Yes, he is. Think about it. I argued here several days ago that his ridiculous smear of evangelical Christianity would gave aid and comfort to the jihadists. And lo and behold, his piece has been picked up by the Pakistan News Service and ... (ready?) ... Al-Jazeera.
For a little background on what Al-Jazeera is and what it has done, see here.
In addition to what is in the Front Page article: Al Jazeera referred to its reporter killed in Najaf (apparently by American fire, but who knows. All that matters is that they proclaim it was American fire.) as a 'shahid' (martyr).
Al Jazeera calls ALL Arabs killed in the West Bank and Gaza (apparently by Israeli fire, but who knows) 'shahids'.
How they can do these things and receive almost glowing acceptance by Canada and Britain (especially the BBC which has agreements with Al Jazeera) is a testimony to Western ignorance and stupidity in the conflict which rages worldwide threatening the lives of every one of us...at any time.
Think of it: every man, woman and child on public transportation anywhere in a Western country (or in an Asian country that is contra-Islam, India, Philippines, Singapore...or elements of a Muslim country that is contra-Islam, e.g. bars in Bali) at this moment is a target in the Jihad...
That means you and your children...
And we invite Al Jazeera, who openly proclaims its reporters to be 'martyrs', to send us the news on our airwaves? 'Martyrs' for what?
Its like giving Tokyo Rose airtime on CBS.
I take that back...the Japanese were not incapable of 'terrorist' activities, i.e. indiscriminate murder to intimidate and achieve slow, tortuous victory, but that was not their method. Japan had an army, a navy and an air force, and was an industrialized country with a rich culture that went far beyond emperor worship and militarism (hence the potential for magnificent transformation after the war)
So, the Tokyo Rose analogy does not hold.
A better analogy: Its like Jews allowing Gobbels to preach and give news briefs in synagogues in the mid-late 1930s.
That analogy fits like a glove...
One last thing:
I just read Hugh's post in the comments of "Jihad Watch: Spencer: Jihad TV Comes to Canada". A must read.
Well Kristof is a Dim Dhimmi isn't he![Sorry folks, couldn't resist that.] Of course Al Jaz are going to use his words as another propaganda
weapon. After this, don't be surprised at actual
slaying [by outraged PC Muslims] of Evangelical
Christians.This Dim Dhimmi sure is a Dummy...
By the way Taysir Allouni is the name of Al Jazeera Journalist who is being held in Spain on charge of being linked to Al Quaeda...
How much demonstrated stupidity, over what period of time, is necessary before someone will be fired, or diplomatically shifted, to another post? Being a columnist for The New York Times must be very fine. Once or twice a week you are sure to be read by hundreds of thousands of people. Some of them will even believe you, or think that because you are a New York Times columnist, and perhaps you have a written a book (even a "prizewinning" book), and are on Charlie Rose (this viewer will never tire of seeing Thomas Friedman making quotation-marks with his fingers), and get to address, for very large sums that the rest of us can only dream of, to business groups, in the category of inside-dopesterism-meets-motivational-speaker, and where all parties are well satisfied: the audience for being "educated" on some Important Matter of the Day by someone like Friedman, and Friedman -- or of course his younger brother Nicholas Kristof -- will be well-satisfied with the brilliance of his remarks, the cogency of his world-view, the depth of his knowledge, the breadth of his presentation. Not to mention the fat check afterwards.
The New York Times fell criminally short in its coverage of the Nazis, failed above all to adequately report on the situation of the Jews of Europe, and hence failed to inform many relatives of those people, among its New York readership, who might have been roused to greater action earlier. It has been suggested in at least one full-length study of this matter that the Sulzberger family, eager to bend over backwards to show that the paper was not favoring "Jewish issues" (Hitler was "a Jewish issue" until World War II broke out), ordered a de-emphasis of such matters, in order not to disturb, but to solidify, its own social position. Others, more secure, the Loebs and the Schiffs, behaved differently.
The New York Times failed terribly as well to inform readers about the true nature of the Soviet Union, entrusting its coverage to Walter Duranty, an apologist for Stalin who, just like Tom Friedman, managed to win a prize for his hollow journalism -- in his case, for his coverage of the Soviet Union marching forward, White Sea Canal and all, with Soviet power and the electrification of the whole country.
Now is the third great test for the Times: the coverage of Islam, and of the manifestations of what is a world-wide Jihad, prompted by the same texts, the same impulses, from the Moro Islands to Oregon. And who does the New York Times offer as its experts covering this phenomenon? Well, no one. But Nicholas Kristof and Thomas Friedman come the closest in their assigned areas of expert knowledge. Yet neither of them even now shows the slightest awareness of the centrality of Islam to the very subjects they cover so noisily -- in Friedman's case, Israel and the relentless Jihad against it (NOT a campaign to fulfill "nationalist aspirations" as Rami Khoury would have us believe); in Kristof's, the Jihad in the Sudan against non-Muslims, which just recently was extended to cover "mawali" or inferior, non-Arab Muslims. If Kristof, instead of his public outrage at this injustice, were to coolly attempt to understand the rightness, the appropriateness, of this behavior, according as it does with more than 1350 years of Arab Muslim behavior, he might be more useful a guide to his readers. But he is more, not less confused, than most of them -- a curious reversal of expected roles. He and Friedman might begin by reading much more, and by examining the thesis, for which there is ample evidence (see Ibn Warraq, see Ali Sina, see Anwar Shaikh), that Islam has, in its history, above all been the supreme vehicle of Arab imperialism -- as V. S. Naipaul has noted, the most successful imperialism in human history.
I don't know why Canada needs Al-Jazzera when we have the CBC, which is exactly the same, and plays alot of their news anyways.
That said, it's important to know that their are many restrictions placed on Al_jazzera, should a cable company choose to carry the signal.
As of now, no cable company will carry it because of these "restrictions" as it sets a precedent for cable companies to act as "content police" which none are willing to do.
I don't want that racist garbage on any cable companies list.
What really pisses me off is I can't get fox news legally, (but I get it anyways)
Reading between the lines, the federal Canadian government is pro Islam, pro left wing, anti right, anti American, more than ever before.
If anyone had any hope that Paul Martin was going to be different than Chretien, they were dead wrong. He is a crook and an idiot. His minority government will be short lived however.
Kristof is symptomatic of a larger problem which is that Islamists, Islamist apologists and frankly, many on the Left have lost the parts of the brains that can hold two or more ideas simultaneously and can distinguish between belief and reality.
Christians universally understand and respect the division between their personal spiritual beliefs and those of others. And the further separation of those beliefs (whatever they may be) from everything else... the state, the world... in short, reality. A novel to a Christian is a novel. A novel to Kristof and the Islamists is a holy text followed unquestionably. This is 'Satanic Verses', part two.
Islam as it manifests today (certainly it's militant brand) generally sees no boundary between belief and reality. To those devotees, Islam IS everything. The church is, the state is, the law is, my peanut butter sandwich is... Islam.
This kind of thinking is similar in it's totality to Marxism, Nazism, Communism, only in reverse. Those pet ideologies of the Left eschewed personal spiritual beliefs. Only one idea allowed at a time with these folks!
There's a name for this kind of fantasy worldview.
It's called totalitarianism. And the Left wants to revisit it.