priority of reason -- is unacceptable. For someone who believes that
God is absolutely transcendent and beyond reason, the argument goes, it is
acceptable.

Clearly, Benedict knows that Christians also practiced forced conversion in
their history. He also knows that the Aristotelian tendency is not unique
to Christianity. In fact, that same tendency exists in the Muslim
tradition, through thinkers such as al-Farabi or Avicenna. These stand in
relation to Islam as Thomas Aquinas does to Christianity or Maimonides to
Judaism. And all three religions struggle not only with the problem of God
versus science, but with the more complex and interesting tripolar
relationship of religion as revelation, reason and dogmatism. There is
always that scriptural scholar, the philosopher troubled by faith and the
local clergyman who claims to speak for God personally.

Benedict's thoughtful discussion of this problem needs to be considered.
Also to be considered is why the pope chose to throw a hand grenade into a
powder keg, and why he chose to do it at this moment in history. The other
discussion might well be more worthy of the ages, but this question -- what
did Benedict do, and why did he do it -- is of more immediate concern, for
he could have no doubt what the response, in today's politically charged
environment, was going to be.

A Deliberate Move

Let's begin with the obvious: Benedict's words were purposely chosen. The
quotation of Manuel II was not a one-liner, accidentally blurted out. The
pope was giving a prepared lecture that he may have written himself -- and
if it was written for him, it was one that he carefully read. Moreover,
each of the pope's public utterances are thoughtfully reviewed by his
staff, and there is no question that anyone who read this speech before it
was delivered would recognize the explosive nature of discussing anything
about Islam in the current climate. There is not one war going on in the
world today, but a series of wars, some of them placing Catholics at risk.

It is true that Benedict was making reference to an obscure text, but that
makes the remark all the more striking; even the pope had to work hard to
come up with this dialogue. There are many other fine examples of the
problem of reason and faith that he could have drawn from that did not
involve Muslims, let alone one involving such an incendiary quote. But he
chose this citation and, contrary to some media reports, it was not a short
passage in the speech. It was about 15 percent of the full text and was the
entry point to the rest of the lecture. Thus, this was a deliberate choice,
not a slip of the tongue.

As a deliberate choice, the effect of these remarks could be anticipated.
Even apart from the particular phrase, the text of the speech is a
criticism of the practice of conversion by violence, with a particular
emphasis on Islam. Clearly, the pope intended to make the point that Islam
is currently engaged in violence on behalf of religion, and that it is
driven by a view of God that engenders such belief. Given Muslims' protests
(including some violent reactions) over cartoons that were printed in a
Danish newspaper, the pope and his advisers certainly must have been aware
that the Muslim world would go ballistic over this. Benedict said what he
said intentionally, and he was aware of the consequences. Subsequently, he
has not apologized for what he said -- only for any offense he might have
caused. He has not retracted his statement.

So, why this, and why now?

Political Readings

Consider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but a politician --
and a good one, or he wouldn't have become the pope. He is not only a head
of state, but the head of a global church with a billion members. The
church is no stranger to geopolitics. Muslims claim that they brought down
communism in Afghanistan. That may be true, but there certainly is
something to be said also for the efforts of the Catholic Church, which
helped to undermine the communism in Poland and to break the Soviet grip on
Eastern Europe. Popes know how to play power politics.

Thus, there are at least two ways to view Benedict's speech politically.

One view derives from the fact that the pope is watching the U.S.-jihadist
war. He can see it is going badly for the United States in both Afghanistan
and Iraq. He witnessed the recent success of Hezbollah in Lebanon and
Hamas' political victory among the Palestinians. Islamists may not have the
fundamental strength to threaten the West at this point, but they are
certainly on a roll. Also, it should be remembered that Benedict's
predecessor, John Paul II, was clearly not happy about the U.S. decision to
invade Iraq, but it does not follow that his successor is eager to see a
U.S. defeat there.

The statement that Benedict made certainly did not hurt U.S. President
George W. Bush in American politics. Bush has been trying to portray the
war against Islamist militants as a clash of civilizations, one that will
last for generations and will determine the future of mankind. Benedict,
whether he accepts Bush's view or not, offered an intellectual foundation
for Bush's position. He drew a sharp distinction between Islam and
Christianity and then tied Christianity to rationality -- a move to
overcome the tension between religion and science in the West. But he did
not include Islam in that matrix. Given that there is a war on and that the
pope recognizes Bush is on the defensive, not only in the war but also in
domestic American politics, Benedict very likely weighed the impact of his
words on the scale of war and U.S. politics. What he said certainly could
be read as words of comfort for Bush. We cannot read Benedict's mind on
this, of course, but he seemed to provide some backing for Bush's position.

It is not entirely clear that Pope Benedict intended an intellectual
intervention in the war. The church obviously did not support the invasion
of Iraq, having criticized it at the time. On the other hand, it would not
be in the church's interests to see the United States simply routed. The
Catholic Church has substantial membership throughout the region, and a
wave of Islamist self-confidence could put those members and the church at
risk. From the Vatican's perspective, the ideal outcome of the war would be
for the United States to succeed -- or at least not fail -- but for the
church to remain free to criticize Washington's policies and to serve as
conciliator and peacemaker. Given the events of the past months, Benedict
may have felt the need for a relatively gentle intervention -- in a way
that warned the Muslim world that the church's willingness to endure
vilification as a Crusader has its limits, and that he is prepared, at
least rhetorically, to strike back. Again, we cannot read his mind, but
neither can we believe that he was oblivious to events in the region and
that, in making his remarks, he was simply engaged in an academic exercise.

This perspective would explain the timing of the pope's statement, but the
general thrust of his remarks has more to do with Europe.

There is an intensifying tension in Europe over the powerful wave of
Muslim immigration. Frictions are high on both sides. Europeans fear that
the Muslim immigrants will overwhelm their native culture or form an
unassimilated and destabilizing mass. Muslims feel unwelcome, and some
extreme groups have threatened to work for the conversion of Europe. In
general, the Vatican's position has ranged from quiet to calls for
tolerance. As a result, the Vatican was becoming increasingly estranged
from the church body -- particularly working and middle-class Catholics --
and its fears.

As has been established, the pope knew that his remarks at Regensburg would
come under heavy criticism from Muslims. He also knew that this criticism
would continue despite any gestures of contrition. Thus, with his remarks,
he moved toward closer alignment with those who are uneasy about Europe's
Muslim community -- without adopting their own, more extreme, sentiments.
That move increases his political strength among these groups and could
cause them to rally around the church. At the same time, the pope has not
locked himself into any particular position. And he has delivered his own
warning to Europe's Muslims about the limits of tolerance.

It is obvious that Benedict delivered a well-thought-out statement. It is
also obvious that the Vatican had no illusions as to how the Muslim world
would respond. The statement contained a verbal blast, crafted in a way
that allowed Benedict to maintain plausible deniability. Indeed, the pope
already has taken the exit, noting that these were not his thoughts but
those of another scholar. The pope and his staff were certainly aware that
this would make no difference in the grand scheme of things, save for
giving Benedict the means for distancing himself from the statement when
the inevitable backlash occurred. Indeed, the anger in the Muslim world
remained intense, and there also have been emerging pockets of anger among
Catholics over the Muslim world's reaction to the pope, considering the
history of Islamic attacks against Christianity. Because he reads the
newspapers -- not to mention the fact that the Vatican maintains a highly
capable intelligence service of its own -- Benedict also had to have known
how the war was going, and that his statement likely would aid Bush
politically, at least indirectly. Finally, he would be aware of the
political dynamics in Europe and that the statement would strengthen his
position with the church's base there.

The question is how far Benedict is going to go with this. His predecessor
took on the Soviet Union and then, after the collapse of communism, started
sniping at the United States over its materialism and foreign policy.
Benedict may have decided that the time has come to throw the weight of the
church against radical Islamists. In fact, there is a logic here: If the
Muslims reject Benedict's statement, they have to acknowledge the
rationalist aspects of Islam. The burden is on the Ummah to lift the
religion out of the hands of radicals and extremist scholars by
demonstrating that Muslims can adhere to reason.

From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore, Benedict's
statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened his political base and
perhaps legitimized a stronger response to anti-Catholic rhetoric in the
Muslim world. And he has done it with superb misdirection. His options are
open: He now can move away from the statement and let nature take its
course, repudiate it and challenge Muslim leaders to do the same with
regard to anti-Catholic statements or extend and expand the criticism of
Islam that was implicit in the dialogue.

The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing the response. We
are assuming that he knew what he was doing; in fact, we find it impossible
to imagine that he did not. He is too careful not to have known. Therefore,
he must have anticipated the response and planned his partial retreat.

It will be interesting to see if he has a next move. The answer to that may
be something he doesn't know himself yet.

My note: There is another dimension to Benedict's strategy: it places liberals and all those who hate the Pope and Catholics (some Evangelical Christian types who think the Church is the Whore of Babylon) on the same side as murderous Muslims. I wonder if that makes them uncomfortable???

MySpace: The New Islamic Frontier

Okay, I found a new website which is a MySpace for Muslims:

http://muslimspace.com/

There you can find Muslim clothing, listen to that yowling that passes for Muslim singing, find single Muslims online, watch Muslim videos and purchase Islamic software. What would Islamic software be like? Here are some of my guesses:

"Need for Islamic Speed" - Camel racing?

"Suicide Bomber" - No extension pack for this one.

"Jihad Tycoon" - Choose to live in a Saudi palace or in the caves of Afghanistan.

I'm still debating whether to join just to take a peek, but I don't know if I'm into surrealism right now. There's enough in the real world to make one's head spin.

Pictures at An Exhibition

At Joee Blog's we see photos of Muslims threatening the Pope and Catholics outside Westminster Cathedral this past Sunday:



"Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers in fight, smite at their necks; at length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them..."
Koran, 47:4



"And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter."
Koran 2:191

This one below is a child holding the sign. Millstone time.



"I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah."

Islamic Rage and Murder... Again

At Michelle Malkin's we see how rabid Muslims demonstrate that they are true cowards in every sense of the word:

"I am sure the killers were angered by the pope's speech in which he attacked our prophet," said Ashe Ahmed Ali, one of the many who witnessed the shooting.(H/T Fox News).

So that gives them the right to murder a 60 year old woman who worked among their poor and sick. Barbarians. In the photo above we see the body of Sister Leonella Sgorbati being taken out of Mogudishi where she was shot and killed in cold blood.

The Pope has issued an apology. Interestingly enough, his apology isn't exactly one for his own words (or rather, for his citing another's words), but for the "reaction" to his words. Here is the text:

"At this time I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims"

He is apologizing for the "reactions" to his quote... which appears to be for those who are suffering as a result of Islamic brutality. Hopefully the Muslims, who demonstrate that they don't quite possess the sharpest acumen when it comes to rhetoric will view it as an apology to them. Whether they will calm down is another matter. I'm not holding my breath.

Pope Benedict Speaks the Truth

More Islamic indignation and uproar over Pope Benedict’s citation of a Byzantine Emperor’s description of Islam and its (false) Prophet as “evil and inhuman”, as well as its command to “spread by the sword the faith”.

Muslim (predictable) reactions:

*Palestinians attacked five churches in the West Bank and Gaza, using firebombs and bullets.

*Pakistan’s Parliament adopted a resolution condemning Benedict for making “derogatory comments” about Islam.

*A Turkish official criticized Benedict’s remarks as “pitiful ignorance”:

"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," Kapusuz told Turkish state media. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."
"Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words," Kapusuz added. "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."(H/T Fox News)

Hitler and Mussolini? This idiot who subscribes to a religion that has a history of hijacking airplanes and murdering its civilian passengers, committing suicide-murders, killing apostates, executing its women if they go to a hairdresser, suppressing and distorting facts in its media, kidnapping and beheading innocent people, blowing up public transportation in order to indiscriminately murder women and children, and routinely goes on murderous and violent rampages whenever they smell the tiniest whiff of criticism HAS THE GALL TO INVOKE A COMPARISON TO HITLER AND MUSSOLINI WITH THE POPE???

Demands for the Pope’s apology are accompanied by frenzied rioting everywhere in the Islamic world.

I hope the Pope never apologizes. There has been some apology from the Vatican yet the Pope has yet to make a personal apology. He shouldn’t. He should not back down to these hypocritical bullies. THE POPE SPOKE THE TRUTH ABOUT ISLAM AND THE ISLAMIC WORLD’S REACTION HAS PROVEN THAT THOSE WORDS ARE TRUE.

The more I see Islamic violence, the more I hear Islamic rhetoric, the more I read of Islamic history, the more I realize that Islam is EVIL. Islam is the scourge of the world and we are headed for a major showdown. The Pope has a duty to warn Western Civilization of the dangers of Islamic Jihad, especially in Europe and he chose the name Benedict for that reason. This is not going to be a popular Pontiff. This man will not be applauded by the world like Pope John Paul II. This man has the toughest road ahead of him for he sees the path which lay before us and he will have to say things most people do not want to hear. I hope God gives him the strength and will to do it.

Death of a Warrior

Oriana Fallaci, Italian journalist and outspoken enemy of Islam, died today at the age of 77 after a battle with cancer.

She was the author of polemical works such as The Force of Reason and The Rage and the Pride. In her journalistic career she interviewed the likes of Yasser Arafat, Henry Kissinger and Ayatollah Khomeini. She was a war correspondent who covered the 1956 Hungarian insurrection, the Latin-American upheavals in the 70's, the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, and the 1968 massacre in Mexico City, where she was seriously wounded.

Ms. Fallaci was a ferocious critic of Islam, and has taken refuge in New York City after being found guilty of breaking an Italian law which prohibits the "slander" of religions. She has received many death threats from Muslims all over the world for her vehement invectives against Islam and its followers:

Wake up folks, wake up! As intimidated as you are by the fear of going against the stream and looking racist (a grossly erroneous word, by the way, because the problem has nothing to do with a race: it has to do with a religion) you don't understand or don't want to understand that a Reverse Crusade is on the march. As blinded as you are by the myopia and the stupidity of the Politically Correct, you don't realize or don't want to realize that a war of religion is being carried out. A war they call Jihad. A war that does not aim at the conquest of our territory maybe, (maybe?), but certainly aims at the conquest of our souls and at the disappearance of our freedom. A war which is conducted to destroy our civilization, our way of living and dying, of praying or not praying, of eating and drinking and dressing and studying and enjoying Life. As numbed as you are by the propaganda of the falsehood, you don't put or do not want to put in your mind that if we do not defend ourselves, if we do not fight, the Jihad will win. It will win, yes, and destroy the world that somehow or other we have been able to build. To change, to improve, to make more intelligent, less bigoted or not bigoted at all. It will cancel our culture, our art, our science, our identity, our morals, our values, our pleasures... By God! Don't you see that all these Ousamas Bin Ladens consider themselves authorized to kill you and your children because you drink alcohol, because you don't grow the long beard and refuse the chador or the burkah, because you go to the theatre and to the movies, because you love music and sing a song, because you dance and watch television, because you wear the miniskirt or the shorts, because on the beach and by the swimming pool you sunbathe almost naked or naked, because you make love when you want and with whom you want, or because you don't believe in God? I am an atheist thank God. And I have no intention of being punished for this by retrograde bigots who, instead of contributing to the improvement of humanity, salaam and squawk prayers five times a day.

Of liberal Europeans, whom she refers to as "cicadas", she has been just as severe:

...I heard that some deluxe cicadas will soon come to New York. They will come on holiday, to visit the new Hercolaneum and the new Pompeii, I mean the Towers that no longer exist. They will take a deluxe airplane, they will choose a deluxe hotel, and after a deluxe drink they will immediately go to enjoy the ruins. With their very expensive cameras (two or three thousand dollars each) they will photograph the remains of the melted steel, they will snap suggestive images to show their friends in Rome. With their very expensive shoes (one thousand dollars a pair in the least) they will trample on the ground coffee, maybe they will even spend a tear to replace their former "Good, Americans-got-it-good" and guess what they'll do afterwards. They will go to buy the gas-masks in sale for those who fear a chemical or biological attack. Is it not chic to go back to Rome with a gas-mask bought here? It permits to boast "Gee! I risked my life in New York!" It also permits to start a new fashion, the fashion of the Dangerous Holidays. First they invented the Intelligent Holidays, they who do not have a single drop of intelligence, now they'll invent the Dangerous Holidays, they who do not have a single drop of courage.

Of America, her second home, Fallaci waxed sharply poetic:


...I am profoundly linked to America. I am so even though I often quarrel with her. Even though I condemn her flaws and mistakes and faults. Her too frequent oblivion of the noble principles on which she was born and grew up, to begin with. Her childish cult of opulence, her inconsiderate waste of richness, her moral hypocrisies, her bullish arrogance in the financial and military field. (An arrogance that inevitably emerges and has always emerged from a country arrived at her level of power and supremacy, by the way). And also the haunting memory of a plague now fully wiped out and sometimes erroneously exploited by its victim's descendants, in my opinion, but too long endured. The plague of slavery. Also her paucities in education, I mean the gaps that impoverish her knowledge because let's admit it: scientifically and technologically her knowledge is superb. In the humanistic domain, instead, it is kind of inadequate. Also her constant glorification of violence and brutality, a glorification that especially through the movies poisons her rescued but unlearned plebes and contaminates the rest of the world. Also her sordid and obsessive exhibition of sex, her boring deification of homosexuality, her immoderate and boundless hedonism. All faults that contributed a lot to the fall of the Roman Empire and one day will lead to her fall; remember. Nevertheless, I am profoundly linked to her. America is for me a husband, a lover, to whom I shall always remain loyal and faithful notwithstanding his defects. (And provided that he does not cuckold me with some unforgiveable betrayal). I care for my husband, my lover. I like his impudence, his courage, his optimism. I adore his geniality, his ingenuity, his trust in himself and in the future. I compliment the respect he has for common people and for the wretched, the ugly, the dejected. I envy the infinite patience with which he bears the offences and the slanders. I praise the marvelous dignity and even humility with which he faces his incomparable success, I mean the fact that in only two centuries he has become the absolute winner. The archetype that both in the Good and in the Evil we all want to follow or imitate. The lifebuoy to which we all resort or ask for help. And I never forget that, hadn't this husband defeated Hitler, today I would speak German. Had he not held back the Soviet Union, today I would speak Russian... Finally I admire his undisputed and indisputable generosity... America has always been the Refugium Peccatorum, the orphanage, of the people without a country. Without a patria, without a home, a mother...

Oriana Fallaci, a modern-day Cassandra, died in her beloved Florence. Requiescat in pace.