U.S. to name Hezbollah TV a terrorist organization

'The station's Web site says: "Al-Manar is the first Arab establishment to stage an effective psychological warfare against the Zionist enemy."'

Blimey me... I thought the first arab estabklishment for psywarfare happened 1400 yrs ago. its some kinda book they say called kuran or something...anybody know anything more on this?

/sarc off

OT~ Another kj Academic speaks out:

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16350

However!

This one is about the recent intelligence bill, which relates to the above story:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/joelmowbray/jm20041216.shtml

One paragraph in particular speaks about 'recognition' of various groups/organizations, as being Terrorist.

And this one is about the kj liars and the Iraq War:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/rossmackenzie/rm20041216.shtml

Those Muslims in the West who receive Al-Manar or Al-Jazeera, and therefore accept the worldview they offer, a worldview which clearly threatens the lives and property and wellbeing and way of life of all Infidels (beginning but hardly ending with Americans and Israelis), should be regarded as a self-identified fifth column in the midst of the Bilad al-kufr, or Lands of the Infidels. Those who subscribe should be noted, and should be monitored, and become the permant object of close scrutiny, and even of pressure targetted to make them decide for themselves that they have no secure future in the Infidel lands, and may choose to remove themselves, before other options are considered.

That is what to do about the viewers. As to the satellite channels themselves, they have to be limited or eliminated. Pressure can be brought to bear on cable companies and satellite channel networks. Those who offer Al-Jazeera or Al-Manar as part of their "packages" to consumers may find that they are the sudden objects of boycott -- and that boycott should be relentless and endless. The other day there was a posting here about "Erie Cablesystems" in northern Ohio and southern Michigan, all set to offer "Bridges TV" which is a Muslim channel, designed to offer the "kindler, gentler" view (all family values and Ramadan observances, of course -- and perhaps a Karen-Armstrong potted biography of the "man who brought peace to the Arabian peninsula" and "improved the treatment of women and minorities" -- none other than Muhammad, the Seal of the Prophets. Better living through boycotts -- if moral and intellectual appeals fail, withholding one's custom -- as in the case of Columbia and Georgetown, cutting off donations and making clear that everyone will suffer unless the Middle Eastern apologists are reigned in, or forced to leave, or in the case of Esposito, simply have their institutional connection severed (Esposito is well-supported by Arab interests and can survive without Georgetown, but Georgetown suffers greatly from its now-embarrassing connection to Esposito and Co.).
4) Al-Jazeera's programs have led directly to attacks on American soldiers and an increase in American deaths. Yet there are those who, as a recent movie made by an Egyptian-American sympathizer shows, Al-Jazeera's staff includes people who complacently assume, a bit too readily, that they can send their children to the United States for an education. That assumption must come to an end. Those who work for Al-Jazeera should understand that when they do so, their hope of living in the West, sending their children to be educated and live in the West -- which they realize, of course, is vastly superior to the world of Islam, even if they are doing their damnedest to destroy that same West and reinforce the power of the Jihad and of the Muslims. No, that mixture as before will not do.
And now here is a reposting (for the second time) which is not a blast from the recent past, not an oldie-but-goodie brought back for sentimental reasons, but because the points it made some months ago still stand:

“A recent article (April 2) by A. O. Scott in the New York Times, about a soi-disant documentary devoted to Al-Jazeera, writes sympathetically of a "balding, rumpled" Saleem Khader. And Mr. Khader, who is presented as a man of some complexity -- the evidence adduced for this implausible idea, given that he works not for a news organization, even a bad one, but for a propaganda network that is not a bit better than anything the Nazis produced, and is responsible for the deaths of many American soldiers, and civilians -- is that he berates another Al-Jazeera employee for carrying an interview with an American anti-war activist, berates him because the interviewee is, as Sameer Khader has it, unrepresentative. Great.
But the important part of the tale is this: Khadeer lets Ms. Noujaim (yes, the "Harvard-educated" Egyptian-born Ms. Noujaim -- the Ivy League touch is de rigueur here; shows she's one of us, inhabits the same intellectual climate, and so on) know that he, Sameer Khader, a collaborator of al-Jazeera, and hence a collaborator in an instrument of Jihad that has been directly responsible for American deaths (ask General Kimmitt, or Sanchez, or Abizaid, or any of the soldiers now in Iraq) complacently tells her that he is going to send his own children to university in the United States, so that they can taste the "American dream" and avoid the "Arab nightmare" (the very nightmare which he is helping to prolong).
Not so fast, buster. It would be absolutely outrageous to allow this man, who has participated in such an organization, to assume that when it comes time for him to arrange his children’s future, the little matter of his participation in a sinister organization like Al-Jazeera will not weigh heavily against him. If he, and all the other Muslim Arabs who think they can act and write as they do, whipping up hatred, and trafficking in lies (even if some of them are slightly less enthusiastic about it, or do it only 90% of the time, not 100%), and then go off to the West as a combination funhouse-and-brothel, and get medical care in Boston or the Mayo Clinic, and send their children to American or other Western universities -- well, it's time to put paid to that assumption. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that would get their attention more, and modify future behavior more, than condemning their own children to the prison of their own awful countries and societies. Yes, of course one can argue that, in the first place, the "sins of the fathers..." But there is no right to be allowed in to the United States, much less to be given a student visa. It is a way, an effective way that does not require the risking of American lives, and that will help save American lives, if those involved in such enterprises realize that they cannot visit the United States, cannot have their children take full advantage of what they, in their schizophrenia, secretly recognize to be superior to the dar al-Islam which they are doing their utmost, willy-nilly, to expand. And to the argument that one way to get people to change is "to let them experience the United States for themselves." Nonsense. Plenty of Arabs have experienced the United States, and are living here as immigrants right now -- and their experience has not changed one whit their attitude of hostility and menace.
By starting to deny the great privilege of living, even for a short period, in the United States, or the other countries of the advanced West, to the relatives of those implicated in the propaganda war, this will eventually have an enormous effect on the behavior and on the career choices, of those who in the future may be considering working for Al-Jazeera and similar organs of hate, hysteria, and lies. They will have to think twice, before putting their talents to work for the Jihad, spouting antisemitic and anti-American propaganda. There will be consequences--their children are going to have to remain, and live, in the world that they are helping to create. They will not be allowed, themselves, the escape-hatch of the West. That itself should cause them to behave a bit more responsibly, when their own children's future is at stake.
If they have talent, so much the worse for them, that they lent that talent to evil. Goebbels was extremely talented; was Leni Reifenstahl; so were a host of others who worked for the Nazis, or for the late Joseph Stalin.
Write your Congressmen. Call your local government officials. Do what you can. Make a fuss. If you are related to a soldier, use that fact. No one likes to make an enemy out of the families of soldiers, especially the Reserves and the National Guard. Al-Jazeera has American blood on its hands. It is akin to Nazi propaganda. It should not be shown in this country. But at the very least, political figures should make sure that no close relative of anyone working for Al-Jazeera ever gets an entry visa. And if any Republicans balk, do not hesitate to go to Democrats – and to point out the virtue of taking a strong position on Islam That will be one more useful anti-Jihad measure that costs nothing, and risks no American lives.
End of reprint.
In sum, no one associated with Al-Jazeera, nor family members, should be allowed into the United States, or for that matter into any Western country that still wants to be considered a member of the Western alliance -- or of NATO. Sanctions should be imposed on those states who help ease the way for those who work for a station that has American soldiers' blood -- and that of civilians, come to think of it -- all over its hands."

End of April posting.

Now, a short pause, then we resume our regular programming, specially written for today’s broadcast:

While it is absurd that Al-Jazeera and Al-Manar are permitted to continue their propaganda on behalf of the Jihad, it is equally absurd that the American government chooses to waste money attempting to “win Arab friends” by beaming into their countries not lectures on the meaning of the First Amendment, nor on the ways in which personal autonomy and freedom of conscience are protected and encouraged, nor anything about the “free marketplace of ideas,” nor all those quotations from Jefferson and Lincoln and Mark Twain – that, for example, the young Jose Figueres said helped him to transform Costa Rica. Instead, we are sending them images of what? Muslim families leading Muslim lives (why should we pander to them, or make it seem as if we have to assure them that Muslims can live safely in the United States? If anything, we should be showing them our schools, our hospitals – and make clear that we believe we have nothing to apologize for, and that they must look to the tenets and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam (this need not be said, but programs artfully crafted can artfully suggest) to find the source of their desarroi and sub-development. No more transmissions Arabia-wards of Britney Spears, please. We are not trying to entertain, nor even to win friends. We are trying to offer information, and to provoke thought, not about us, but about their own societies. And that thought will, if it is real thought and not the usual nonsense, inevitably lead to the “reform” – i.e. the constraining – of Islamic practice. One might even have programs on Ataturk – who’s afraid of mentioning everything he did in the 1920s and 1930s – or on the late Ali Dashti of Iran, or on others who wrote penetratingly of Islam, or perhaps a program on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – yes, there are several possible programs right there. And if American-government sponsored channels don’t carry this stuff, they should be closed down, for they are then nothing more than a jobs program for Arabic speakers, and that is entirely unnecessary. It is particularly important that, for example, Maronites and Copts and Arabic-speaking Jews and ex-Muslims monitor this material, to make sure that taxpayers’ money is not going to people who, while purportedly working for the government, present material that undercuts it, or Infidels in general, or delivers a message that may be interpreted as appeasing or otherwise deliver the wrong message. The personnel at the top of these new channels should be examined to make sure taxpayers are not inadvertently supporting the wrong people, who may simply be outwardly plausible. But it takes an Arabic-speaker to pick up, or to properly “place” through a whole series of delicate hints, someone. Native Americans just can’t do it; they lack the right antennae. They are innocents abroad, and when it comes to Islam and Muslims, they are innocents at home as well. Nice when it’s a story by Mark Twain, not so great when American lives depend on wariness and low cunning and high intelligence.