Tuesday, April 05, 2005


We are thoroughly infiltrated.

What kind of world is it when the very code names for your military operations are dictated by the enemy? As in when "Operation Infinite Justice" had to have its name hastily changed to avoid offending the all-powerful & all-important muslims, to whom apparently our institutions of government are beholden. Because only the moon-demon allah can dispense justice, you see.

Or when the word "crusade" is off-limits, even as the jihad is being waged gainst us in a determined three-pronged strategy, as it has been continuously for the last 1300 years.

Or when terroristic murderous tyrants (Arafat) win the "Nobel Peace Prize."

Or now when we in the West bestow Pulitzer Prize honors on propaganda photographs taken by AP "reporters" who are essentially embedded with the enemy troops.

As Rising Sun explains,
I looked at the twenty photographs and broke them into groups on the basis of content. Here are my results:

• U.S. troops injured, dead, or mourning: 3
• Iraqi civillians harmed by the war: 7
• Insurgents looking determined or deadly: 3
• US troops looking overwhelmed or uncertain: 3
• US troops controlling Iraqi prisoners: 2
• Iraqis celebrating attacks on US forces: 2

Equally telling is what the photos don't show:

• US forces looking heroic: 0
• US forces helping Iraqi civillians: 0
• Iraqis expressing support for US forces: 0
• Iraqis expressing opposition to insurgents: 0

Not only do the twenty photos consistently portray the American invasion and occupation of Iraq as an unmitigated disaster, but, as Michelle Malkin notes, at least one of them (number 20, depicting the insurgents' shocking execution of Iraqi election workers) has been exposed (by Powerline, Belmont Club, and others) as the result of at least some degree of coordination between the AP photographer and the insurgents themselves.

There hasn't been as disgraceful a Pulitzer Prize since NYT newsman Walter Duranty picked one up for sweeping Stalin's mass famines under the rug back in 1932.
With regard to the complicity of the AP in not only treason in a large-scale sense, but also murder in a specific sense, in cooperating with jihadists staging their beastly attacks on humanity, Belmont Club noted
The execution of Iraqi election workers on Baghdad's Haifa street was probably not, properly speaking, a murder. It was a political act. There has been no suggestion that the killers of the electoral workers had any personal grudge against them. Probably any electoral workers would have done. While most killers seek to hide their faces and plan their attacks so no one can see them, these killers scorned masks and chose a busy street in Baghdad to carry out their work because they wanted to send a message.
The ethical problem which cannot be evaded and which can be framed in the context of the facts conceded by the AP itself, was whether it was ethical to run the photographs. They conceded their photographer was there on a tip, which in hindsight could only have originated from someone acting on behalf of the killers. It is overwhelmingly probable that the photographer was allowed, even encouraged to take photographs of the execution.

It must have been self-evident to any thinking person at AP that their photographer had been written into the terrorist script for propaganda purposes. Even if we concede they were unwillingly cast in the part, they continued to play it out anyway. I would have thought that common decency or sheer outrage would have led the editors to frustrate the purposes of the murderers. If someone had forced him to photograph the rape of my wife in the anticipation that it would be published in the papers, I would have either turned over the pictures to the cops or fried the memory card in the oven. Once you know you are part of the cast in a Satanic play your are duty bound to mis-speak the parts. Unless you find the words to your liking.
This is all incomprehensible to me.

What is the motivation for this self-loathing? Even in the face of a real existential threat?

What, you don't take it seriously?

Sharia courts are being called for in Australia. We are engaged in a losing game, in which it is only the rate of concessions that is in question:
In the long annals of judicial stupidity, there can rarely have been a more idiotic judgment than that recently given by Lord Justice Brooke of the British Court of Appeal. It reads like the suicide note not of a country alone, but of an entire civilization.

A young Muslim girl, Shabina Begum, who attended a state school in Luton, England, four-fifths of whose pupils were Muslim, started a legal battle when she was 13 to be allowed the jilbab, a form of dress that leaves only her face and hands exposed. She was almost certainly put up to this by her older brother, a supporter of Hizb ut-Tahrir, a Muslim party that seeks to establish a Muslim world state, that believes democracy is blasphemy, and that denies that the Western citizenship of Muslims is real or meaningful, or confers any privileges or imposes any duties.
The Guardian reported that after her victory, she said she “could scream with happiness.”

When they heard of her victory, many Muslim women around the country must have wanted to scream with quite different emotions, despair and rage prominent among them. For Lord Justice Brooke’s ruling, that Shabina Begum’s human rights had been denied, and that she had been discriminated against illegally on religious grounds, displayed a complete and invincible ignorance of the social context of the case. Lord Justice Brooke saw no evil, heard no evil, and felt no evil. In effect, therefore, he was giving succor to those Muslim men who still abuse women in a medieval fashion.
Recently in the prison in which I work, I met a young man of Pakistani origin who was afraid of the other young men of Pakistani origin in the prison. Why? Because he had previously given important evidence in court in a case in which a girl who had refused to marry the husband selected for her by her parents was murdered by her father and brothers. The other young men of Pakistani origin thought the man who had testified was a traitor to their religion and culture; for in fact it is a religion and culture very convenient to the young men, whom it supplies with a domestic slave and mother of children while they can entertain themselves elsewhere. The whole evil system would break down if any of the young women were allowed their freedom, which is why the men must stick together. Like any form of totalitarianism, it is strong but brittle.
And so long as this practice, be it religious or customary, is widespread, the word of no Muslim girl who claims to want to wear increasingly “modest” dress can be taken at her word, any more than a public figure in the USSR could have been taken as expressing his own personal opinion. If the judge was aware of this, he took no notice of it.

The Muslim Council of Britain welcomed the judge’s ruling as a victory for religious freedom (of precisely the kind that the Hizb ut-Tahrir is dedicated to destroying). Yet at other times, in order to deflect criticism that Muslim modes of dress are inherently degrading, insofar as they imply that all women are nothing but temptresses and men nothing but psychopaths at the mercy of their concupiscence, it would argue that extreme covering of the body is not religiously required - in other words, that the wearing of the jilbab (as against other forms of modest dress) is actually a matter of religious indifference. One is strongly reminded of Communist tactics: to denigrate and take advantage of freedom at the same time. And having seen that British society is so weak and unwilling to defend itself against an alien culture, the fanatics will next demand that girls at school be allowed on the grounds of religious freedom to cover themselves up even more.

The obvious point is this: No expressed desire by a child or young woman to wear traditional clothing such as the jilbab can be taken as arising from free choice - even if, in any given instance, it is the result of such a choice - because of the oppressive nature of the subculture.
A singular feature of Shabina Begum’s case was the name of the advocate acting on her behalf: none other than Mrs. Tony Blair. She obviously thought the case a very important one, for she goes into court relatively rarely these days, having so many other things to do. Could the preservation, indeed encouragement, of the culture I have described matter so very much to Cherie Blair, then, and if so, why? Why would the prime minister’s wife act for a young woman known to be supported by Muslim fundamentalists?

How was the Blair government to reconcile two apparently opposite needs: the need to appear to be dealing with Muslim terrorism in a determined, vigorous, and efficient way, and the need to capture Muslim votes?

The answer was simple and elegant: get the prime minister’s wife to defend the Muslim male’s practice of abusing women, though of course in the guise acceptable to liberal voters of defending the human rights of the women themselves. The circle was squared. In other words, there has been a quid pro quo for all the extra police surveillance of Muslims that they are bound to find irksome and humiliating. Allow us to suspect and search you, says the government, and we in turn will allow you to abuse your women to your hearts’ content, free of our interference. The price of our reelection is forced marriages.
And just as Winston Smith eventually came around to loving Big "freedom is slavery" Brother, so getting women to demand their chains is so purely and obviously Orwellian, one wonders how it can happen in real life under our very noses. It's not like we all haven't been warned.

Of course you know, they wouldn't be worrying about muslim "votes" if they weren't letting them into the country in the first place. It is nothing other than an invasion, which has been going on for centuries.

Who will stem this tide?

Who will be our Charles Martel?

Where is our Pope Urban?


Post a Comment

<< Home