The Contradictions of Islam

In what is territory currently controlled by the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank (Judea/Samaria) there is a town called Kalkilya. Kalkilya happens to be a town fully controlled by Hamas, the Islamic Jihadists whose sworn goal is the destruction of Israel, and who are responsible for countless deaths of civilians through suicide bombers trained and financed by Hamas.

The Town Council of Kalkilya has banned a performing arts festival in the town being put on by a Palestinian Arab group from Ramallah, also on the West Bank.

The reason that the Hamas leaders of the town give for banning the festival is that it is against the Muslim religion for men and women to be dancing together. It is considered immoral.

Not only does this give a taste of what lies ahead for the Palestinians (and the French, Belgians, Dutch, etc.) but it is interesting to me that Hamas considers that men and women dancing together and enjoying life is considered immoral, but killing innocent men, women and children is not.

I suppose I will never understand the Religion of Peace.

President of Iran involved in U.S. Embassy Siege in 1979


According to Iran Focus, a photo has turned up linking newly-elected President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with the taking of American hostages during the U. S. Embassy siege in 1979.

The article goes on to state that:

“Ahmadinejad was a founder of the group of young activists who swarmed over the embassy wall and held the diplomats and embassy workers hostage for 444 days.”

As I noted in a previous post , the election of Mr. Ahmadinejad does not bode well for Iranian-American relations.

President Ahmadinejad went on to say:

During his first press conference as President-elect last week, Mr Ahmadinejad struck a moderate note. But today, at a memorial service for families killed in a 1981 attack on the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, he said he hoped his election victory would spark a new global Islamic revolution.

“Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 (the current Iranian year) will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world,” the official IRNA agency quoted Mr Ahmadinejad as saying.

“The era of oppression, hegemonic regimes, tyranny and injustice has reached its end. The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world. In one night, the martyrs strode down a path of 100 years.”

I am surprised that we haven’t had any news of incarceration or suppression of reformists yet. It’s that “new” Islamic revolution that is going to reach the entire world that we have been dealing with, and will continue to have to deal with.

Update: It turns out that the picture may not be Ahmadinejad.

Mark Steyn Interview

You should read John Hawkins interview of Mark Steyn in Right Wing News.

Teaser:

John Hawkins: So how successful do you think the Israeli strategy of walling off the Palestinians will be?

Mark Steyn: I haven’t spent a lot of time in “Palestine,” but, when I have, I’ve never seen any sign anywhere in Gaza or the West Bank of anything remotely resembling a “nationalist” movement. There’s plenty of evidence of widespread Jew-hatred and the veneration of death-cult “martyrdom,” but not that anybody’s seriously interested in building a nation for the “Palestinian people.” So if you leave it to the Palestinians there’s never going to be a state, only decade after decade of suicide bombings. One can advance reasons for this – it’s no coincidence that the most comprehensively wrecked people on the face of the earth are the ones who have been wholly entrusted to the formal care of the UN for three generations now. But the fact is what Israel is doing is the only thing that will force the Palestinians to get up off their allegedly occupied butts and run a state: the Israelis are walling off what they feel they need, or what they can get away with, and it will be up to the gangsters of Arafatistan to see if they now feel like dropping the jihad and getting on with less glamorous activities like running highway departments and schools.

The rest is just as good.

Speaking Frankly to the President

The American Thinker writes an Open Letter to the President. It is a must read.

Some excerpts:

In war, public support is the equivalent of cash flow. So the question isn’t whether a war is going well, but whether a war is going well enough, and fast enough, to end in victory before public support gives out. And it’s obvious that public support for the war in Iraq has begun to erode, which means that from now on we are not only in a battle against our enemy overseas, but in a race against time here at home.

I don’t know how much time is left before public support for this war erodes to the point when victory will lie beyond our grasp. Your judgment will certainly be better than mine, because only you can combine the top-secret intelligence reports on your desk with your own superb “gut feel” for public opinion to estimate just when these two trend-lines will intersect. My only suggestion is that whatever projection you come up with – Three months? Nine months? Two years? – you cut it in half. History teaches that once public support for a war starts to erode – no matter what may be the actual, on-the-ground situation – it erodes at an accelerating rate. But what matters most isn’t so much the actual date you project for when the two lines will intersect. Rather, what matters most is that you recognize these two lines now are on a collision course, and that you understand what this means:

You have less time to win this war than you thought you had. So to win, you will need to fight harder.

And this:

First, you need to fight harder in Iraq. You keep saying that you are giving our generals all the troops they want. With all respect, sir, this couldn’t possibly be true. In the history of the world there has never been a general who thought he had enough troops. If your generals are telling you they have all the troops they want to finish the job in Iraq, either the generals are idiots – or they have gotten the word that asking for more troops will end their careers. Sit down with your generals privately – just you and them — and find out how many troops they really think they need. If they still insist they don’t want more troops on the ground in Iraq, then get yourself a new bunch of generals. If they tell you they need another 250,000 soldiers and Marines – then fly them over from Korea, Germany or wherever they are stationed just as fast as possible. If we haven’t got them to send – then order a draft. One way or another, put enough troops on the ground in Iraq to secure that country — fast. And while you’re at it, give the orders to either take out the governments of Syria and Iran or to hit them with so much force that they quit playing footsie with al Queda and the Baathists, because we cannot win in Iraq so long as Syria and Iran are providing support and sanctuary. In short, do whatever is necessary, and do it now.

Second – and in my judgment, even more important — you need to fight harder in Washington. To explain why this will help win the war in Iraq, let me tell you about how one of your predecessors acted domestically in a way that had a huge foreign impact. Shortly after President Reagan took office, our country’s 13,000 air-traffic controllers went on strike. Reagan ordered them back to work, and when they refused he did the one thing neither the controllers nor anyone else ever imagined he would do: he fired them all.

More:

With all respect, sir, your performance in Washington has been too weak. You are letting Congress get away with stiffing John Bolton, you cut a compromise in the Senate that got a few judges confirmed but that left the Democrats in a position to filibuster whichever future nominees they choose, you haven’t vetoed a single bill despite all the budget-busting pork that is mortgaging our children’s future, and while you are out giving speeches to Rotary Clubs about how to save Social Security, your proposal to privatize a portion of future payments is being strangled in its crib by the Democrats. Whatever may be the domestic effects of all this, the foreign effects are catastrophic. The terrorists in Iraq, their leaders who are hiding in caves, the mullahs in Teheran, the creep in Damascus and the nut in North Korea – they all see what is happening to your programs and your people, and the judgment they are reaching is this: if you aren’t willing to fight to the death in Washington, you aren’t willing to fight to the death in Iraq.

The American Thinker is so right. You should go now and read this letter. I just hope the President does, and that he realizes he has a large constituency that agrees with it.

Baldwin Park Protest – This is Tolerance?

The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday in an article entitled, “Immigration Protest in Baldwin Park is Peaceful“, that the protest and counter-protest in Baldwin Park on Saturday was peaceful. It went on to state the following:

Next to City Hall, where about 60 protesters opposed to illegal immigration waved signs and American flags, about 600 counter-protesters sang, danced, chanted and beat drums to urge tolerance.

The Times neglected to show the examples of tolerance from the counter-protesters. You can see some of them here. Apparently, for the counter-protestors, tolerance means carrying signs that say, “Fight the Right, Fight Capitalism”, and, “Racists, get out of Aztlan.” Further examples of tolerance were T-shirts which said, “F*ck the Minutemen”, “F*ck the SOS” (Save our State)and “F*ck the Police.”

More signs: “Stop Anti-immigrant Fascism”, “All Workers Unite”, “Smash All Borders.”

Another sign, in Spanish, “Un Mundo para los Trabajadores sin Fronteras” (One world for the workers, without borders).

The fact is that the counter-protesters showed little tolerance and no understanding that what was being protested was the anti-American text on the entrance to the metrorail station, “This land was Mexican once, was Indian always and is, And will be again.” and, “It was better before they came.”