Well, I had been planning to see United 93. I even told Tammy Bruce that I would see it and then come back on her show and talk about it. But now I'm not so sure that I want to plunk down ten bucks for a ticket, in light of this item from Horsefeathers.
It seems that the movie's director, Paul Greengrass, said this on the Rush Limbaugh Show:
"..Here's the thing. I think what they managed to do in this film,something I'm so proud of them for doing, they convey something I think is really important for us. There were two hijacks on the morning of 9/11. There was the hijack that we know about, the hijack of the airplanes, of the innocent people, that flew into the buildings and all that terrible death and destruction that occurred as a result. But there was a second hijack that took place that day. The hijack of a religion by a bunch of young men who twisted and perverted it in order to create a creed and an ideology to justify the slaughter of innocent people, and that's a hijack that is still out there today. It's still going on today, and it's going to be very hard for us to work out what to do to deal with that..."
It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that Greengrass would think this way. After all, it is still the prevailing mainstream view. But it is founded on a fiction. The twisting and perverting of Islam by terrorists is something that virtually everyone assumes, and no one has ever proven. As I have established again and again and again, the jihadists are the ones who use detailed arguments from the Qur'an and Sunnah to justify their positions, and the putative moderates have never refuted those arguments.
Why does this matter? Because we cannot win this great war if we fail to see the enemy realistically. If we deceive ourselves into thinking that we can count on tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of Muslim allies, we will be surprised and possibly dangerously compromised. Certainly hundreds of millions of Muslims are not waging the jihad today. But it has never been established even that a majority disapproves of it, or that there even exists any established form of Islam that teaches that non-Muslims and Muslims should live together as equals on an indefinite basis.
Until we come to grips with the implications of that fact, we will be much more vulnerable than we should be.
its so strange - I dont really know why people dont seem to see what is in front of their faces - I have been trying to "educate" my wife about the true nature of Islam for the last 2 years and she still does not really beleive what I say.
She rsorts to the usual relativistic arguments " all religeons are bad - there are fanatics in all religeons etc etc etc "
If I cant persuade my wife what chance is there?
Don't be too harsh. I get the impression there is more good than bad actually in the film.
From the NER, a review of what it is said should not be a review. Read in full.
" Amazingly, no one has faulted the movie for ethnic profiling: All the hijackers are portrayed as young, fervently devout Islamic males. Report Greengrass to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "
From the director's intereview:
"..Here's the thing. I think what they managed to do in this film, something I'm so proud of them for doing, they convey something I think is really important for us. There were two hijacks on the morning of 9/11. There was the hijack that we know about, the hijack of the airplanes, of the innocent people, that flew into the buildings and all that terrible death and destruction that occurred as a result. But there was a second hijack that took place that day. The hijack of a religion by a bunch of young men who twisted and perverted it in order to create a creed and an ideology to justify the slaughter of innocent people, and that's a hijack that is still out there today. It's still going on today, and it's going to be very hard for us to work out what to do to deal with that..."
Robert, trust me; there is nothing in common between this quote and this film. Nothing. There is not a whiff of explaining the terrorists motivation other than constant prayer and brutality. The director here Mr. Greenglass nails down the events of the morning of 911 from the point of view of the air traffic folks and the passengers. Islam is not discussed, but it a part of the movie with the prayers ect. What the director does not do is make any attempt to humanize the scum: he presents them as twitchy bastards who mouth prayers constantly. There is no "rubber duckey" moment, commonly employed in Hollywood where the character states, "I'm like this because my mommy . . . . " This movie is honest and presents an unflinching look at this awefull morning . . . without sentiment, showing the fog of war and the end of our innocence, but there is no justification whatsoever of Bin Laden, Islam or the terrorist, despite what appears in the Rush Limbaugh interview. Greenglass' decision to use unknown actors and even some of the original air traffic guys speaks to his desire to 'keep it real.'
Its a good movie. I guess the director didnt write the script. Dennis Prager also reviewed the movie and gave it a very positive review. There is a scene in the movie where one of the passengers is either scandinavian or german and he is fighting with the other passengers to just give in to the terrorists. I wanted to kill this guy he was the ultimate dhimmi. But I wonder how they know what happened. Was this guy a real character. I actually think who ever wrote this was not only an anti-dhimmi but someone who is making a commentary about Europeans and their cowardly ways. I liked the movie.
"But there was a second hijack that took place that day. The hijack of a religion by a bunch of young men who twisted and perverted it in order to create a creed and an ideology to justify the slaughter of innocent people, and that's a hijack that is still out there today. It's still going on today, and it's going to be very hard for us..."
-- from the article above quoting the director
Nothing exceptional here -- nothing that has not been said, or implied, by most of this country's leaders, and many throughout the Infidel world. Nothing that the editorial writers of the New Duranty Times would find exceptional.
And yet, set out like this, in such pure form, easily held up for inspection, not by a political leader (for whom one may hold affection or bear an animus for other reasons) the baselessness of the phrase, and of the dreamy belief behind it, can be seen more clearly.
How was Islam "hijacked" that day? What exactly were the passages in the Qur'an and the Hadith that those hijackers, conducting their two-in-one hijackinig -- hijacking that physical plane with its passengers, and hijakcing a religion which they "twisted and perverted" -- relied on, or mis-read, or mis-understood? What was it about their actions that Muhammad, uswa hasana al-insan al-kamil, would disapprove of? What exactly was it that they did that "twisted and distorted" Islam so obviously, and yet Muslims have for decades attempted to, and in some cases managed to, hijack Western planes, kill or threaten to kill and in some cases managed to kill, some on board (or blown up the planes)?
And if that day the attacks on United 93, and on the Pentagon, and on the World Trade Center, were all the result of a "twisted and perverted" use of Islam, why was there celebration in Cairo (reported, almost reluctantly, on the BBC by the hapless Frank Gardner), why were the claxons sounding and people invited to special feasts of celebration in Saudi Arabia, why was there delirious celebration in Gaza and the West Bank, why were people cheering in Pakistan and in Muslim sites everywhere, including a hospital room at the Mass. General, and here and there throughout this country, as reported -- those reports completely ignored -- by Infidels astonished at what they managed to overhear or see.
Why? Greengrass has an obligation to tell us exactly how they "twisted and distorted" a great religion. How does he know that the tenets, and the attitudes, and the atmospherics of Islam, even the passage that carefully instructs Muslims not to take "Jews and Christians as friends" (lest anyone be tempted), that tells them to smite the Unbelievers wherever they are found, and repeats that message through the most important (because latest in time) Suras, and the same message is found throughout the Hadith. Islam is not "twisted and perverted" when one reads it, believes it, and comes to the conclusion that there must be permanent hostility between the Believer and the Infidel, loyalty only to the umma al-islamiyya, and a duty to spread Islam throughout that part of the world, the Dar al-Harb, or Domain of War, where Islam as yet does not dominate, and Muslims as yet do not rule.
Where is the "twisting"? Where is the "perverting"? Greengrass should tell us.
But more than Greengrass, Bush should tell us. Rice should tell us. Blair and especially Jack Straw should tell us. Javier Solana and Chris Patten and Romano Prodi and Dominique de Villepin should tell us.
We want to know. We who for some reason, having read and re-read and re-read the Qur'an, the Hadith, the biography of Muhammad, having looked at Muslim websites, having read the Qur'anic commentators, having studied the history of Jihad-conquest and of the treatment of non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jain, Sikhs) undre Muslim rule, have somehow managed ourselves to miscomprehend Islam.
Tell us in detail about the "twisting" and the "perverting" of "one of the world's great religions."
We will be so relieved.
Hugh,
Could it be that the director does not want to end up suffering the same fate as one Theordore Van Gogh, be killed by the same jihadists?
The comment from this director is ignorance, not dhimmitude. We should be more careful to see the difference. I do not think most westerners can be blamed for having a distorted view of Islam. It is the responsibility of our leaders, foremost among them the president, not to spread injurious disinformation. Let's hope we get a president in 2008 who is awake to the real problem, like the new Pope.
Sadly, this idiotic "religion hijacked by a minority of extremists" twaddle remains the norm in any public discourse about Jihad. Wether it's politicians or the media, it's the same nonsense.
Anyone who puts their hopes on moderate Muslims is really clueless, since moderate Muslims, if they even existed in the past, never hesitated to enjoy the fruits of Jihad, such as buying slaves and participating in the general oppresion of non-Muslims. Plus they have never made common cause with infidels against the Jihadists.
The denial continues...
I heard an interview on BBC the other day with a son of a man who was on this flight. The step mother was on the flight as well. Seems the son has the same outlook as Paul Greengrass. The son stated that he has been studying Islam since 9-11 and had concluded that it was indeed a religion of peace. It made me want to puke.
I can't remember the name of the interviewee. It was last friday I was listening and heard this.
I'm more surprised that Rush wasn't up on the issue more than he was. I really don't get a chance to listen to Rush through the week due to the fact that I work day hours. But I still read the transcripts from his radio show. Rush's approach is from the political asspect not religious unless he's responding to the latest attack from the leftist. Rush is just like a lot of the mainstream conservatives in this country. They know of the enemy but they don't know the enemy. It's as simple as picking up a koran and reading it. It's the total mindset of all Muslims illustrated. The thing that get me is that Muslims take the time to study at least part of the Bible. Where as so called Christians won't even look at a koran. Most Christian fanatics think of the koran as an accursed thing. This is a grave mistake, in my opinion. As I've said in other posts, I've studied the koran. I know the koran. Thus, I know the mindset of the enemy.
If Rush was on his game, Mr. Greengrass wouldn't have gotten a pass from Rush. As we all know, Islam was not hijacked. The jihadist were following the koran to the letter. They have a better grip on the teachings of the koran than the folish ones over here. And the mullahs ayatollahs, imans, and the shultians most definitly have a firm grip of the koran. Why do you think they never let their offspring join in jihad!?
The word is getting out to the masses but it's slow in being recieved. I just wonder how long will it be be before the masses get up to speed with us?
"an interview on BBC the other day with a son of a man who was on this flight. The step mother was on the flight as well. Seems the son has the same outlook as Paul Greengrass. The son stated that he has been studying Islam since 9-11 and had concluded that it was indeed a religion of peace."
-- from a posting above
That reflects a careful choice by the BBC. The interviewer wanted to find someone who had some exculpatory banalities to offer on the subject of Islam. Similarly, though some of the relatives of victims were properly demanding the death penalty for Moussaoui, the ones who get a big play on the BBC were those insisting that they were opposed to the imposition of the death penalty, and wherever some sappy nonsense about Islam was uttered, the BBC would be, always is, there with its microphone to pick it up.
What is true Islam? What is the real meaning of the sacred texts?
Let’s make a test. Let’s take a half dozen communities of several hundreds Muslim scholars each having access to the whole collection of sacred scriptures and have them deduce God’s laws out of them. Let them work separately, without modern communication, that is, without consultation, for, say, a few decades. And then let’s compare the results.
Guess what? That test’s already been done. Those communities are called mahahib. God’s laws are called Sharia. And fact is it contains a perfect consensus on jihad, dhimma and hudud. None of them differs but in tiny, totally irrelevant details.
That should be enough to prove that a solid, candid analysis of the original Islamic scriptures can but confirm that the ideology contained in the Koran and hadith is none other than hate speech.
That thing must be banned. That’s just plain natural. In order to do that, we just have to show it for what it is. And the best way to show it for what it is, here in the West at least, to a greatest possible number of people is to demand it to be banned. The results of the actions themselves are almost unimportant – what counts is the shock and then the research ad the eye-opening debate.
Islam, the Islam of the sacred texts, is NOT a religion. It is NOT protected by the laws supposed to defend genuine religions, or freedom of speech. Actually, to ban that thing is to confirm the value of the First Amendment. Because in the last analysis, we have to ban Islam in order to keep the First Amendment. In this light, we might even amend the First Amendment with something like
Congress shall make law insuring that no pretending religion will be able to challenge the sense and purpose of the Amendment I.
The so called radical Islamists didn't hijack Islam - they're heeding it!
http://the-gathering-storm.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=322272
WC
I wish all those people who have Bible study sessions would bother to read the news and learn about islam's hellfire for their religion. Again, I had to listen to two Christians tell me that islam is a religion of peace and that it isn't Christian to not help those in Indonesia and Pakistan. AAARRRGGGG... Have you read the Koran I asked? "No, but I know it is just a tiny minority that" blah, blah, blah.... And.. "I am a good person and can't not help those in need...."
Why do people spend so much time studying the Bible when they are already living it? They need to study the news and the islamic threat instead.
And don't bother thumping me, either, until you realize that your religion should not be a suicide mission I can't respect it. (Sorry Ironman, et al. )
I think a dhimmi like Greengrass could make a movie that meets with the approval of Schlussel and Prager for two main reasons:
1) as a director, he chose to focus only on portraying the hard facts as reported;
2) the event he was focusing on was a very circumscribed event, where extrapolating interpretations of the hard facts can be, for the most part, excluded without doing much damage to the impact and sense of the delimited hard fact.
I.e., given Greengrass's typical PC attitude about Islam, the main reason why his film passed muster with Schlussel and Prager was because he did not inject his own interpretations onto the facts. I don't doubt that, if Greengrass chose to make a film about something Islamic that has a wider focus thereby inviting more interpretations & complications, he would deliver up a PC film.
He'll be doing it now from a far more lowly position. Why he was moved in the recent reshuffle is anyone's guess, but he's been demoted to leader of the Commons.
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a0fa1d4a-de2e-11da-af29-0000779e2340.html
Margaret Beckett replaces him:
Margaret Beckett's website
Margaret Beckett's voting record
And OT ~ It sure is funny that after two separate reports on alternative fuel, namely E85, last night on 60 minutes and Dateline, on how EASY AND QUICK it could be to switch over to it countrywide, the price is below 70.00 a barrel, for no particular reason that they can tell. HA! I said last night after seeing those reports that the price would drop this morning!!!
One report predicted less than two years to switch entirely, one less than five. For the WHOLE COUNTRY.
And it can use wood chips, sugar cane, corn, switch grass, even orange peels, for processing. I bet lots of other things too that they haven't even looked into yet. Hey, why not grapes? Peaches (Brandy burns! Sherry, does too). Barley? Hops? Soy? Dandelions? The time to try things is now.
E85 is used in Brazil. They are now free.
FLEXcars are available now and modifications are also available on standard engines for MINIMAL cost. Less miles per gallon but FREEDOM is worth it.
And a reporter on another report was easily traveling at 85 miles an hour on a hybrid. So much for them not being able to replace current engines.
THIS IS THE TICKET TO FREEDOM FROM ISLAM.
PUSH FOR THIS IN YOUR AREA....
Dateline -with an additional link.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12676374/
60Minutes
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/04/60minutes/main1588659.shtml
Know thy enemy!! If someone claims it's a religion of peace, you know good and well he 's read nothing of the cult of islam. At least when Christians get frenzied in their religion, they don't kill and preach hate. They just want to hug and tell you they love you. When mohammedons get frenzied up on their religion they want to give you a hug with a rope and then drill out your eyes before cutting your head off.
This is not a religion, it is a cult, and it damn sure isn't peaceful!!
Borg, No offense taken. I often face this same scrutiny from whom I call psuedo-Christians. I've preached against Islam plenty of times and have had a whole family walk out on me in mid-sermon. The head of the family was/is a Black Muslim and the family was offended by the statements that I made as far as Father God and Allah not being one and the same. Now imagine three whole rows of folks just getting up at marching out. The thing about it was that I also read quotes from the koran as well!!! Comparing them to what the Bible said on the same isssue. The matriarch of this family reported to the patriarch that I was uncerimoniously silenced by the pastor. Only problem was that I was unaware of my being silenced!!
It's beyond me why there are so many ignorant on the Islamic problem. Especially when so many Muslims at least read the Bible to meet us on, what they think is, even ground. The one thing that I was trained on while in the Marine Corps, was to know how the enemy thinks. And how can you what the enemy is thinking if you don't read what they are reading? This bit of logic escapes the silly Christians that think that they don't need to read the koran. I personally don't subscrib to this point of view. You have to "know thy enemy as thyself!"
The Bible instructs us to,
"Study to show thyself approved, unto God.
A workman, needing not be ashamed,
Rightly dividing the word of truth."
This verse is lost on church folks. They seem to think that this applies only to the studying of the Word of God. The key is in the passage is, "word of truth." The accurate reporting of the news or current events is the "word of truth" as well. that means being up on what the enemy is doing everywhere. This is hard to relay to folks that think that Islam is a "religion of peace." But I won't let that stop me. There are some that will listen and learn.
Ironman, people think they are bashing a religion when they show the truth about islam. They don't understand it's NOT a religion. It's the rantings of a crazed pedophile/rapist/thief/murderer/egomaniacal/demonic/sand eating/rock worshipping/headbanging/camel pee drinking/incest seeking/misogynist.....whew! SICKO!!!
"They don't understand it's NOT a religion. It's the rantings of a crazed pedophile/rapist/thief/murderer/egomaniacal/demonic/sand eating/rock worshipping..."
Rock worshipping passes the minimal test of being a religion.
And anyway, Islam has a thousand other religious behaviors and ideas (thousands of ritualistic prescriptions & proscriptions, including dietary laws, a clerical class, houses of worship, etc.; and ideas such as "God", "Prophet", "revelations", a "Holy Scripture", "angels", "prayer", "Paradise", "Hell", "Last Judgement", "Resurrection of the Body", etc.).
The vast majority of people would never come around to redefine Islam as a non-religion, for two reasons:
1) all those religious behaviors and symbolisms I noted above that are obviously present in Islam
2) the fact that it has been seen as a religion pretty much since it began (note, a heresy can still be a "religion").
My two cents: I wouldn't bang this particular drum of Islam not being a religion too much: it will just be seen by the PC majority as another "loony" idea we flaky "Islamophobes" are touting.
And anyway, we don't need to define Islam as not a religion, since religions can be bad, as well as good: Islam is a bad religion. There -- what's so hard about that?
... its so strange - I don’t really know why people don’t seem to see what is in front of their faces - I have been trying to "educate" my wife about the true nature of Islam for the last 2 years and she still does not really believe what I say.
A few reasons it ain't really that strange:
1) Most people only assimilate and integrate what they see and hear, not what they read and study, and public media content on Islam is fallacious. Few people have the inclination, time, or energy to go the grad school route and determinedly self-educate about Islam.
2) The one-way street of the Islam Fictive Reality discourages infidels from coming to grips with reality with its implication that even to question Islam would be xenophobic, discriminatory, radical, racist and, above all, in poor taste. Not only could making some plain talk on Islam get you fired from your job, it could get you criminally prosecuted for violating an unconstitutional on-the-books "hate crime" statute.
3) The cumulative effect of the pervasive-but-implicit 6th Pillar of Islam (i.e., the threat of personal murder for daring to criticize Islam) is drastically underestimated by the experts. Just ask Abu Afak and Asma Marwan how things worked out for them. This is why Michael Savage went yellow on Islam, IMNSHO.
4) No infidel has had the foresight and wherewithal to produce a series of 60-seconds TV and radio spots re-enacting the Sunnah (e.g., banu Qurayza, Abu Afak, etc.). In other words, the absence of what amounts to a series of prime time Miller Lite commercials has frozen contemporary world history into suicide mode.
Please sign the petition for banning the Koran. It is here http://www.petitiononline.com/banquran/petition.html
I am against censorship of any kind. The Koran should be read by all -- especially the dhimmis. But to get them to read it, we need to have a show of strength by asking it to be banned. If millions of people sign an appeal, some of us who are ignorant of what the Koran actually says may be pursuaded to read the Koran. Please pass the word along.
Ironman Hondo
Speaking of Rush, I have felt more than betrayed by him on his entire coverage of things Islamic. I have been a fan of his since 1993, but although he started off well in the weeks after 9/11, he was actually one of the first to go off the reservation by urging his audience not blame Muslims for of 9/11. Part of that was excusable in that one didn't want vigilantes on the streets attacking people who may not even be Muslims (as happened with some random attacks on Sikhs) but he went on to equate such an attitude with the general attitude of the MSM towards Conservatives - an odious comparison.
But since then, he has been supportive of self-styled "allies" in the Muslim world, particularly Pakistan. To his credit, he has been critical of our "allies" the Saudis, and unrelenting in his condemnation of the Jihad against Israel.
However, the template that he has implemented in this, as with everything else, is to look at this as a Liberal-Conservative split. Main problem with that has been that he tends to side with pro-Conservative Muslims, such as Manzoor Ijaz, whom he once had as his Limbaugh Letter guest. Similarly, on the Dubai ports deal, not only was he behind the Administration, but aggtressively so: in the aftermath of the deal falling through, he kept taunting the opponents of the deal, and even had a Paul Shanklin musical of a poor unemployed Dubai Arab who won't have a job as a result of this deal going down. And last week, he hit a new low by criticizing George Clooney and the MSM for criticizing Arab, as opposed to Islamic, attacks on Darfur, and traced the origin of that conflict to the Darfur rebels rising against Khartoum. This is unforgivably ignorant, given that anyone who studies this knows that this is an expression of Arab supremacy, for which Islam is the vehicle.
I used to be a subscriber to the Limbaugh Letter for the last 4 years. However, this February, I let it lapse on its own. If issue after issue after issue is going to pretend that the biggest threat to this country is the Democrats, while a 1400 year old ideological cult that threatens us is being ignored - wilfully or not - I really have no need for it.
It's a pity. I do hope that the Maharushie gets educated on this sooner or later, since we could do with his megaphone. But as long as he fails to recognize our mortal enemies, he deserves to lose any support he has from those of us who know better.
Did anyone read the FlexFuel car links?
Read about the E85 fuel alternative?
Comments?
Borg, will read it this weekend. Would be good to get involved in the energy side, as reducing the need for oil would reduce the transfer of wealth.
Ironman is right that people should read the Quran in order to know what's in it, although I don't think you have to read all of it. Read it until it starts to get to you with all that "slice their heads off" and "humiliate them" stuff.
"Ironman is right that people should read the Quran in order to know what's in it"
Data isn't enough. There are innumerable people who will read the Koran and still not get it. Data has to pass through interpretive filters.
PC person on reading the Koran's offensive passages: Responses: "Well, what about the Old Testament? It's full of bad stuff too."
"Well, you can't say all Muslims are bad just because the Koran has some bad passages."
"You have to keep in mind the historical context."
"What about the Crusades? The Inquisition? The witch-burnings? Jerry Falwell?"
"I know a lot of Muslims, and they're nice people. What are you, a racist? An Islamophobe?"
Etc. Ad nauseam.
We have a mountain of irrationality up against us. Simply directing people to read the Koran is not gonna do it.
I want to second the comments made by pissedoffcanadian. The character (I thought he was Dutch or Scandinavian)who seems to be more on the side of the hijackers than his fellow passengers was wonderfully symbolic of Euro-dhimmitude. It's a powerful movie, superbly directed and edited.
Someone put this link up and it is worth repeating until everyone 'gets it'. Written by a muslim, he predicted the current situation. This book was banned as hateful in 1992. He explains how muslims think in very clear terms. Even the nice ones.
The Downfall of the Netherlands - Land of Naive Fools
http://www.childrenofmillennium.org/heroes/downfall.htm
So CAIR and CAIR-canada want to comfort us with the notion that if we happen to be on a hijacked plane about to slam into a office tower, we should keep in mind that the hijackers aren't "True" muslims .
Well Mr.Hooper and Sheema Khan , keep that in mind if the day omes when a non-Muslim hijacks a 747 fully fueled and slams it into the ROCK in Mekka during Hajj and cremates thousands that must keep in mind that the Hijacker wasn't a TRUE follower of whatever faith they killed for.
I'm sure Muslims will not respond in like, and all non-Muslims will not be scapegoated to blame the event on any religious minority.
And CAIR-USA will post a notice calling for calm by all Muslims in America to keep in mind this was a nutbar that hijacked a religion by perverting its tenets of peace.
As if...
For those who do not have the time, money, or interest in buying a Koran, go online to the websites that will carry online versons of the Koran.
JohnMac said:
"If I cant persuade my wife what chance is there?"
I'm not 100% sure about this but I think there is something in the koran that teaches you how to persuade your wife. Not a word-for-word quote but, if I remember corrrectly, it says something like: "If she doesn't submit, beat the living sh*t out of her. And Allah knows best..."
Television, you nailed it. Whatever dhimmi traits Greengrass has, and he clearly has an admittedly liberal bias, these WERE NOT on show in this film. He wanted to detail the few hours of fog on 911, from a limited point of view(the passengers and air traffic guys and military). Whatever political axe he has WAS NOT on show. There is no slam against Bush, Clinton or UBL because for these limited timespan, we were dealing with a fog of war type of situation--not knowing how many planes were out there, was it an accident(not), bad communications between everybody(yes) or who these terrorists were and who sent them. It was a horrific day, well chronicled in this brilliant film . . . one of the best I've ever seen. Greengrass's motivations here are interesting as well, because although he likes to come accross as a hollywood leftie(telling Rush in the interview ad nauseum how liberal he is), yet he also informed Rush he was wavering on the project untill the tube bombings in London. This signals me that he maybe a dhimmi pinko for idenitification purposes only . . . a sort of Paul Kersey for those who remember the old Charles Bronson flick!!! The liberal on the outside who kills at night !!
Borg, thanks for that link to the translation.
the poetess
Well, Mr Greengrass, if you think the 911 atrocity was carried out by a few misguided souls who hijacked Islam, then why do you suppose Sir Winston Churchill wrote the following about Islam:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
“Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
And this:
“The religion of Islam above all others was founded upon the sword … Moreover it provides incentives to slaughter, and in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men – filled with a wild and merciless fanaticism.”
And do you suppose John Quincy Adams was wrong to write this?
"In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adams's capital letters)… Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant… While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and goodwill towards men.”
and this:
The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.
Do you suppose John Wesley was off his trolley when he wrote this:
Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind.
And do you believe the men in white coats should have come for Hilaire Belloc when he wrote this in 1938:
Will not perhaps the temporal power of Islam return and with it the menace of an armed Mohammedan world, which will shake off the domination of Europeans -- still nominally Christian -- and reappear as the prime enemy of our civilization? The future always comes as a surprise, but political wisdom consists in attempting at least some partial judgment of what that surprise may be. And for my part I cannot but believe that a main unexpected thing of the future is the return of Islam.
Or Bishop Fulton J Sheen when he wrote this in 1950:
Today (1950), the hatred of the Moslem countries against the West is becoming hatred against Christianity itself. Although the statesmen have not yet taken it into account, there is still grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return and, with it, the menace that it may shake off a West which has ceased to be Christian, and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world Power.
Maybe Gregory Palamus of Thessalonica was being paranoid when he said this in 1354:
“For these impious people, hated by God and infamous, boast of having got the better of the Romans by their love of God…they live by the bow, the sword and debauchery, finding pleasure in taking slaves, devoting themselves to murder, pillage, spoil…and not only do they commit these crimes, but even — what an aberration — they believe that God approves of them.
And do you think Vernon Richards was talking out of his hat when he wrote the following in 2001:
The true Islamic concept of peace goes something like this: "Peace comes through submission to Muhammad and his concept of Allah" (i.e. Islam). As such the Islamic concept of peace, meaning making the whole world Muslim, is actually a mandate for war. It was inevitable and unavoidable that the conflict would eventually reach our borders, and so it has.
Its time for you, and many millions more Westerners to wake up and finally grasp the enormity of what we're up against. This is Islam's latest attempt to conquer the infidel world. Why do you supppose they waited until three centuries after the siege and battle of Vienna before they tried again? Was it because they saw an opportunity to get after us for the first time since 1683, because political correctness and the apologists it brought in train softened us up, and made us totally unaware of how evil and intolerant Islam really is, and gave them that window of opportunity to once again threaten our civilization with doom.
Spirit of 1683,
Excellent postings. Liked the one by the late great Fulton J. Sheen. He was a visionary for his time. I sense he knew that when communism ended, Islam would end up taking up the battle again.
Borg,
I've read a few pages, and the book is fascinating. The violence is terrible, but it's the constant lying that's very wearing; I live among many people like this. It's true that most Westerners just don't understand this kind of behavior.
I hope Robert and Hugh will get a chance to see this film and let us know their opinions.
I saw no trace in the film of Greengrass's double hijack fallacy. I agree with those on this thread who said United 93 was a great movie, was not dhimmi, and avoided any partisan message. Director and writer of this film deserve credit for refusing to obtrude some silly message to make sure we all interpret what we see 'correctly'. Nowhere does the film say or imply "This is not real Islam." In fact Muslims may dislike the film because it trusts people to look beyond the surface if they wish, or to take at face value what the film presents. And what the film presents is men praying very sonorously and beautifully over beautiful looking scripts of Korans, and then killing three thousand people. This film works as a powerful visual indictment of Islam, even though no verbal attacks on Islam are made. Yet it is an 'indictment' that cannot well be objected to, because it is just a phenomenology of that day, albeit brilliantly dramatized and fictionalized in a tight, economical style that stays close to the known facts and avoids introducing any screenwriter's schmaltzy inventions of "human-interest" subplots of the sort that greased up some of those old 1970s disaster films. This is zen film-making in contrast to the cliche-soaked soapyness of many Hollywood films.
Was there in fact a European-accented man on board who argued against the storming of the cockpit by the American passengers? If Tocqueville's insights still hold, it seems quite plausible. Tocqueville marvelled at the way Americans of his day were constantly creating voluntary non-government organizations for every possible purpose and interest. And he contrasted that with the tendency of Europeans to defer to established hierarchies and government authorities to get things done. In the United 93 film, we see a European male passenger, probably Dutch or Scandinavian, trying to persuade the Americans that the best chance to survive is to defer to the new terrorist authorities on the plane. Meanwhile the American passengers spontaneously join together to improvise a plan to take over the airplane and fly it home.
If the Scandinavian man opposing the American plan to storm the cockpit was an invention of the film and not something ascertained from real passenger cell phone records, then whoever put it in the film was introducing either an anti-dhimmi critique of Europeans, or a slightly conservative moment, or both. On the leftie side, there was a line of dialogue that mentions "the president," twice I think, and if it had been repeated one more time, it would have turned into a Bush-bashing moment. But as it was, the line is barely noticeable in the chaos of rapidly unfolding events, and seems quite neutral.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is something to biorabbi's comparison of Greengrass to the Kersey character in the Bronson vigilante films. Maybe Greengrass is a closet anti-dhimmi who is being a bit stealthy.
Borg, I will check out those links. I recently saw an article claiming hybrid/plugins together with alternative fuels like E85 could reduce gasoline use by 95% with no new technology needed. Also want to look more into what some media decribe as the "energy independence miracle" of Brazil, based on alternative fuels.
Spirit Of 1683
In that spirit, I quote the Pirke Avot, from Avot 5, Mishnah 8:
"The sword comes into the world becuase of the delay of justice and for the perversion of justice, and on account of [the offense of] them that interpret the Law not in accordance with strict tradition."
The movie was a straight shot. It just told the story of what most likely happened. The most interesting part that I hadn't grasped before I saw the movie was how the people on the plane slowly pieced together the big picture and came to terms with the fact that they were probably going to die. They made their peace and said their goodbyes, and then the righteous rage that comes to you when you realize an injustice is being done and you have the power to stand up to it, even if you don't have the power to overcome it, came over them. And they went for it, even though the odds were totally against them. It is that spirit that I admire so much and that spirit that flows in my veins. And that is the force within us that the Muslims in our midst will ALWAYS underestimate in us.
Just finished watching Nuclear jihad on the CBC it was pretty frightening. Glad the US sees the Pakistan as a key ally and is turning a blind eye to their nuclear program. To all the guys at the CIA who let Khan go in the seventies. Good call, life on earth is overrated.
johnmac~
if you could get your wife to read the book link above about the downfall of the Netherlands, she might see reason.
Here is another story about alternate fuel setting a country (Brazil) free.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1938027&page=1
IT CAN BE DONE
MAKE IT SO
Borg, I read the three links you posted on ethanol. The next generation of ethanol (cellulose based, so it can use agricultural waste matter, prairie grass, and woodchips, not just edibles like corn or sugarcane) seems to be here and workable. It's becoming a cliche to say so, but we need the equivalent of a Manhattan Project for energy independence and clean renewables. If I had my druthers, we'd all be pestering our politicians with that phrase relentlessly. That single policy could make manageable two of the largest threats to humanity's survival through the coming century. There are several other known large threats, but it would be a start.
Speaking of alternative energy. The colorado oil shales contain the largest oil depositis in the world. Yet because it is energy intensive and expensive to get the oil out there is a saying that says shale will always be the energy source of the future. But shell is working on new techniches to get it out I believe. I read something on it but it will be interesting if they ever figure out how to get the oil out in a cheap way. If so the US will be the number one source of oil.
"The hijack of a religion by a bunch of young men who twisted and perverted it in order to create a creed and an ideology to justify the slaughter of innocent people, and that's a hijack that is still out there today." --flight 93, movie director, Paul Greenglass, quoted.
What needs to be twisted? Verse 9:5 of the Koran gives unlimited scope with regard to the methods of war that may be used against non-Muslims. The key phrase is "every strategem of war." Is there some part of "every strategem of war" that is being overlooked here? The whole point of saying "every strategem of war" was to remove any and all inhibitions. Every means every--no exceptions provided that the actions are intended to be in the best interests of Islam. Use of the temporary truce, and violating it as soon as it is strategically useful to do so, is also a strategem of war that is described in the early part of Sura 9, the context in which 9:5 is contained. Verse 9:5 clarifies any ambiguous statements anywhere else in the Koran, with the exception of 9:29 (which permits the dhimmitude option, which is also strategically advantageous to Muslims), and certainly overrules any ambivalent statements alleged to have been made by Mohammad in the hadiths (statements which are in fact overruled in the hadith in the context of jihad). (It should also be kept in mind that the women and children were not kept alive due to the jihadists' compassion; women and children were kept alive because of the jihadists' lust, greed, and laziness [they wanted slaves to do the Muslims' work], and the desire to Islamize them). Because of certain absolutely clear unambiguous statements in the Koran, such as 9:5, the most knowledgeable, most influential, most powerful Islamic scholar (Qaradawi) in the world today holds the view that it is permissible to carry out suicide attacks against non-Muslim women and children, and he has the backing of mainstream scholars. All that is needed is to classify the context as jihad. In Islam, that's not difficult to arrange.
Killing civilians is, and always has been, a strategem of war in every culture including Islamic culture. It is only recently in western civilization that this policy has been challenged and adjusted to permit only unintended, unavoidable civilian deaths. But Islam has always permitted civilian deaths except where it is more expedient and beneficial to islam to take captives or expell populations. Mohammad's decision to continue the seige on the population of Taif*, which included the jihad attack of women and children in fortresses (the jihadists attacked it with catapults, which causes indiscriminate killing), and destroying their food supply, shows that Islam permits the killing of civilians. This is simply putting into the hands of the Muslims Allah's law. Allah wipes out entire generations of people (save for a handful of believers), and wipes out entire townships--men, women, children, everyone--who rebel by disbelieving and refusing to accept Islam subjugation under it. At verse 22:39-45, Allah brings the policy to earth and puts it into the hands of the believers, for all time. He uses the believers to check the "mischief/corruption on earth" of the non-Muslims, and this includes putting them to the sword (if it is not more profitable to Islam for them to be taken as slaves, dhimmis, etc).
An extensive coverage of the jihadist attacks, assassinations, etc., written by Abul Kasem, can be found at this link:
*
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/AbulKasem40730.htm
Don't you find it bizarre how so many people say that Islam is a "hijacked relgion" or that Islam is a "religion of peace" but I bet if you asked any of them their true motivation for not being critical of Islam it has nothing to do with respect or knowledge of it at all. In fact, I guarantee that 90% of the people of the Western world are still absolutely in the dark when it comes to the Koran, and probably 75% have not so much as picked up a Koran off a bookshelf.
No, the real reason is that they are afraid. They won't admit it, but we know that's true. Damn hypocrisy. Damn fear. Damn our government for being afraid to tell the American people the truth and damn them even more for not protecting us with that truth!
I will see this movie at some point, but honestly, I am in no hurry. What we need is a movie that puts the right spin on the Crusades -- something that will really stir up some history lessons and annoy the Muslims. As Robert states in the P.I.G. to Islam (and the Crusades) -- if we do not witness a rebirth of respect and admiration for our own Western values and history soon, we will lose this war.
I understand Spencer’s frustration but I also understand Greengrass. We in the West were raised on a litany of “White man’s guilt” over African slavery, Colonialism and the genocidal excesses of our own internecine conflicts. The implication being that the white man is unique in his aggressive predilections when in fact the opposite is true. As a result since WWII there has been a sincere (and unique!) effort within the West to transmute the exercise of raw self-interest into the gentler arts of soft power and multiculturalism. While knowing how to effectively wield soft power can been extremely useful, multiculturalism has already revealed itself as a destructive fantasy. However soft power is worse than useless when dealing with a desert hardened enemy who views threats and violence as the only honorable expression of a man’s will to power and regards dialogue and compromise with utter contempt.
It is psychologically very difficult for the vast majority of westerners to condemn Islam outright. Our enemy understands this and is overjoyed by it. If we are to prevail we have to adjust our mindset in three important ways:
1. We must be able to differentiate Race and Ideology. It is not racist to oppose Islam. We do not judge Muslims because of the color of their skin, but because they adhere to a belief that constantly preaches our enslavement and destruction.
2. We must be able to generalize. The question is often asked: If a billion people share a violent ideology, but only a small percentage actually act on the call to violence, can everyone be blamed? The answer is yes for practical as well as sociological reasons. Practically in war it is not always possible to differentiate the innocent and the guilty. You must decisively strike your opponent’s centers of gravity to prevent him from doing the same to you. We do not target civilians, but in a total-war of civilizations non-combatant casualties are inevitable. United 93 proves this. In addition, besides killing jihadists, our goal is to transform Islamic culture so that it no longer produces jihadists. The only way to do this is to make all Muslims understand in their bones, that every time some of them strike at us, their entire culture will pay the price.
3. We must tap into to our own aggressive instincts without being overwhelmed by them. In other words we must learn to be ruthless again when necessary, and then return to our peaceful lives and good works. For many this is easier said than done. But without the will to fight to the bitter finish we will waiver at the crucial moment, falter, and invite catastrophe upon ourselves. But if we are overcome by our own darker instincts we will wind up transformed into the very thing we are fighting against.
Thus the tension revealed by Greengrass’ tortured reasoning is probably a good sign.
It’s not the government that makes war in a democracy, but the people – and the people are asleep in the free democracies today, lulled into inaction by a ‘softening up’ process of our enemy.
Who else but Churchill.
The softening up is not just by the external enemy but the enemy within, such as the BBC and the morally ambivalent Left and multiculturalists.
Lycurgus:
That was an interesting comment. Somehow reminded me of Wolfgang Bruno.
Robert,
I saw the movie, first thing on Friday, April 28, as a sort of personal prelude to the Symposium at which I heard you speak.
Don't let Greengrass's words put you off. The movie is powerful and does tie Islam itself to what happened on September 11. The emotions which this movie is capable of evoking serve to wake up "uneducated" viewers. Education about Islam doesn't happen overnight.
Hey Free Woman;
I'm not bashing a religion, I'm bashing a culture. A way of life. And will continue until all come to see the fraud that is Islam. I've seen a lot of the videoes that come with a lot of these posts on this website. And I've seen some of the other links that accompany this website. The pictures and videos are very horrorable, disturbing, brutal, and honest. I'm sure that you've seen them yourself. Especially the treatment of and punishment to woman. This is too important not to fight against jihadists. I personally refuse to give in to jihadists, Islam, and Muslim pimps trying to force their religion on "We the People."
If "United 93" is as honest as most on this website say that it is about Islam, then there will soon be a influx of bloggers to this website and the oher links. As a minister, I do all that I can to wake people up to the serious threat that is Islam. I can dream a dream.
Before I end this post, I have to give credit to all that post on this website. Be they pro-Islam or pro-freedom. We are all impassioned about our beliefs and our freedom to live in them. There are some very deep thinkers on this website. And I've learned from each and every you. From The Thinker to (sit down for this one) Naseem even. There are many more but I'd be hard pressed to name all of you. More importantly, Robert, you are a credit to the fight against Dhimmitude and the rise of the Islamic monster on our shores and abroad. I thank God for you. Your website allows us freedom lovers to gather and share and excersize our 1st Amendment rights as Americans and citizens of the Free World. There are many that don't post but like to read the numerous posts and learn from them. This is not only a educational website but a patriotic one.
God Bless Robert Spencer & Jihad Watch/Dihimmi Watch.
God Bless the many bloggers on this website.
And God Bless America & the Free World.
Lycurgus wrote: "We must tap into to our own aggressive instincts without being overwhelmed by them. In other words we must learn to be ruthless again when necessary, and then return to our peaceful lives and good works."
We did it just fine in World War II. It's much easier for modern Westerners (particularly British and Americans) to do this than people think. It has become a staple of PC ideology that the modern West is a superficial layer of moral laws for evil hypocritical Anglo-Saxon and Jewish corporate moguls and their political colluders, and beneath which yawns a frightening slippery slope down which we could plummet into a terrible chasm of dark evil at the slightest incremental ratchet of a Patriot Act or the slightest withholding of a bowl of lentil soup to a Muslim in Guantanamo. That is the irrational anxiety of the Leftist who has lost all faith and trust in not only his fellow man but in his own civilization, and replaced it with abstract templates based on an incoherent quasi-Trotskyite Gnosticism.
Sky have been reporting on the 7,7 bombings today, Check out the live at 5 weblog here http://jeremythompson.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/05/london_bombings.html#comments most of the posts are critital of islam and fewer people seem to take the bbc seriously nowdays.
people are wakeing up and we can yet win the war :)