FEWP FIGHT EXTREMISM WITH PEACE Monographs The following are commentaries on the dangers of extremism and those who foment it, those who support it, those who tolerate it, and those who seek to appease it. This website is dedicated to keep alive the memories of the past, wherein tyrants and dictators, madmen and ruthless sociopaths waged war on human peace, progress and civilization, and caused immeasurable suffering and tragedy to tens of millions. It is designed to keep those who love peace alert and vigilant, to ensure that never again will the Hitlers and Hirohitos, Stalins and Pol Pots, Kim Il Jongs and Bin Ladens murder and oppress to satisfy egos and mad intentions. The Dangers of Extremism, The Hope of Peace Extremism in any form is a danger to humanity. Whether it takes the form of religious indoctrination seething with hatred and anger, or political domination, including repression of basic freedoms endowed to all humanity by inherent dignity and basic human understanding, or whether it is issue oriented, fed by single-minded and often blinded dedication to an idea, or cause, the murder, mayhem, fear, destruction, suffering and isolation created by these egomaniacal pursuits must be stopped. If all decent humanity loving persons can spread the power of respect, and peace, and hope, and if all decent humanity can show the followers of these extremist ideologies that the path to human spirituality is not winning a cause but winning spiritual freedom for Earth's billions, then left alone on the fringes of human thought and endeavor, the few remaining blinded extremists will perish alone and causeless. The great ship of humanity must sail a steady course, guided by the social imperatives developed over thousands of years, principles within each of us, the basic human response of goodwill to another human. "I Am The Voice of Extremist Islam, Hear Me or Die" There is no greater threat in the world today than the virus that is extremist Islam. With indoctrination of the weak and innocent, the very young and the pure, with insidious sermons and edicts, fatwahs and jihads, tens of millions have come to live with hatred and murder in their hearts every single day. The following is intended to put this danger to the very future of humanity in perspective. This is what the Islamic terrorists believe (lest you have doubt, ask any if they believe these things - likely, they will be surprised you have managed to pierce the core of their beliefs). This is the murderous and barbaric code of honor among extremist terrorists spreading the virus of Fundamentalist Islam throughout the world, murdering all who dare think or believe differently. They must be stopped. There is no room in the world for a religious sect that considers itself the only acceptable belief upon pain of death. It is no longer a question of polite acceptance of another person's beliefs -- it is about the eradication of a dangerous and ruthless dogma bristling with hatred and murder, and deceit and eugenics akin to that of the Nazis, or worse. The time for vigilance and outrage against Extremist Islam is here. Stamp it out now, or we will all perish: "Here I am. Obey me. I am hiding here, where you cannot see me, but where you can fear me. I am the only one, there is no other. All who believe anything else must die. Know this is the truth. I will kill all of you and celebrate. I will kill you in your public places, with bombs and nails and shrapnel and fire, or I will shoot you in the back of the head. If I could only get bigger bombs, I would kill more of you at one time, and praise God for my success. I will kill you and your children, and I will kill your parents too. I will murder the old and the young alike, it doesn't matter. I will kill you when you are celebrating, or eating, or in your sleep. When you are working, or even when you are praying. None of you are entitled to live. You know who you are. You are the unbelievers. I know who you are, just by looking at you. It doesn't matter what you think or feel or believe inside. You look different from me, you were born different from me, and that is enough to convict you. It is true some of mine may die when I kill you, but they will celebrate in heaven their proud death. I will choose when you and they will die, and it is Allah's bidding that I do this. Also, there are those among you unbelievers who defile my way of believing with your own way of believing, pretending to love Allah like me. You "believers" who do not follow the fundamentalist doctrine, my doctrine, are unbelievers too. You too must die. I do not ask you to believe like me, I demand you believe. It is simple. Believe like me, or die. There is no alternative. Live like me, obey my rules, dress like me, pray like me, speak like me, think like me, treat your women and families like me, or else die. If you criticize my way of believing, or speak out against my beliefs, you will die. If you try to escape from my way of believing, you will die. You, in Asia, in Africa, in Australia, in Europe, in North America. Your cultures are defective. They are unclean. Only my culture is pure. It is the only one. I will come to you silently, spreading like a deadly virus among you until you cannot count my numbers, and then I will strike you down and swallow you, so that the entire world is mine. There can be no other way of believing. Mine is the only one. There is no room on Earth for any other way than my way. Believe my way, or die. This is our credo. We will execute all who defy us. Fear us. Live your lives in dire fear of our murder. You who do not bow down to our way of believing will soon die. I am the voice of fundamentalist Islam. The Guardian's Attempts to Make the News Instead of Report It It is a sad day for the press indeed. With strong opinions, and little taste for facts, news organizations have resorted to creating the news to fill time and space instead of finding and reporting the news as it exists. The most popular news reporting technique in London currently is to have front page news reports about what other newspapers are saying about a story...in other words, the story is not so much the story as what the newspapers say about the story. CNN is guilty of this constantly. Reporters love to report that "sources say [something]", and only upon digging do we find that the "sources" are in fact some other reporter with the organization who is merely voicing an opinion, having failed to find the facts out him or herself. The opinion therefore becomes news, not the facts of the story. It is shameful indeed. Other times, reports indicate that "many have questioned the motives of" or "many have criticized the President [or the Prime Minister, or the government or the person]". In fact, the only persons who "questioned" or "criticized" anything is the news organization itself. The opinion therefore becomes the news, and the opinion becomes reported as fact - it is a neat device - give an opinion, and let someone else report that, as a matter of fact, the person actually did "say" that. It is akin to vanity reporting. Whatever happened to objective news reporting? It has become lost in news organizations with strong political motivations, and news gathering organizations such as Reuters, AFP and Associated Press, who employ (loosely) thousands of indigenous reporters who are not skilled in objective reporting, and often merely write their personal impressions or views as news (or, as with AFP, have a decidedly biased political view to present). With news reporting having become an instantaneous enterprise because of the Internet, despite protestations of "excellence in editing", there is relatively little taking place. We read a headline reporting that "a poll shows Blair should step down". The headline appears in the Guardian newspaper, but the poll is taken on behalf of the Daily Mail (a news organization which has stated itself decidedly against the Prime Minister on Iraq). Nor is the result overwhelming when the details are read. In fact, the poll (among readers of the Mail) is inconclusive, 43% supposedly against Blair, and 42% in favor. One might reasonably suspect the overwhelming majority of Mail readers oppose Blair. The result then is quite surprising, because nearly half the readers support the Prime Minister. Yet the Guardian (the single most offensively subjective news organization) which steadfastly opposes Blair and the U.S., and wholeheartedly supports all Islamic endeavors against the West and Israel, uses the poll to falsely float the idea the majority of Britons want Blair to step down. More attempts to make the news instead of actually report it. When will it stop? The beauty and power of the freedom of the press in civilized and free democratic countries is the power to report the facts and the truth. "The truth shall set you free." It would be refreshing to read a well-written article that merely reports what happened instead of what the writer hopes or wishes or thinks or believes. I don't care to know what anyone at the Guardian (or AFP) thinks or believes about anything. Just the facts, Ma'am, and only the facts. I can figure out the rest myself, thank you.
Peace Must Start With Moderate's Adamant and Vocal Rejection of Racism and Extremism - There Can Be No Trust Until Then On October 16, 2003 the Prime Minister of Malaysia, regarded as a moderate Islamic leader, lashed out at the West, and in particular at "Jews", in an anti-Semitic tirade accusing Jews of controlling the world. He did not only rave against Jews. He also condemned Muslims too. But not for violence, not for terrorism, not for the failure to isolate and defeat terror in their midst. Instead, he excoriated Muslims for not using their brains more, for not resorting to economic and political means to destroy and defeat Jews and the West. He did not exhort Muslims to co-exist, he did not exhort Muslims to find a way to live peacefully with people of different faith in the world. No, his primary complaint was that 1.3 billion Muslims are substantially "weaker" than the West because of the restrictions extremist Islam has placed on technological progress. Instead of taking the opportunity to encourage Muslims to find a way to live peacefully in the world with the over 5 billion who are not Muslims, he lamented Islam had not found a way to conquer them yet. But he held out hope that following the lead of the "Jews", brain power would help Islam develop weapons which would make them powerful too. How truly sad that this is the best moderation among Islamic leaders can produce. And as if to emphasize how dismal the situation is, merely days later, Osama Bin Laden issued his own statement, demonstrating the dangers that still exist in the world from those who distort the truths within Islamic beliefs. How can the world safely tolerate Islam if it continues to declare as a group that it intends to defeat the rest of the world? Which other group in the world has declared war on the rest? None. Which other group refuses to co-exist with any who believe differently? None. If Islam continues to characterize its struggle as a war against the rest of humanity, it will continue to provide justification for fear and revulsion, and for a war against terrorism that has concentrated mostly on Islamic perpetrators because they have been the overwhelming terrorists (despite efforts by Islamic and sympathetic media to characterize anything that opposes Islamic violence as "terrorism" and "racism"). One need only read Mahathir's statement, or Bin Laden's to see that the Islamic view (which now includes even the purported mainstream view) is one of deep anti-Semitism and hatred of everything non-Islamic. When the voices of true Islam, the voices of peace and moderation, of willingness to co-exist and cooperate, to live and progress, to become fulfilled and fruitful, lash out at those that hijack Islam and proclaim it as a credo of hatred and violence, when they proclaim their hatred of this violence and racism, then the first step toward curing the world's fear of Islam will be taken. I Am a Palestinian I hate you. You are Jewish, that's all I need to know. I hate you and your family, your children and parents, and all you stand for. I hate your religion and your people. I wake up every day hating you, and go to sleep hating you. It infects the fabric of my life. I have devoted myself to hatred for you. I have taught my children to hate you from the time they could crawl, giving them pictures and songs and sayings and warnings about you. I told them they must fear you and hate you, or else God will abandon them. I taught them well. They are prepared to die killing as many of you as possible. My children will strap on vests with nails and metal and explosives, and go to your children and babies and old people, and kill them, blowing them up and spreading their flesh across Israel. You are in my land. I want you to leave. All that you have is mine. All that you inhabit is mine. You stole it from me, and mine, and I want it back. You lie when you say you were here for five thousand years. We were here first, and we will never share what is ours with you. Your beliefs are unbeliefs, and your God is not our God. He has abandoned you, and he has embraced us. I do not send my children to school. I do not work. I do not build schools or libraries, or factories or roads. Instead, I wake up and hate, and I complain all day about hating you, and then I sleep, dreaming of killing you. It is my Islamic duty to hate you. This is my life. May Allah bless me, and may he exterminate all Jews so there are no more left on Earth. Cause and Effect I am concerned about terrorism, and about what I perceive as a threat from the forces of extremism throughout the world. Conveniently, Democrats running for President lay the blame for this rise in "hate-America" at the door of President Bush. The causes of this hatred however have little to do with Bush, and everything to do with the blindness and lack of foresight of past administrations, including Democrats and Republicans -- twisted fundamentalists do not distinguish between Democrats and Republicans -- they are both "Americans", just a different flavor. The Islamic extremism flourishing now has long been seething, the incubation begun moments after the U.N. created Israel in 1948. It is able to flourish now because an overwhelmingly one-sided international press, using indigenous reporting rife with subjectivism and an anti-West bias, has continued to vilify Western ideals, and offer an account of extremism as though it is a cult of heroism. The Palestinian "struggle" over the years has become a rallying point when in fact it is nothing more than a plot unfolding as it reaches its final stage. The plot was hatched in 1948, and it goal was the destruction of Israel, and extermination of the Jewish race. A state of Palestine is not an endgame. It is merely the launching pad for the second phase of the plot. Once Palestine exists, it will become an armed and dangerous country on the border of Israel. It will receive all the arms and technology it needs to wage war against Israel. Of course it could never win this war, but that is not the purpose. Nor is the sacrifice of tens of thousands of Palestinians either (it never has been important to Islamic extremists - Palestinians have been fungible to them, thousands more available to die just for the asking). Palestine is intended to be a front line in a war against Israel, a flashpoint that will serve to bring the international community, always quick to criticize Israel and protect the Palestinian "cause", to condemn Israel, and perhaps even to take steps against the tiny country to isolate it and crush it. If Palestine engages in war against Israel, it will serve to justify participation from surrounding countries, including Syria, Iran, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon. The outcome is not determined, but the possibility of a nuclear detonation in Tel-Aviv is high, given the propensity of extremists to pool their pocket change to chip in for a bigger bomb. Of course, Israel could respond, but that will just bring about World War III, exactly what the Islamic extremists want. Their sleeper cells will awaken all over the world, and mayhem will permeate the West. This has been in the planning for decades. It is not something which ignited last year or since Iraq. I want to know what Wesley Clark intends to do about it? Will he seek to engage these extremists, who would just as soon decapitate him (as they did to Pearl in Pakistan) as listen to him. Bush's plans might not be the most creative, but they are certainly born of strength, resolve and determination. We need to engage moderate Islamic forces, and for that, movement on both sides is needed. We need to understand them more, but they need to understand us as well. It is not a one way street. Do I want Richard Gephart representing me on that stage? Or Clark? or Dean? No. I want someone doing that who will strike fear into the heart of every person who would consider taking on the role of extremist assassin. The job description changed after 9/11, and Democrats better get with it. I don't want to appease anyone. I don't want to lie down and watch Islamic extremists march throughout the world. We have to meet this challenge, and eradicate this virus, and to do so without stepping on toes (or upsetting the French) is impossible. Too bad. Deal with it. Minarets of Hatred Even as extremists gather in growing racism against anything Jewish, even as Jews die without international complaint or condemnation, even in a peaceful place, Muslim leaders openly announce war against Jews. Is there any other openly declared war against an entire religion that is not condemned? Where is the U.N. now? Israel speaks out against Arafat, and a resolution condemning Israel pops out of the Security Council. Mahathir invited Muslims to join a fight against "Jews", whom he accuses of "controlling the world by proxy", and Kings and presidents applaud him. Where is the Security Council to condemn an open statement of war against a religion? If anyone else mentioned action (let alone war) against an Islamic person or group (let alone a country), strong condemnation erupts from every corner. Why? It is the stirrings of hatred and racism against Jews that occurs once each century, and sometimes more often. So it has been for 2,000 years. It is time again for "conspiracy" theories about Jews. Mahathir openly accused Jews of "inventing" human rights to "protect themselves", and to make it appear as though persecuting them was wrong. There is something sordid in those "left-handed" statements. The assumption of course is that Jews are not entitled to "human rights", and that persecuting Jews is not wrong. And that is the illness which infects much of Islam right now - a cynical and overwhelming hatred and racism towards anything and anyone Jewish. Imagine what could be accomplished by 1.3 billion who actually had something other than Jew-hatred on their minds. It was what Mahathir was aiming for, but his deeply ingrained hatreds and racist views came springing out nonetheless. Atleast he credits the Jews for their survival and using their brains for two millennia, and for criticising Islam for having gotten stuck in the 7th Century. When Islam uses its minarets to announce peace, progress and love, to call all to worship the beauty that is mankind and enlightenment, peace throughout the world will prevail. So long as the call is to war, the dark ages will continue as a blight to human endeavor. The Tools of Perfidy International ANSWER presents itself as an "anti-war" movement. Unfortunately, in addition to its political position on the war in Iraq, the organization also serves as the mouthpiece for the Palestinians, campaigning actively on behalf of the Palestinian people, and against Israel. Its one-sided view of the Middle East conflict imposes responsibility on Israel, but refuses to assign any responsibility for terrorist actions upon the Palestinians, nor even mention the rampant murder of innocent Jews in Israel by militant Palestinians. I wrote to ANSWER to ask what is meant by the word "Racism" in its title, because the organization characterizes racism as including only extremist views against Muslims and Blacks. Apparently Jews are not included. There is no mention of the inculcation in Islamic religious schools of hatred of Jews and anything Jews, anti-Zionist rhetoric, calls to destroy Israel and Jews, and calls to War against Jews, Christians and the West in general. There was no mention of the racist (rabidly anti-Semitic) statements of Mahathir last week. This is simply a warning to those who wrap themselves in some glorious endeavor they expect to achieve some misty-eyed dream of world peace through organizations such as ANSWER who in fact have an agenda, and one that does not include world peace, but peace with conditions. The conditions are to tolerate anti-semitism, eradicate the Jews and their purported "power", and to elevate Islam to a position of pre-eminence worldwide. Like unwitting tools of perfidy, ANSWER serves the silent and insidious intent of those who in fact spurn world peace, and use these organizations merely as an "inside job" against America, and against Jews worldwide. If only they would stop and think about how wonderful their freedom is to even have these thoughts. Perhaps the ten thousand marchers in Washington against some imagined "war" in Iraq (long concluded) should spend a few years in the Middle East and experience Islamic justice first hand (if they have any hands left after suffering judgment for just existing outside Islam). Nothing is Enough in Iraq ?œIs there a sense that there is really no place safe in the Iraqi capital nowadays??? ?œARRAF: What U.S. Officials have been relying on is their ability to get better intelligence and work with the Iraqi police in some cases to make more arrests, to actually crack down on these cells of opposition that they're facing.?? But if somebody wants to carry out an attack like this, there really isn't much protection. This is a very secure area behind us. But beyond us, where the rockets were launched from, is a busy street and major intersection. According to residents, there aren't a lot of American patrols here. That's been a feature of Baghdad life as well, that we have been seeing fewer U.S. patrols as more Iraqi police take over.?? For some, there is nothing to be done to satisfy them. In Iraq, the more the U.S. does, the less the "critics" [whomever they are and whatever their agenda] want the U.S. to do. On the other hand, the moment there is an incident (such as a suicide bombing or an attack on the Al Rasheed hotel), the U.S. is criticized for not taking more precautions. To be sure, the U.S. could prevent all of the attacks by clamping down on Baghdad. Of course that would be unpopular, and would result in criticism that life is hell for residents. There is no solution. Of course if the U.S. simply withdrew, it would be criticized for leaving a vacuum. If it stays, it is criticized for staying. For some, there is nothing you can do to please them. They just want to criticize for the sake of criticizing. It appeals to their lack of self-esteem to strike out at someone else. The attack against the hotel is characterized as "bold". When journalists were staying there, the attack was characterized as reprehensible. What changed? Because there are Americans staying there now? When an attack is made on a place where citizens are staying, like a hotel, is that now bold, or is it only bold when an Iraqi terrorist makes the effort? The spin, the spin, the spin. A Landslide Victory Communists did not attack our homeland. They did not threaten our shores and the very lives of our children and families, though the fear of nuclear attack did not waver. MAD took care of the risk for the most part because it was understood the "enemy" valued life as much as we did. However, we deal with a different "enemy" now, one imbued with a zealous and religious fervor that removes all inhibitions about self-destruction or suicide. This enemy would gladly sacrifice tens of millions of its own adherents in exchange for destroying a like number of Americans, its allies and all those who do not believe in its strict fundamentalist views, including moderates. MAD has no relevance, because it is self-destruction that is championed as the highest achievement in our enemy's despicable life. Make no mistake. This is the greatest challenge we have faced, even unlike the challenges faced during World War II, because the technological advances and opening of our society and borders made since then have created a capability in our enemies to strike (and strike with powerful destruction) even on our own shores. Now, more than any time in history, leadership must not waver, it must not relent, and it must not backtrack or hesitate. Leadership must be efficient, determined, persistent, and must be willing to act, to act without hesitation, without doubt, and in full-strength, and yes, even to be as ruthless as our enemy when called for. Who would anyone want in that position? Is there any doubt that a political minded individual devoted to consensus building would mire this great nation in an endless debate over whose hackles would be raised if any step was taken to prevent attack or destroy our enemy? Can we risk reducing our country to a polite debating society like the U.N. where it is impossible to do anything? Do we really want to elect anyone as president who has stated that he is opposed to the War? What if Bin Laden attacks again? What would that "President" do? Would he act with the full power of the U.S., or would he hesitate, pull punches, consider the "politically correct" thing to do? Would the President wait for the U.N. to act, or would he or she have a resolution authorizing attack on the Security Council floor within a few hours? And failing support from the anti-American lobbies in the U.N. would he have the courage to act in any event to protect this country from this insidious enemy? I, for one, do not want my family's security in the hands of any candidate who tries to impress me by announcing opposition to getting rid of Saddam. I don't want to elect anyone who talks of moderation, or betrays the desperate measures needed to be taken to thwart the march of a fanatical group determined to murder as many of us as possible. I want to elect someone who will have the guts to take on that challenge and do everything in their power to see the conflict through to victory. Guts. That's what we need in the White House, not Monday morning quarterbacks who even now can only lob insults without suggesting one single way in which they would have been able to do anything differently. Leaving the White House in their hands would only serve to diminish this great country's standing. I would rather we were hated and feared because we are strong, than loved because we stand aside when challenged. Notice that the front running Democrat is a military guy. Hmmm. I wonder why. Maybe even die-hard liberal democrats understand the need for someone with guts to be in the White House, and they won't risk giving that job to the likes of Dean or Kerry. I predict a landslide victory for Bush. Attack on the International Red Cross by Terrorists in Iraq We read with distress of the attack on the International Red Cross in Iraq. Most civilized people in the world recognize the neutrality of the Red Cross, and only those bereft of morals would willfully attack and kill Red Cross personnel. We were surprised there was no resolution by either the General Assembly or the Security Council condemning this action, and calling for the cessation of all terrorist actions against the United Nations and Red Cross personnel in Iraq. We wondered just what it would take to result in such a resolution. In other instances, resolutions pop out of both those bodies with alarming speed, if the parties and the causes are right. The State of Israel whispered the name "Arafat" and a resolution sprang forth from the Security Council post-haste. A speedy resolution recently was passed by the General Assembly castigating Israel, but failing to address the ongoing terrorism acted out every day by Hamas and other terrorist organizations. It is impossible right now to predict which of these organizations has contributed to the destructive activities in Iraq, and if they were in fact behind the killing of Red Cross personnel. When will the U.N. take some responsibility for a change, and actually pass a meaningful (and not a political) resolution that actually condemns an attack which not one single entity in the world will deny is reprehensible. Will the U.N. not even protect its own personnel with some form of declaration against senseless killing by fanatics? Or is the U.N. so intimately engrossed in only one side of the Middle East conflict that it is impossible to see (or there is fear to highlight or criticize) any wrongdoing by Islamic extremists? When will the fairness and objectivity that is in the U.N. charter actually take hold, and when will the U.N. cease to be a political tool of some or debating society, and actually take concrete steps to create peace? Appeasing will only aid and abet extremism, and extremism is the slippery slope to war. Leadership in this millennium requires action, not endless debate. If the U.N. cannot protect innocent billions, then who can? The U.N. cannot protect billions from anthrax, A-bombs and genocide, or against flashpoints of terrorism with appeasement and debate, but only with strength, determination, and a program of meaningful communication among all races and religions and empowerment. The latter two are useless without the former two. People who have learned to hate each other (to wit, textbooks in some societies actually indoctrinate children to hate other races and religions) through indoctrination and history will not talk about peace until their backs are to the wall, and if the U.N. doesn't have the means or the willingness to do it, it will fall to others. Just don't criticize them when they act. Mahathir's Finale Lest there be any doubt about Mahathir's racist views, his parting shots merely confirmed his anti-Semitic beliefs, despite his protestations to the contrary ("some of my friends are Jews"). True he is critical of Muslims, but his exhortations to Muslims are not to seek enlightenment to contribute to world peace, but as a path to world domination. The packaging is different, but the end game is the same - to install Islam as the only acceptable belief, and to beat down Jews and Christians. It is the classic philosophy of the underachiever, of those lacking self esteem. To say "Jews invented human rights so that oppressing them would appear wrong" is so utterly lacking of comprehension of human rights, it belies the dream of peace, and portends instead the brutality and barbarism that has become the vanguard of an extremist's view stuck in the 7th Century. Jews and Christians survived 5,000 years as a small group, despite being attacked and targeted many times, because their credos are universal, and appeal to all civilized peoples. Until Muslims reject the long ingrained hatred and racism against the rest of the world, it will suffer debasement and misunderstanding. Power comes to those who do not seek it. They who crave it will never hold it long. Someone Has To Fight, But Not Mr. Freedland I don't even need to read the articles anymore to know the source. I can tell an article from The Guardian just by its title. Anti-American -- Guardian. Anti-Israel everything -- Guardian. Anti-Blair -- Guardian. Anti-Bush -- Guardian. Anti-West -- Guardian. Pro-Palestinian anything -- Guardian. The trouble of course is that "news" from the Guardian is its own brand of extremism - ultra-leftist dogma at its worst in modern society, always critical of the government (any government), always nay saying, always quick to drum up accusations, even if the source is its own speculation. Today's missive is Jonathan Freedland's sardonic and arrogant attempt to characterize his own ill-devised opinion as fact ("The Anti-war camp was right, but that's no reason to be smug"). I have news for Mr. Freedland -- he wasn't right, and has nothing to be smug about. Despite all the efforts of the likes of Freedland to mischaracterize the success of removing Saddam, Iraq will be a free nation, free of the oppression and tyranny it suffered for decades. There are anti-war adherents who probably celebrate each death in Iraq as a monument to their own predictions, never stopping to think that in war there is death, but the deaths in war can be far fewer than the deaths prevented from oppression, tyranny, and appeasement. All one need do is look around. Even in Iraq itself. The anti-war press is rabid to count with glee the daily dead, but of course it overlooks the enormous relief. A mass grave is found in Iraq with what is expected to be 15,000 bodies. 15,000. Imagine that. 150 times as many Americans deaths since May 1. That's just one grave. There's another grave with 3,000 bodies in the North, and many others scattered around. A warehouse with innumerable human remains in boxes, catalogued like a butterfly collection. And many, many more as yet uncovered. Just in Iraq alone. How many died in Afghanistan? In Pakistan? In Bali? In New York? In Kenya? In Lebanon? In the Philippines? In Iran? In Saudi Arabia? In Yemen? How many have been saved by ridding the world of one monster? How many more would be saved (and their way of life preserved) with the eradication of extremism and terrorism? How does one deal with someone whose position is "believe like me or die?" It is easy for Mr. Freedland to wish to be smug, but from my standpoint I ask him, "what would you do when Osama comes to your office building to blow it up? Will you wave an anti-war banner at him and proclaim your sympathy with his cause (whatever dark thing that is)? Will you abandon your beliefs and yield to his? Would you try to change his mind?" Trust me, he would laugh at you while he destroys you and all the others he merely views as weak appeasers, less difficult for his task of destroying any culture different than his own. The sad fact is there are people like that and they have guns and bombs. Sometimes the battle is long and drawn out because your adversary does not play by any rules, least of all the rules of war. This adversary doesn't. They kill women and children without a second thought. They attack the Red Cross, other international aid workers and agencies, and even kill Muslims who happen to be in their zone of destruction. They specifically target citizens to make the conflict painful. Pitiful excuses for humans, the terrorists must be hunted down, often one by one, and neutralized. I do wonder if Mr. Freedland has seen the tape of David Pearl's execution. Perhaps he would like to visit Pakistan and do a follow-up story entitled "Anti-war Adherents Are Safe To Demonstrate and Throw Stones Only Because Someone Else Had The Guts To Fight and Die." What if AP had only this to report? What if AP had only this to report?: "Millions of people in the United States took to the streets to celebrate their victory over Iraq." Or "hundreds of thousands of people in the United States filled the streets to celebrate the anniversary of the defeat of Egypt and Syria by Israel." Or "people in the United States celebrated the anniversary of the bombing of Iraq's nuclear plant by Israel." Or "people in the United States flocked to the streets to celebrate the death of Saddam's two sons, burning pictures of their dead bodies and slanting slogans, including 'death to Islamic terrorists'." Or "people in the United States danced in the streets to celebrate the deaths of over 3,000 Iraqis in the war, and tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers." Or "people in the United States celebrated the capture of terrorists in Bali, Kenya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Yemen, Great Britain, Chechnya, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and other nations." Or "people dancing in the streets chanted 'death to the Arab murderers, death to the Islamic dogs!'?? Or "people in the United States held marches and parades to commemorate the victory over Japan with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the killing of hundreds of thousands of Japanese in a matter of seconds in the most powerful military victory in human history." Sound awful? Sound impossible? Why don't people in the U.S. celebrate these things? Basically, because of morality. War and conflict are not enterprises Americans relish or celebrate, even in victory, but rather carry out to protect something precious and enduring. Why do people in Arab countries take to the streets to wave flags and celebrate every single death of a Jew or an American? Perhaps it is because there is so little to celebrate in their meager, dismal lives, and their envy and hatred of American power and success is so strong, their barbarism so distinct and powerful, they cannot help themselves. There is of course a double standard. If Americans did celebrate these things, Muslims would be the first to whine about how they are the objects of discrimination, and how awful for Americans to say those things about Islam. But yesterday AP actually reported that Iraqis celebrated American deaths in the streets, dancing and waving flags and burning wreckage (as Palestinians celebrated American deaths after 9/11). And in Iran, a national celebration of the storming of the American embassy took place (how pitiful that this is something the country feels a need to celebrate ??a ?œvictory??by an entire country over a diplomatic building ??some pathetic regimes need to find victory even under a stone). And in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Arab countries people take to the streets to celebrate deaths of the American "enemy" every day. In the U.S., we sing songs like "America the Beautiful" or ?œGod Bless America??at baseball games, and wring our hands when the enemy is beaten, and some of them die. Our press vilifies us because our enemy was killed, and somehow we did not manage to win a stunning victory without any casualties. And terrorists use more terrible weapons designed to murder more innocent civilians, with nails and shrapnel and C4, and then videotape barbaric beheadings with dull blades. We of different faiths wait with bated breath for the arrival of Islam's billions from the 7th Century into modern civilization. Don't take too long though, or we will be forced to annihilate you, and sing and dance on your collective graves like you crave to do on ours. Critics Offer No Solution of their Own It would be amusing if not so tragic. In the U.S. the question we ask is "whom do you want to be in the Oval Office when someone picks a fight to the death with the U.S.?" Not Gore. Not Dean. Not Gephardt. Not Clark. Certainly not Al Sharpton or Hillary Clinton. None of them in fact, mostly because their fashionable criticism of U.S. policy shows me they have no backbone, and certainly no reasonable idea of how to solve the problem of defeating the virus of terrorism that has infected the world. Does Osama Bin Laden truly care if President Hillary "feels" for the poor Palestinian children? Gore (a mere shadow of Clinton) never impressed me as a solid candidate for anything, least of all President. His recent criticism of Bush regarding protecting the U.S. from threats at home is laughable, considering that in the same speech he accuses Bush of an Orwellian administration too invasive of civil rights. In other words, "on civil rights, your security measures are too strong" and "on home security, your measures are too weak." This of course is idiocy, because nothing ever done could satisfy those critics, and they least of all, have any concrete suggestions of what to do. However, lifting measures designed to keep people hell bent on destroying America from doing so does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. It only makes me more terrified that the voices of doom will someday come into power, and then hand the keys to our freedom to a group of terrorists masquerading as "victims" of Western "oppression." Then the total of our "civil rights" will be reduced to deciding which mosque to pray in and which head scarf to wear in the winter. Check out the civil rights section of the average Middle East state's "constitution" (if they have one). Beware what you wish for. It might come true. The Endgame Much grief has been suffered throughout the world as a result of the conflict in the Middle East. Some have gone to extraordinary lengths to resolve the conflict, such as those involved in the Geneva Accord. But few have any view of the long-term plan. Few indeed. Palestine is not the endgame in and of itself. It is a chess piece in a long-term game. The goal of the game is to destroy Israel, from within or without. Palestine is an excuse for now. Most world leaders have rallied with the cry that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is the major cause of terrorism in the world. It is a lie of course. The conflict is used as an excuse for mayhem, but it is not the cause. The cause of terrorism is as old as religion, and goes back to the earliest conflicts between Muslim and non-Muslim. It is a war between have and have-not, between my way and your way. The problem is that where Western systems accommodate Islamic systems, it is not true the other way around. An Islamic system is one of exclusion. Believe like us or leave (or die). But the endgame in Israel is not a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, nor is it even a State of Palestine. Those are only moves in this chess game. Tactics for the game include grabbing as much land from Israel's success in war against failed Arab aggression, from Israel's boundary of security against future aggression, securing the right to dilute Israel's Jewish majority through returning Palestinians and through attrition and immigration (a perversion of democracy to change the nature of the State of Israel from a Jewish State to an Islamic one), building a separate Palestinian State that can be used as a staging point for aggression against Israel, including full military attack. Once the Palestinians have a state, they can receive arms from allies, and the Palestinians will be armed to the teeth to fight Israel. Far from solving a conflict through alleged "peace", the Geneva Accord merely fits into the endgame nicely. A step in the direction of the destruction of Israel. It may take twenty or thirty years, but it will happen - from within or without. Muslims jump to talk about "root causes" as a means of blaming the West for terrorism -- it is "imperialism, globalism, westernization, secularization, anti-Islamic feelings, racism" -- but truly, the root cause is the refusal of Islamic political systems, which are not secular, to live side by side with secular systems. It is the same growing pains Communism suffered. The system of communism, while in ways altruistic, failed to address the basic desire of humans to be what they want and the best they can without interference from the government. Communist regimes found the only way to keep the system going was to oppress. Ruthlessly. The rules and systems were draconian, and thus eventually failed. Islam follows the same pattern. The fundamentalist Islamic system is like communism. Who in their right mind would agree to such a system except those who maintain it and are supreme within it? No one. The only way it survives therefore is to oppress. And the system of Islamic justice, the non-secular political system, the refusal to accept any others or any other information or systems are designed to keep people faithful no matter what they want, and most of all to restrict freedom. This is the root cause of terrorism. It is the indoctrinational sweep of a system that can only succeed if it is the exclusive system. It must either conquer all, or cut off all else. A step in that direction is the elimination of the democratic Jewish state in its midst. The next step is the downfall of all Western style democratic systems in Muslim countries. The next step is the establishment of Islamic states in Asian countries, and the dispersal of emmissaries to points worldwide to establish footholds, and the dispersal of sleeper insurgents to stir up trouble when called upon to do so. The plan will not be fully effective for several generations, but it is being implemented as we speak. With every minaret built in a new city, with every call to prayer in the morning, with every lawsuit to wear a headscarf, every charge of anti-Muslim racism, every picture of a Palestinian child in the morning news to play upon leftist hearts and dreams, the plan is implemented. The appeasers and short-sighted will never see the forest for the trees, and will only recognize the threat when they are forced to their knees on the prayer mat to utter a prayer in a language they do not understand. The Greeks did that to the Jews 2,500 years ago, with the Helenization of Israel. We are living through the initial phase of the Islamicization of the world. Take heed. We are not anti-anything. We do not begrudge anyone believing what he or she likes. We just don't want to be told what to believe. The problem with the Islamic system is that it doesn't allow for that. Believe like me or die. That is unacceptable. Throwing Shoes More Serious Crime Than Murder In Palestine In the utterly ridiculous world of Palestinian racist hatred toward anything Jewish, the Palestinians quickly arrested 7 members of a "small extremist Islamic group called the Liberation Party" for insulting and throwing shoes at the Egyptian foreign minister. Remarkably, the Palestinians have never arrested members of the "large extremist group Hamas" or the "Al Aqsa Brigade" or other extremist groups for murdering hundreds of unarmed Jewish women and children. Apparently throwing shoes at an Arab is a more serious crime than murdering "worthless Jews". The U.N. has given Palestinians its full support in all things, never stopping to consider the diplomatic principles (or lack thereof) ingrained in the violent nest of anti-Semitism that is Palestine. Many wonder if the as yet unformed Palestinian State is so hateful of Jews and Israel, what could lead anyone to believe it will be a cooperative neighbor anytime soon (particularly since Hamas officially clings to the notion Israel is not a valid State, and should be destroyed at all costs)? Will the U.N. give Israel the same protection it has afforded to Palestinians all these years? Never has the U.N. condemned the murder of innocent Jews by Palestinian extremists, while passing dozens of resolutions criticising Israel for all but surrendering their state to Palestine. When will the hypocrisy and double standards change at the U.N.? Having refused to deal with Saddam for dozens of years, having failed to protect Israel at any time during its history from attack by its neighbors, and from their relentless war against it, and indoctrination of its generations with hateful anti-Semitic propaganda disguised as religious doctrine, the U.N. has abandoned its own policy and principles for the popular anti-Jewish conspiracy theories of extremist Islam. Kofi Annan had nothing but praise for P.M. Mahathir after his anti-Semitic remarks recently. When the Secretary General refuses to criticize outrageously anti-Semitic remarks, what can the world possible think? His tenure at the U.N. has been one of leading by appeasement, not leading by example, a continuing failure in world politics since Europe's failed efforts to appease Hitler. A Fictional Interview With an Afghani Woman How are things here in Kabul? Terrible. The Americans have made this place Hell. Why? We have no electricity, no water, not much food, and not much work. It is hopeless. The aid workers tell us they will help, but they never come back. Aid organizations said they built 40,000 homes outside Kabul, and plan to build 60,000 more. Would you leave Kabul to take one of those homes? No. There's no work outside Kabul. Is there work here? No. How was it before? Oh, well ten years ago my husband was killed by a rocket attack. By Americans? No, it was during the Taliban regime. What happened? He was conscripted by the Taliban and taken away to the front. He was killed in the war. Afterwards, I fled to Pakistan with my children. I came back after the Taliban were defeated. How was life here ten years ago? Oh, things were o.k. Elecricity? No. Water? No. School? (laughter) No. Work for you? Never. My life was spent at home with my girls. The men did everything then. Now I have to take care of myself. It's terrible. It sounds like it has always been terrible. Yes, but there were no Americans then. Only us. It was our own situation. But isn't there hope now? I don't know. Hope for what? The Taliban want to keep fighting, so who knows? I don't care for either of them. I just want to be able to feed my children. Were you able to do that in the old days? My husband took care of us. We stayed home and prayed. We weren't allowed to do anything else. I never went to school. Neither did my girls. I don't know much else, except the men were always afraid of being killed, by the Taliban or the Russians. It was terrible. It's terrible now. I hope it isn't terrible for my children too ten years from now. Where is the U.N.? Who? The United Nations? I don't know who they are. They aren't here in Kabul. They must be somewhere else. Everyone is afraid of bombs here, so nobody stays. They kill aids workers if they can. Who is "they"? The Talibani. They hate outsiders. Sounds terrible. It is. I hear it's different in other countries. In Pakistan, it was similar to here, but not much fighting. We stayed home with the children. And there was talk of defeating the Americans. But I'm not sure where, or why. Just to stop them from killing Muslims. They hate us. Why did they come here if they hate Muslims? To kill us. Didn't they come to free you? Hah. This is freedom? It's terrible. I prefer the Taliban. At least I had a place to be. Now, who knows? If this is freedom, you can keep it. Doesn't it take time to work? Freedom, I mean. Who has time? We're starving and cold. I just want us to be left alone. Isn't that freedom? I don't know. It's just terrible. Sounds like it always has been terrible. Yes, my mother used to say the same thing. Maybe it's time for a change. At least your girls can go to school. Maybe. It's still dangerous here. I'm thinking of going back to Pakistan. Then it will never change here. No, it never will. At least there will be no Talibani to kill people outside Afghanistan. Who cares what happens outside Afghanistan? I just want some milk for my children. The Growing Hypocrisy of the Hajib Lie An anonymous editorial from the Guardian newspaper on December 25th ["Secularists now France's loudest fundamentalists"] attempted to paint France as "extremist" for its views on suppressing the use of the Hajib, or Muslim headscarf in schools. The Guardian frequently goes out of its way to find support for the Muslim community, no matter the issue. The editorial refers to the little girl who touched off the controversy as an exemplary student, quiet and unassuming. Why the issue at all over a little scrap of cloth? The editorial speaks of "many more years of confrontation between the French state and Muslims" and "a dangerous reinforcement in the Muslim community of the perception of Islamophobia, of exclusion and persecution." It asks "why so much political, intellectual and emotional energy has been spent on this subject rather than on far more pressing issues of integration such as the high rates of unemployment and deprivation in the Muslim community." [the article uses the opportunity to prattle on about the conflict between "liberalism" and "religion", but it misses the point entirely]. I emphasize the word integration, because this is the issue. Unlike other religions, Islam in its extreme form refuses to be integrated, because it is not merely a religion. It is also a political system and a way of life, and its tenets require control of all aspects of a person's life, including government. In Muslim areas strong enough to, it requires them to apply different laws, different morals, different governing principles, even to reject democracy (women have no voice in many such areas). To integrate it, is to become integrated into it. That is the issue. For believers in other faiths, or none at all, they don't want to become Islamic, and the notion creates fear, and rightly so. It is the apparent overt plan of fundamentalist Islam after all. Perhaps it begins with a small square patch of cloth, but it ends with a minaret in every village, town and city, and a call to prayer echoing across the country during the day, every day, and at end, a demand for an Islamic government, because Muslims do not wish to live under a secular system. Islam complains it is discriminated against, but it is the greatest and most oppressive discriminator, itself. It tolerates none different, and no belief not consistent with its own. In the end, there will be no Guardian either, in the Islamic British State because there is no voice of opposition allowed in such systems. The French proposed ban on all overt religious symbols in schools has been met by Muslims with wide and vehement opposition. Islamic pundits once again embrace their favorite spot as "victims" of racism, complaining about "oppression". Numerous Islamic states have lined up to protest - many states in which religious freedom is nowhere to be found, let alone to the extent guaranteed in France. These states not only legislate Islam, but enforce it ruthlessly, often at the end of a gun or a stake or a rope - even against Muslims who choose not to worship fundamentalist Islam. I can't help wonder which of those states would tolerate a Jew wearing a yarmulke in public school, or a Christian a cross? Or which would tolerate practicing a belief in anything other than Islam? How hypocritical. While in some Islamic countries there is tolerance (such as secular Turkey), in many there is suppression of all other beliefs, if not outright banning of them. And school is no exception. In Muslim schools, the Hajib is required, and the children are often indoctrinated to hate and fear Christians, and to loathe Jews (recent news reports from Saudi Arabia confirmed practice of this indoctrination in textbooks, even in a country purportedly allied with the West). The hajib is the shield that identifies the select. So, who is oppressing whom? The Islamic "victims" cling to their suffocating fundamentalist view of Islam, which pounds the "faithful" into submission by force and by infecting every aspect of life from birth to death upon pain of death, while at the same time criticizing one of the world's longest established democracies, because in that country, they are not permitted to pound the faithful into submission. Well, welcome to democracy. Because Islamic states do not and cannot distinguish between government and religion, there is no in-between. The faithful are the government, and of course the hajib is in the school. It is the desire of the French to be insulated from the spread of Islam across Europe in its burgeoning fifty year plan to create Islamic states across the world, including in particular in Europe and Asia, taking advantage of liberal democracies that traditionally tolerate religious freedoms, and will not see the threat of an overpopulated Islamic influx slowly strangling the line between government and fundamentalist religion. From multitudes to momentum to minarets. Who can doubt that given enough time, and enough leeway, some decades from now, French Muslims will clamor for a separate French Islamic state? And a British, Italian, Russian (already there in Chechnya), Spanish, and German as well? Of course after the hajib, Muslims will complain that Islam is not an official subject taught in school, and that they are being discriminated against because they cannot study the subject. Eventually, they will complain it is not a required course. It is not far-fetched. It is around the corner in fact. And it starts with an "innocent" hajib, and an unassuming little girl. The difference between other religions and Islam is that for most, it has become acceptable in a democratic state that there is a separation of Church and State. It is not acceptable in current iterations of extremist Islam. If Muslims would like to convince us that the separation is acceptable to them, and we are safe from having to live and believe as they do, and that they will obey our secular law passed under democratic principles, we can begin to speak of integration. Until then, there is only justifiable fear of the Islamic "fifty-year plan". A Time for Peace Throughout the world, there was hope for peace. But the peace was broken all over the world by murder and mayhem at the hands of extremists, unfortunately most of them Islamic [there were attempts at mayhem by Basque separatists in Spain, and kidnappings in Colombia, unrest in Africa, and tensions between nuclear mostly Hindu India and nuclear mostly Muslim Pakistan). Bombs exploded in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Israel killing dozens of innocent people in the name of Osama Bin Laden's assault on world peace, and uncharacteristically . Fear and heightened concerns about Islamic terror attacks were felt practically worldwide. Bin Laden's aim is to disrupt society everywhere, even in the Muslim world, to instill fear and appeasement, until the world will do his bidding, and let his brand of Islam take its place as an accepted form of master religion in the world. It is similar to the aims of Hitler. To steamroll all who appear ready to appease, and to instill fear and uncertainty with brutal murder. Like sixty years ago, there are those who are ready to appease. They will regret this in the years to come. Like sixty years ago, there are those who are ready to fight this scourge of humanity. Peace can prevail only if those who fight for it prevail. All of love peace would prefer non-violence to rule the way, but in the face of a brutal regime of global murder and mayhem, silence is appeasement, and inaction is surrender. On this day of peace there is only terror. When will the mainstream elements of Islam take control of their own religion and destiny, and put to rest the indictment of its foundations created by the hatred preached by Bin Laden and his cohorts? The Unnamed Scourge Everyone talks about it, fears it, at times loathes it. But few name it. It is the scourge of the earth now, but it is spoken of only like Voldemort in Harry Potter - "the one who must not be named". We give in to security checks and more infringement of personal liberty, to tightened immigration policies, visa checks, fingerprinting, airport searches, building searches, soldiers in the streets and police and marshals on trains and planes. What do we fear? Is it an attack by Colombian terrorists? Puerto Rican separatists? Chinese communists? No. None of these are currently the greatest threat to human existence. And yet, the threat is not given a name. It is not even called a threat. It merely exists. We call it the "fight against terrorism", as though terrorism is somehow disconnected from its body of people willing to commit it. We are forced to tiptoe around it because somehow some are afraid to "insult" somebody. But there is a specific thing we are all fearful of, fearful in America, in Asia, in Africa, in Europe, and in the Middle East. There is a scourge all over the world, and it is called Islamic extremism. It is the author of terrorism, and in many respects the author of hatred and mayhem. It is willing to send young men and women to their deaths as vehicles of murder of innocent people to make a point. And the unfortunate point is hatred of all things they consider un-Islamic. Misguided, and misinformed, legions march to the tune of rabid anti-everything else, like goose-stepping lemmings from the past. The name of this scourge is extremist Islam. Extremist Islam. Who dares to say it? Perhaps if we identify it, we can deal with it in the open. Perhaps if we identify it, those who have the power to rectify, the hundreds of millions of peaceful Muslims can rip the reins of Islam from the hands of the small minority of fanatics who are steering the religion to the heights of fear and loathing. When a Christian fanatic says horrible things, millions are quick to decry it and denounce it. When an Islamic fanatic says horrible things, a parade is given in his honor. When a Jewish fanatic says horrible things, millions are quick to denounce it, and invalidate it. When an Islamic fanatic murders dozens of innocents, a parade is given in his honor. Someone should complain about it. It could give a religion a bad name. Effigies of Racism A murderous fanatic detonates bombs strapped to his chest, killing himself and dozens of Israelis, some Jewish, some Arab. Reuters or AFP, or AP, using indigenous reporters and photographers run pictures of the aftermath - only there aren't pictures of Jewish victims. There's a picture of the suicide bomber's children, or a Palestinian child near an Israeli policeman, or any Palestinian child. Or there's a picture of the Israeli security wall with a child or woman nearby. A picture is worth a thousand words. The pictures are always meant to juxtapose stereotypical views of Jews against the new definition of Palestinians as "victims", in particular Palestinian children. Jewish children apparently do not suffer when their parents or relatives are blown to bits, or they are themselves. It is impermissible to portray Jews in Israel as anything other than "oppressors", hence there are no photos which might be interpreted as "sympathetic." The only recent picture of a Jewish child was taken in a small settlement, where the people live in constant fear of attack from Palestinian terrorists. The boy is coaxed to stick his tongue out, and this is the picture that is wired worldwide. A defiant Jewish boy. A picture is worth a thousand words. Whether it is Iraq, or Afghanistan or Israel, the indigenous reporters churn out photos that always juxtapose an Arab child next to an American soldier or tank or military person, or a Palestinian child next to an Israeli security apparatus, or soldier or policeman. A recent picture on Christmas day showed two nuns walking to Christmas Mass. They were seen crossing in front of an Israeli tank flying the Israeli flag. The caption described the scene. Palestinian boys hurling stones at two nuns walking to Mass. Where are the boys in the picture? Of course they are not there. Only the tank. The picture says here is a Jewish tank flying the Israeli flag menacing Christian nuns. The fact is the tank is protecting the nuns from Palestinian boys hurling stones at the nuns. But pictures of boys throwing stones at nuns or Jews are not allowed. That would promote sympathy for the nuns or the Jews. Only pictures of Palestinian boys hurling stones at tanks are allowed, because the juxtaposition of the child and the tank promotes sympathy. The one-sided and hypocritical propaganda policy of Reuters and AP, and in particular AFP is both subjective and anti-Semitic. It is meant to portray Israel and its efforts to protect itself from Palestinian terrorism as unsympathetic and oppressive, even as akin to Nazism. The Palestinians' continuing efforts to murder innocent Israelis is portrayed as a "struggle", or, to steal the description of the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto during the holocaust, an "uprising". The implication is the Palestinian efforts are in some way "noble". But since the endgame is the destruction of Israel and the Jews (just read the official Hamas dogma), it is truly hard to find anything noble in it -- but a picture is worth a thousand words, so what the official policy and action cannot convey, the pictures can be made to portray. It would be brilliant theater if it weren't theater of the absurd. Secularism vs. Sectarianism Secularism vs. Sectarianism Islam is not only a religion. It is a way of life for some, and a system of government for many. Western democracies are secular, with a long tradition of separation of church and state. The principal reason is tolerance of differences. Sectarian states not only do not encourage differences, the often prosecute them. Strict religious codes in sectarian states govern conduct, morals, politics, thought, entertainment, dress, and many other aspects of life. It is the principal impediment to integration of sectarian systems into democracies - like communism, sectarian systems are mutually exclusive to democratic systems. Democracy by definition does not exclude, wherein sectarian systems by definition prosper only by excluding. Because humans are intrinsically open-minded and free-willed, sectarian systems cannot thrive without strict rules, and strict prohibitions. Democratic systems encourage free thought and free will, and free exercise of dissent and debate. Sectarian systems encourage confined thought, restrict free will, and do not allow dissent or debate. It is difficult to imagine how these systems can integrate. Therein lies the problem. Therein lies the challenge. Islam is growing, and there are those in fundamentalist circles who talk about a fifty year plan to alter the face of the planet by establishment of Islamic states throughout the world. It began long ago in Africa and Asia, and succeeded in some respects, mostly in Africa. Huge swaths of territory were carved out there, and, like in Nigeria, even today there are efforts, including military, to establish Islamic states within African nations. The same is true of Asia, where Islam took root in Malaysia and Indonesia, and now threatens to engulf the Philippines, and some smaller nations. The message from fundamentalist Islam is the same. We do not want to live with you, or live by your rules. We will have our own rules, our Shariah, and all who live within our territories must obey our rules. Therein lies the difficulty. As much as these Islamists would like to argue their systems are legitimate forms of government, they are in fact nothing more than oppressive dicatatorial regimes that oppress all who do not believe as they do, including criminal prosecution for some. A recent article talked about a state in Malaysia practicing Shariah, where non-Muslim businesses were expected to enforce the strict Islamic dress code, and where non-Islamic workers were expected to obey their conservative dress code, as the risk of fine and/or prosecution. Non-believers are therefore required to conform to Islamic beliefs. The systems are not compatible. It is a problem. It is why Western nations are intent on repelling attempts by Islamic groups to "integrate" their customs into daily democratic routines. First, Islamic groups argue their customs should be permitted. Then, when engrained, they will argue their customs must be respected as well, by lobbying for prohibitions against offensive customs. Eventually, Islamists will argue their rules must apply in Islamic areas, and they have the right to enforce Shariah among their own people. Eventually, Islamists will argue for imposition of Shariah against all who live within an "Islamic" territory. Finally, Islamic "states" will seek to either cecede from secular states, or overthrow them, so they can impose their fundamentalist regimens on all citizens. Islam must understand that if they are to live peacefully in today's world, they must respect the will and wishes of non-Muslims to believe as they believe, worship as they worship, and live as they live. Religion is religion, and government is government. As long as Islam is mired in tenets 500 years old, progress will prove elusive. In France, Fighting Islamic Extremism Is Called Anything But That Nothing could be clearer. Because Jews will not flee, nor Christians, nor likely Sikhs, a ban on religious garb is a "veiled" attack on Islamic extremism by France. But France, like other countries so absorbed in being "politically correct" will not call it that nor admit that is the agenda. Nor would I disagree with the fight. Jews, Christians and Sikhs are unlikely to demand the imposition of Shariah, and a separate French Islamic state at some point. Many extremist Muslims refuse to accept any other cultural, sociological or legal system, and so make every attempt to change all those around them to accept their system, which unfortunately is often 500 years out of date. So the rest of polite society (the extremists are not quite polite about it - if you don't agree, or if you conspire with the "infidels", even if you are a Muslim, they may blow you up) tiptoe around the very real threat to their way of life that Islamic extremism poses. It is because it is not quiet or accepting that it is dangerous. It is a system that does not get along well with others, and in fact advertises that fact. In Northern Africa, in Asia, and now in Europe, extremist Muslims are making every attempt to fulfill their 50-year plan of forming the Islamic "Arabas", a fundamentalist Islamic state spanning the globe, and attempting to swallow the rest of the world in the process. And the attack is neither peaceful nor subtle. It involves suicide bombs, and vicious attacks on innocent civilians to create terror and fear and anarchy. It involves eugenics, and conversion, and creeping bullyism. It begins with only a few people, and shortly there is a minaret, and then different rules, and then murder for all who do not agree. This virus is called extremism, and France has the courage to combat it (having recognized the threat to society as we know it), but not the courage to name it. If mainstream Islam (if there is such a thing) wants to survive as a practicing religion, it had best reach out its billion strong hands and strangle the extremists within it, or else be swallowed and/or destroyed by their mayhem and self-destruction. A Mother of Two Babies Was an Extremist Murderer, Not a Martyr On January 15th, a 22 year old Palestianian mother of two murdered four Israelis and wounded seven others. The attacker also died in the attack. Palestinians paraded through the streets celebrating her martyrdom. What a pitiful waste of human life. What a pitiful, disgusting example of a human being. What utter absence of morality could lead a mother to abandon her children and murder innocent people for a cause? She said she dreamed since she was 13 of being a suicide bomber. What utter social depravity, what absence of any social compass could endow a 13 year old with the burning desire to murder innocent people for a cause? It is with this understanding the international community must assess the honest urge for Palestinians to have a state adjacent to Israel. What society indocrinates its members to hate and murder? What society inculcates their babies and children with racist hatred and hope of one day murdering innocent people. In Israel, babies are told they will grow up to be doctors. In Palestine, babies are told they will grow up to be murderers. It is a societal flaw. Jews throughout world history, including today, were hated and reviled, oppressed and murdered, discriminated against and misunderstood, lied about, and made scapegoats for everything and anything. Yet, throughout the ages, they generally managed to be educated and successful, contributing to society and progress, humanity and human rights. They generally remained open-minded and accepting, and were often leaders in human rights movements, some even critical of Israel's current policies regarding their Palestinian neighbors, who are utterly intolerant of anything Jewish. Jews are brought up to respect all peoples. Palestians are brought up to hate Jews. Jews are brought up to look to the future to be successful and make their lives meaningful and productive. Palestinians are brought up to yearn to kill Jews, and become martyrs. Until the society that glorifies the worst in human traits cures itself, there will be hatred and mistrust in the world, and there will be deaths and murder. Until the International community calls the extremist Islamist revolution to task for its anti-social and criminal foundations, until the international community has the courage to face the threat to world peace and democracy from the virus of fundamentalist Islam, people will die, and free lives will change. Guns will be in the streets, terror in every heart, fear in every corner. The appeasers and the idealists are in denial. Just as they were when Hitler rode into town. Even the Swiss appeased themselves into being collaborators. Appease now, forfeit your freedoms and dignity later on. Today is the day to confront the menace in every form, in every region, and dismantle it. Dismantle it will peace, dismantle it with love, dismantle it with example and aid and education and understanding. Dismantle it with overwhelming power when necessary. But dismantle it at all costs. Learn from the lessons of the past, from the last time the world faced small-minded tyrants determined to rule the world with their own iron will. Martin Woolacott, the Guardian's Resident Chicken Little Martin Woolacott, the Guardian's resident Chicken Little, suggests "modesty" for inadequate Western countries embroiled in what he terms as failed diplomacy and debacles, such as the Balkans and Iraq. His use of the term "modesty" is of course a cover for the word "timidity", which is what he is talking about, or perhaps "appeasement", which is what he would prefer. He refers to the situation in Afghanistan as though the Taliban were not (and are not) among the most brutal regimes in human history (as was Saddam's, a fact hopefully elucidated in his crimes against humanity trial). His basic premise is that the West has been unsuccessful in its "adventures" trying to deal with or modify the basic inhuman and dangerous regimes of certain peoples. As usual, his tongue and criticism are sharp, his suggested cures non-existent. He is quick to challenge, and incompetent to suggest an alternative other than appeasement. One thing is true. There are Hitlers afoot. There are people in power in the world who would kill tens of millions because they are different, and to eliminate their kind from the earth. Some are merely vocal, some speak with bombs strapped to their chests. Some vote for leaders with horrid records of human rights violations, some vote with plans for murder and mayhem, explosions in markets and cafes, hotels and embassies. Some teach their hatred to any who listen, some teach their hatred to children too young to resist. The threat of course is that there are forces of destruction in the world that will stop at nothing to destroy anything different than themselves. They hover near genocide, homicide and eugenics. Given a chance, they would build ovens and dispose of millions. Woolacott is correct in observing that the West has had difficulty in dealing with these regimes of blood and hatred. The West's style of society has flourished as open, celebrating differences, overcoming fears and repressions, and giving voice to hundreds of millions throughout the world. To be sure the systems are as yet imperfect. But they are far better than the alternatives, and they are far better than life would have been the past fifty years in a world ruled by Hitler and Hirohito. Chamberlain, like Woolacott, hated himself and his own society, so much so he was willing to sacrifice it to avoid conflict. Chamberlain, like Woolacott, confused "modesty" with surrender, and "humility" with humiliation. The Nazis spread throughout Europe and Africa like a virus, because they were ruthless, and ruthlessly determined to rule. There are scourges today which threaten the same goals. They creep around in our midst, some silent, some invisible, some quite vocal and apparent. In time, Mr. Woolacott will be given the choice to sit in fear and remember he once had the freedom to speak his mind, or he can choose to recognize the scourge, and fight it with all his strength and will. Evil lives among us. We can fight it with love, and with humanity, and with generosity and freedom, with education, and passion and with open-mindedness,equality and brotherhood. And with some evil, we must also fight it in kind, with relentless will and iron determination, to prevent the repeat of the scourge of mankind we called Hitler.
The Psychology of Hatred
What is the solution? Should those that succeed hold themselves back so as not to displease the less fortunate or less successful? In many societies it is the examples of the brave and the successful that stir the masses to higher achievement. Somehow, the forces of envy must be converted to forces of tutelage, forces of wonder and learning, a thirst for more - but not a jealous rage for more. How eager to help those that seek to help themselves. How repellent when others seek to destroy all the others have, so that the little they now possess is not so comparatively insignificant. Whether or not entire cultures can change their mindset remains to be seen. For the world to survive the destructive extremism boiling in today's dark places, mindsets on both sides must change. The have-nots must decide they or their children will become achievers, with hard work and application. The haves must be willing to open their hearts and minds and trust once again. Both enterprises are difficult. In some societies today, small children are taught more about how to fire a rocket propelled grenade than mathematics or history or language or science. To change the focus from destruction of all that is different to understanding all that is available will take decades of hard work. Some societies will not obtain change for themselves, but only for their posterity. People on both sides must patiently weave together the fabric of trust and understanding to begin the process, or face utter destruction. No country, no religion, no ethnicity, no people are an island. None is entitled to pre-eminence above all others, and none is entitled to eradicate all others. If rather than pay lip service to this ideal, people can adhere to it, the initial stitches in the fabric of hope will have been weaved. If not, our children, and their children as well will live in fear and hopelessness for centuries to come.
How Repugnant, People Filled With Such Hatred People struggled under the rule of one of the most murderous villains in human history. He will go down on the list of Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and others of that ilk. Saddam was truly a monster. His own people will say that. Thousands did the other day in the street, calling for his execution for crimes against the Iraqi people. But people continue to die every day in Iraq. And Muslims worldwide revel in the deaths. What kind of people do that? Imagine what would happen if instead of the envious and suspicious notions of hatred fueled by religious extremists, and rabid anti-Americanism in a green-eyed world filled with envy at America's success, Iraqis opened their arms to reform and progress, if they banded together and turned in the turncoats who sit in their mosques at night and make bombs and plans to kill, if they stood tall and told the world, we want to rebuild our country and make it a strong beacon of truth and dignity in a land where truth and dignity were buried for three decades with hundreds of thousands of bodies of innocent men, women and children thought unfit for life by their own leader, if they told the thousands of foreign agitators and professional terrorists to leave or else risk death from Iraqis. There is far more danger to Iraqi freedom from those Islamic extremists than from American soldiers, who want merely to help Iraq get on its way to democratic freedom, and go home. But, unfortunately, the hate-America lobby, ranks swelled with misguided millions afraid of things that are lies, clinging to dreams that never were or will be true, and riddled with anti-Semitism and xenophobia, has continued to parade around the world, marching, marching. A repugnant army of miscontent. If the world were to become their oyster, freedom would be long gone, and the Saddams of the world would rejoice, because their enemy, American truth, justice and democracy would no longer be there to keep them under rocks, in caves, and in jail. There will always be dissent. In the democratic system, it is expected and encouraged. But the repugnant few simply don't understand how beautiful that system is, wishing for everyone to believe as they do, and only as they do.
I Have Voted as a Democrat, But I Am Afraid This Party Cannot Protect My Family I was always a registered democrat. I considered myself mostly an independent, owing to anomalies in both parties. Some Democrats were not truly worthy of support, some Republicans were. I do not approve of all the things our president has done in the past four years. I shudder to think what chaos would prevail today if we were talking about re-electing President Gore. I am even less enthralled with the prospects of President Dean, Kerry, Clark, Lieberman or Edwards. Or President H. Clinton. Our way of life, our democracy, our country is under attack, and all I have heard from the Democrats for two years is appeasement, criticism and back-pedaling. I do not want our country to be run by a president who must seek a consensus before defending my family. I want a president who is not afraid to act, and act vigorously and with overwhelming force. I do not feel any of the Democrats stepping to the line have that character. If Clark comes close, it is only because he has been in the fray, but apparently he overstayed his time. Like many soldiers before him, too much death and destruction whittled away resolve and determination, leaving only the husk of drive and will. I do not fault him in the least. He fought bravely and well. It is time for him to step aside now, and least of all into the presidency. It is true diplomacy is a large part of the presidential character, and for that reason I held hope for Colin Powell one day stepping out of the shadows and into the light, but his term as Secretary of State has diminished his effectiveness. I also do not fault him. He served his president well, and serving well as Secretary of State often means taking difficult positions on difficult issues. Often it leaves an officer unable to continue effectively. It is possible Secretary Powell has been so affected. Time will tell. I know he has the will to do what is right, and what is needed, and with overwhelming force when called upon to do so. Where is the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy? Where is the courage of conviction, the courage to protect our country and our democracy from the devastating attack of a virus fed with a hatred without conscience? Where is the courage to lead even in the face of danger, in the face of opposition, in the face of outrage? I worry Democrats so eager to sympathize with the victim mentality and the new insanely leftist dogma will betray Israel, and Taiwan, and will cater to the United Nations politik, the political will of the defeated and the underachieved, who merely envy American will and determination for they do not quite grasp it themselves. Their dogma is to destroy that which is successful, lest your own success is diminished thereby. I hear this dogma in the speeches of Dean and Kerry and Clark. I am disappointed in these Democrats. I cannot with good conscience turn over my country to their control for fear it will disassemble in short order under their chaotic notion of non-security. When Osama Bin Laden's minions come calling, I want our country to be ready and armed to destroy them instantly. No hesitation. No consensus. No permission. Right now, the gentleman from Texas is the only one with the guts to do the job. Unless the Democrats can prove to me they can do the same, I cannot support them.
Where Is the Voice of Moderate Islam? Here is the only voice of Islam we hear: "We are compelled to attack the foreigners to defend our country, religion and honor," a Taliban agent said in a satellite telephone call to The Associated Press. Here is the only voice of Islam we hear: "We are compelled to attack the foreigners to defend our country, religion and honor," a Taliban agent said in a satellite telephone call to The Associated Press. Here is the only voice of Islam we hear: "We are compelled to attack the foreigners to defend our country, religion and honor," a Taliban agent said in a satellite telephone call to The Associated Press.It is a statement that is a declaration of war against humanity. It does not distinguish between good and bad, between adult and child, between men and women, between soldier and civilian. It is the murderous rant of extremism at its worst. This is the voice of Islam we hear the loudest. But where is the voice of moderate Islam? CAIR, ANSWER, and dozens of other organizations support Islam, and purport to represent the moderate voice of Islam and the voice of reason. They argue that Islam is peaceful, that it is not against the world, and that we must not discriminate against Islam. Where are their voices to express outrage against their brethren who declare war against the world? Are they afraid to do so? To be sure it would take courage to stand up to Osama Bin Laden, and his cohorts. To be sure, it would take courage to stand up to the fundamentalist clerics of the Taliban, and other sects who proclaim that all who fail to adhere to the strictest tenets of Islam are infidels, and must die. But it took courage to stand up to Hitler and Hirohito. It took courage to stand up to Stalin and Pol Pot. It will take courage to stand up to Bin Laden and the Taliban and their cohorts. But it is moderate Islam that must take the stand, because no other voice in the world will be heard by the billions of Islamic adherents around the world. They have been taught by those clerics and by the terrible silence from the voices of reason that their extremism and murder and martyrdom, and their hatred for the West, and their xenophobia is the same as love for Allah. Unless the voices of reason can raise their own cry and proclaim in a loud voice that to kill is not holy, to murder is not sacred, to die is not divine, then the blood on the hands of the murderers will be on the hands of the silent. Where are the voices of moderation in Islam? Where were they when Hamas murdered innocent Jews? Where were they when extremists in Iraq murdered Iraqis and others every single day? How disturbing to world peace is it that there are voices in Iraq who are allowed to declare war against the world in the name of Iraq? If there is no war by Islam against the rest of the world, and against the rest of the world's religions, then the voices of Islam must prove it. Because the only evidence we see every day, in Palestine, in Kenya, in Bali, in Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, in Jordan, in Syria, in Lebanon, in Chechnya, in Iraq, in Chad, in Algeria, in Tunisia, in Iran, in Europe, in the U.S., in Thailand, in Indonesia, in the Philippines, and other places around the world, are the voices of hatred, extremism and murder. It is on the news every minute of every day. Somewhere, someone has died at the hands of an Islamic extremist. The BBC "Sexed-Up" Its Report on the Government's WMD Dossier Apparently it is the BBC and reporter Andrew Gilligan that "sexed-up" the BBC's It Is Time For Kofi Annan to Go A Palestinian murdered 11 people by blowing up a bus. The blast was so powerful, pieces of the bodies of the dead were thrown into neighboring houses, and part of the bus was thrown onto the roof of a two story building nearby. Kofi Annan did not condemn the bombing. He merely said the peace process is in distress, but it is not dead. By walking the line of diplomacy, as always, he has failed to lead. The only time Mr. Annan speaks out is to oppose the U.S. or Israel. His implied non-condemnation of the bombing, his implied "understanding" of the "justification" for the murderous violence is implicit approval. He has decided to turn a blind eye on behalf of the world body to the extremist Islamic world's continued assault on the rest of humanity, and thereby, by failing to lead, has led the world into a cycle of violence. The United Nations was created to solve international crises, not to appease the murderous, and spout anti-war epithets. If the international community were actually to do something (as they have done when pushed to), things around the world would change. But so long as the boat steers only the middle course, there will be no progress. And Annan is the captain right now with a broken compass. We need to fix it, and soon. "At the United Nations (news - web sites), Security Council diplomats failed to agree on a statement condemning the suicide bombing of a bus in Jerusalem on Thursday. Israel called that failure "outrageous."
Why It's Difficult to Make Deals With Those Who Have No Conscience Israel made a deal with Hezbollah. It took years to negotiate. Israel traded a venomous Hezbollah leader, hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, dozens of other Arab prisoners, and others, for one Israeli businessman and the bodies of three dead Israeli soldiers. It would be normal to rejoice when a loved one returns home. But because the Lebanese, Palestinians and others in the Arab world have so little to celebrate about their daily difficult lives, their celebrations take on macabre dimensions, with a prisoner exchange becoming a "victory" against Israel. Ah, there is the danger of doing deals with those who have no conscience. It is why Israel, the U.S., Russia and many other countries refuse to accede to terrorists, and try never to negotiate with terrorists. Because it only encourages them to do more (the Philippines cycle of bloody kidnappings by Islamic terrorists is a good example - pay ransom, kidnap another when you run out of money - the kidnapping stopped when the government decided to rid the country of this scourge once and for all, and pursued them into the jungles, killing the terrorists off one by one). Is this deal the same? Does the carefully brokered deal have conscience at its root, or is this the same - another attempt to trust a terrorist that will turn out badly because the terrorists have no conscience, no moral barometer? One need only look to the comments by the leader of Hezbollah to find the answer. "In Beirut, Hezbollah leader Nasrallah said at the welcome ceremony for the freed prisoners that his movement was "more determined than ever" to continue its fight against the Jewish state." "He also threatened that Hezbollah guerrillas could capture more Israeli soldiers to arrange another prisoner exchange with the Jewish state." "Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin, declared Friday that his group is making an all-out effort to kidnap Israeli soldiers to use as bargaining chips for Palestinians in Israeli prisons." Any questions? How can you possibly have normal relations with people who have no normal morals? The only thing terrorists understand or appreciate is the threat of annihilation. From that they will escape or run or lay low or disappear. And one can only hope they will be absorbed back into society where they will realize there are indeed morals, and other points of view besides their own, and they will long for a normal life with normal morals. That, or annihilation. Terrorists' choice. You cannot trust a snake. You cannot trust a wild animal. Obviously, you cannot trust a radical Islamic terrorist either. A Voice of Reason A voice of reason has spoken out from the Muslim world, decrying murder and terrorism, exhorting the followers of Islam to forsake terrorism, and branding those who claim to be holy warriors "an affront to the faith." Sheik Abdul Aziz al-Sheik, the top cleric in Saudi Arabia has today, on Islam's most holy day, issued an edict which will hopefully be taken to heart throughout Islam. The cleric also defended the fundamentalist Shariah and Wahhabism practices, and his comments called for protecting the faith through good service and deeds, not through violence and murder. He also took aim at the Muslim blood shed at the hands of Islamic terrorists throughout the world, using the words of the prophet Mohammed in the Koran, which says "know that every Muslim is a Muslim's brother, and the Muslims are brethren. Fighting between them should be avoided." the cleric said. Perhaps it is the killing of Muslims by Muslims that will actually bring the ire of the moderate Islamic voice to bear against the evil infecting the extremists who wage war against the rest of the world daily. The billions of adherents of Islam will not hear the voice of America or the voice of the West, or the voice of any but their own. This makes voices like those of Sheik Abdul Aziz al-Sheik important. Or course he will be condemned by the likes of Bin Laden and his minions, but hopefully he will not shrink from the very important message he has given to the Muslim world. It is not holy to murder. I offer only praise for the courage to stand up and say what is right. Fifty Year Plan? Perhaps the most glaring example of the unwillingness of Muslims to assimilate into the societies they have begun to infect, is Chechnya. The basic premise there is that Chechnya must become a separate Islamic state. It is the worst of secularism. And the means to obtain independence there are the same as the murderous regimes governing the Palestinians, in Afghanistan, Iraq and throughout the Muslim world. These are the same terrorists stalking the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Africa, other Asian nations, Europe (France in particular) and even the United States. The plan will take fifty years to work out, but the premise is simple - multiply and then divide and conquer. The plan uses the hypocrisy of Islamic policy. The hypocrisy is to complain bitterly about discrimination against Muslims throughout the democratic world, knowing that democracies are sensitive about human rights, while at the same time stamping out any dissent in their own lands, turning them into fundamentalist Islamic regimes where there is not other way but the extremist way. The same rights extolled in their new lands, are the rights denied in their home lands. It is a neat little plan. Sometimes around the middle of this century, 500 million Muslims spread throughout the world will begin a revolt, an effort to split the West in two, establishing secular Islamic states carved out of every Western nation. With nuclear capabilities provided by the Al Qaeda fed regime, wherever it may have ended up by then, there will be nothing less than a war of all wars to establish the next Islamic Empire, this time with the entire globe the target.
|