The New York Times: dhimmi and proud

Hell, the Manhattan Project is even older news.

Let's get those A-Bomb diagrams out there "in the public interest", post haste.

The smarter jihadists surely must know about them already, right?

And the specific formula for making ricin from castor beans shouldn't be hidden any longer, either.

The NYTimes need a new motto:

"Inquiring terrorists want to know."

They'd be sorry if U.S. laws were ever enforced. Sedition used to carry serious penalties in this nation, but now it seems you can burn an American flag on the White House lawn and practically call for the assassination of the President and nobody would lift a finger against you.

What's to stop the NY Times from costing American lives now? Nothing. They already have before and I am positive that they will cause worse tragedy soon.

http://hotair.com/archives/vent/2006/06/30/changing-times/

Traitors.

I posted this previously but it needs repeating. Our heroic soliders bear the burden of the NY Times cowardly action.

Excerpts of a letter that Lieutenant
Tom Cotton, currently fighting in Iraq, sent to the Times.

"“Congratulations on disclosing our government's highly classified anti-terrorist-financing program. …I spent the last four days patrolling one of the more dangerous areas in Iraq. Unfortunately, as I supervised my soldiers late one night, I heard a booming explosion several miles away. I learned a few hours later that a powerful roadside bomb killed one soldier and severely injured another from my 130-man company. I deeply hope that we can find and kill or capture the terrorists responsible for that bomb. But, of course, these terrorists do not spring from the soil. …No, they require financing to obtain mortars and artillery shells, priming explosives, wiring and circuitry, not to mention for training and payments to locals willing to emplace bombs in exchange for a few months' salary.

“You may think you have done a public service, but you have gravely endangered the lives of my soldiers and all other soldiers and innocent Iraqis here. Next time I hear that familiar explosion -- or next time I feel it -- I will wonder whether we could have stopped that bomb had you not instructed terrorists how to evade our financial surveillance.

“And, by the way, having graduated from Harvard Law and practiced with a federal appellate judge and two Washington law firms before becoming an
infantry officer, I am well-versed in the espionage laws relevant to this story and others -- laws you have plainly violated. I hope that my colleagues at the Department of Justice match the courage of my soldiers here and prosecute you and your newspaper to the fullest extent of the law. By the time we return home, maybe you will be in your rightful place: not at the Pulitzer announcements, but behind bars.

From Gary L. Bauer, Campaign for Working Families

http://www.cwfpac.com/index.php

adobe-

Good posting.

(Maybe we can just embed the entire New York Times staff in Fallujah or Haditha wearing yarmulkahs?)

Happy 4th.

The New Duranty Times thinks that in publishing information about a secret program, the details of which were not known to those whom it was intended to monitor, it is doing something akin to the publishing of The Pentagon Papers.

But a moment's thought shows us that that is incorrect. Whatever one thinks of the self-aggrandizing of some of the participants in that affair (toymaker Louis Marx's daughter's husband -- what was his name again?), what was revealed were volumes of the records of American dealings with Vietnam, with how, from the days of the French ("La petite Tonkinoise" tinkling couleur-locally in the background at the opium den, while a teenaged Marguerite Duras meets with her lover on Catinat Street), and Bao Dai in Dalat, and Dien Bien Phu, and General de Castres, all the way up to Marshal Ky, with his unfortunate remarks and flamboyant ways.

In other words, it was about the information, and assumptions, and in many cases the misinformation, and the wrong assumptions, that led to policy.

But that is not what happened when Bill Keller, who made his name by reporting from the Soviet Union (with his then-wife), at a time when everyone and his brother could, merely by latching onto the right intelligent Russian informants, seem to know far more about Russia than they did, decided that he would ignore not only what the Bush Administration officials, over many months, argued with him, pleased with him, not to reveal, but that he would also ignore what Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, the co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission, asked him to consider. They were not mere marionettes manipulated by Karl Rove; Lee Hamilton is a Democrat, and neither he nor Kean is know to be an ideologue.

Had Bill Keller, had The New Duranty Times, wished to produce something like the Pentagon Papers, he would have appointed two dozen reporters, specialists in investigative journalism, to work on the formation of American policy on oil, and on Islam, over the past 50 years. They would have investigated how it was, who was responsible for, making Americans think of Islam as a "bulwark against Communism" and nothing more. They would have found out who -- see the work of J. B. Kelly -- managed to convince the American public, and what's worse, American policymakers, that Saudi Arabia was, or ever could be, our "staunch ally" on whom we could rely to "moderate" oil prices and, furthermore, use its vast, unmerited oil wealth for ends that would not endanger us.

Bill Keller might have wished to introduce to his readers the list of Western hirelings, of all those ex-ambassadors and ex-consuls, those former C.I.A. agents, those public-relations touts shilling for the Saudis, those businessmen who have contracts dangled before them and who, in order to "recycle petrodollars," have done the work of the Saudis and other Muslims.

All this, and more, Bill Keller might have done. The New Duranty Times might have made such names as Raymond Close, James Akens, Andrew Kilgore, and Eugene Bird (whose name just appeared at the bottom of a full-age ad, an anti-Israel thing in the name -- transparently -- of something called the "Council for the National Interest." Oh, and let's not forget Mrs. Bird while we at The New Duranty Times are finding out who's who, or who tries to be who, in the making of policy toward Saudi Arabia as the champion of Islam, and furthermore, that have also contributed to preventing a sane energy policy from beginning, as it should have, at the latest by 1973.

These are the things that are fit to print. And these are not the only things. What have readers of The New Duranty Times learned about Islam? How many of those readers are acquainted with what the "Hadith" are? The "Sira'? How many understand what the word "Sunnah" means? How many know about Muhammad as the Perfect Man, the role model for all time for all Muslims, Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil? How many know what Muhammad said and did? What have they learned about the attack on the farrmers of the Khaybar Oasis, the decaptiation of the bound prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, the "treaty" made with the Meccans at Hudaibiyyah, the reaction of Muhammad to the murders of Asma bint Marwan and Abu Akaf, and of course the story of little Aisha? Not a single reader of The New Duranty Times, in the nearly five years sinc 9/11/2001, has learned a single one of these things.

Nor do they know what is in the Qur'an. They have no way of making sense of how that book is read, of whether the contradictions in it have been resolved (they have, long ago, through the doctrine of "naskh," and that resolution makes the book still more harsh towards Infidels). They do not know the real signficiance of 2.256. They do not know that when everyone from CAIR collaborators to George Bush (an unwitting collaborator) quote a certain Qur'anic verse and then fail to add the next verse that clearly modifies it, that this is gives an impression completely opposite from that which Muslims come away with. The New Duranty Times fails to convey, completely, the sense of Islam as a Complete Regulation of Life (why not inform readers of what is regulated, by giving them excerpts from Al-Qaradawi's guide to what is halal and what haram? Why not?), and as a Total Explanation of the Universe. Why not discuss the prohibition in Islam on all sculpture, and on most painting, on most music, on all sports that cannot be regarded as training for the "Jihad"?

None of this has been given so much as a sentence in The New Duranty Times.

And what about Ibn Warraq, and Ali Sina, and the hundreds of websites run by articulate defectors from Islam? Why do they get no mention, and why was Ayaan Hirsi Ali only mentioned because her fame as a public figure, and connection to Theo van Gogh, and now the recent contretemps over her non-lie lie or lying truth, or whatever it is (and no person in his right mind should care; it is completely trivial) to the Dutch authoirites when she applied for asylum? Why do the doubts of so many born into Islam never get a mention?

And why, save for one article by Alexander Stille four years ago, has there been no coverage at all of the exciting developments in Western scholarship on early Islam? Why, save in that article, no coverage of Wansbrough, or Patricia Crone? Why no mention of Hawting, or Christoph Luxenberg, or Nevo, or a few dozen others, all of them carefully collected by Ibn Warraq in his incomparable anthologies of recent (and older) scholarship: "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad," "What the Qur'an Really Says" and "The Origins of the Qur'an." Why is Ibn Warraq not by now a household name?

Why has The New Duranty Times failed so completely in its task of education about the most important matters, and yet it has the time, and the need, to reveal a secret program that many people of good will, not supporters of the administration, not admirers of the war in Iraq or a good deal else, believe has been useful, and in any case would not presume to judge those of both parties or no party, who think that such a revelation was at least intolerably stupid and arrogant, and some believe was, or would in a rightly ordered world be considered to be, an act amounting to treason.

Bill Keller did not reveal anything about how Islam, and Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and so much else, have been misunderstood. He did not reveal that the inability of the American government for more than the past thirty years to start taxing gasoline and oil, to start some kind of Manhattan Project, not only has funded the Jihad which before 1973 largely lacked the wherewithal, the Jihad in all of its instruments (military, the money weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest -- for mosques and madrasas all over the Lands of the Infidels are paid for with OPEC revenues), but has helped to create a nightmare situation for the environment.

No, that was unimportant to Bill Keller and his self-righteous supporters. What he had time to do, and the space to do it, was to reveal an ongoing plan, in the middle of a war -- even if that war has been misleadingly described as a "war on terror" -- to make Americans safer. He decided that he knew better, knew better than the Adminstration officials, knew better than such Democrats as Lee Hamilton, knew better than everyone. And so too did those who preeningly backed him up.

It is possible to deplore the Iraq War for all kinds of reasons (for example, I do). It is possible to deplore the way that the war against the instruments of Jihad other than "terror" is being waged (for example, I do). It is possible to be opposed to how the Administration articulates, as well as conducts, its so-called "war on terror," and yet still be enraged and disgusted with The New Duranty Times for publishing information about the money-monitoring program, a program intended only to make us less vulnerable, and which many intelligent people in Washington outside the Bush Administration, urged be kept out of the pages of The New Duranty Times.

For example, I am.

Support Representative Peter King in his drive to prosecute those responsible for undermining our security and exposing secret information.

Hugh-

Your posting above, of course, should be prominent "guest editorial" rebuttal
in the N.Y. Times, this week.

(The temperature in Hell today is 8000 degress centigrade, and no sign of a break.)

I think that everyone should stop, take a deep breath and not resort to ideological knee jerk reaction. The administrations first acts were to attack financial assets of al Qaeda, and the Arabs (despite the belief of many) aren't stupid.. they resorted to alternative financial systems like Hawala, and Arab Banking, therefore the Government is doing nothing to fight terrorism except using it as a pretext to track the activities of law abiding citizens.

Do you really think that the Jihadi's are still using cell phones that can be tracked, still using financial agents and instruments that can be tracked? I don't, they have either fallen back on less sophisticated modalities or found other ways to end run the NSA. Heck they don't have to end run anyone, why isn't Mr Spencer or all the good conservatives raising hell about the fact that the Translation Department of the FBI (and most assuredly the NSA and CIA) are completely contolled by Muslims (I refer you to Paul Sperry's most excellent Infiltration).

And for those who don't mind doing a little reading on the subject as posted take some time and read this interview Interview with John Turley, is Bush's Program part of a resurgent Total Information Awareness Program

And in case you are interested I'm a retired officer and combat vet, I have nothing at all to fear from the govenment, and have never engaged in anything but service to my country, but I abhor (for my children and grandchildren) the ominous prospects of a Big Brother government, that tracks every bit of information (and shares it with corporations, insurance companies, marketers) etc.. Oh wait...they already do that.. Sad.

Nariz-

There's an old saying:

"The best is the enemy of the good."

By preventing the success of a program that may keep you alive -in order to 'inhabit' a pre-technological wishworld- is to worry about the dangerous maybe and miss the fatal is.

Islam is the Biggest Goddamned Big Brother we'll ever have to face.

And it isn't amenable to being voted out of office by an annoyed populace once it gets its gila monster-like jaws on secular power.

The First and Second Amendments will keep the spread of the State (now pursuing rationale security measures for survival) from encroaching too far on our personal liberties.

Meanwhile, as the wise Supreme Court justice put it:

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

The N. Y. Times seems to feel otherwise.

And they want to grease the sliding board to hell -AKA the Islamic Imperium- for some unfathomable reason of their own.

Or are they just blinded by local little transitory enemies enough to miss the real 'eternal' Enemy?

In the same short-sighted way that Timothy McVeigh's silly, anti-government paranoic terrorism gained us nothing -as far as winning greater liberty from a theoretically-oppressive State- and his murderous anarchism also distracted the already-harassed security services from properly focusing on and fighting the real Enemy, which was working on bombing the WTC, unsucessfully, at around the same era.

(Not that Clinton/Reno weren't a disastrous combo of hysterical over-reaction, in their own way, what with Ruby Ridge and WACO and the Elian Gonzales fiasco, but America's government was hardly becoming enough of a '1984' to start blowing up occupied buildings.)

It is the Muslim jihad that threatens our very survival.

The rest, once this planetary menace is defeated, will be relative child's play to address.

We're a people who reject needless intrusions on our privacy.

And I fear our homegrown capitalistically-motivated snoops less than the Allah-fueled 'holy' Regulators of All Human Behavior.

The true believer Islamists are aiming their Juggernaut of Shariah Law, as their sanctified steamroller, at our future and freedom.

There are a lot of important things that the NYT does NOT report --as Hugh pointed out-- and does not want to report, such as ex-Prez Jiminy Cricket's financial dealings with Arab potentates, the Shaykh of Abu Dhabi's partial funding of the Carter Center in Atlanta, where Li'l Jiminy gets to play with real dollar bills, kindly supplied by the Shaykh, owner of the bankrupt and corrupt Bank of Credit and Commerce International [BCCI]. I read about the Abu Dhabi connection of the Carter Center in LeMonde in 1992. Maybe it was in the NYT too, even if only in a 5 centimeter item next to the obits. I doubt this info appeared in the NYT, but if it did, please let me know.

Anyhow, what is probably more important, although skimpily covered in the NYT --if at all-- I am sure, is how the US Treasury helped enrich the noble guardians of the Haramayn al-sharifiyin, Our Good Friends the Saudis, under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The story is shocking & therefore, appears to not be news that's fit to print. See link:
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/kindly-making-arabia-rich.html
http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2005/09/what-does-left-really-mean-in-2005.html

I have a question for Bill Keller:

Consider a case of actual spying like Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen (both eventually convicted of spying for the USSR). If, instead of passing classified information to a Soviet agent, these men had published that information in a public newsletter that a Soviet agent could subscribe to, would they then have been able to be protected by the First Amendment and the "public's right to know"? Or would they still be guilty of espionage?

This is not just an academic question. In the 1970's, renegade Philip Agee did just that: He had originally approached the KGB with the information he had, but they weren't interested. So instead, he "outed" several undercover CIA agents in a book he published. As a result, at least two of those agents were assassinated. But because he didn't pass his information directly to a Soviet agent but published it in a book instead, he became not a pariah but a hero to the antiwar Left. The fact that he got people assassinated this way didn't bother them at all.

Philip Agee then started publishing a newsletter, Covert Action Information Bulletin, with the secret help of the KGB. It discredited various CIA operations, sometimes with facts, sometimes with disinformation. But because his newsletter was freely available, again he became a hero to the antiwar Left who defended his "freedom of expression," and didn't realize they were spouting KGB propaganda all the while.

The Times submitted to Joe Stalin, they subitted to Fidel Castro, they submitted to Alger Hiss, they submitted to Ho Chi Minh, hell the Times is like the French, they just love to roll over and submit. No wonder they submit to islam so willingly.