I filmed this Jihad Watch video for Hot Air a few days ago, in the wake of the feminist silence about the Aqsa Parvez honor killing case. Now the questions I raise in it are all the more urgent, in light of the murders of Amina and Sarah Said by their father.
wow, thanks. I just asked this question on another thread.
Thank you, Robert, for actually caring about women. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
"The west should stop using the liberalisation of Muslim women to justify its strategy of dominance"
http://www.bminitiative.net/
"British Muslim Initiative"
I must admit that I am baffled by the silence of woman's organization about the lack of rights that Muslim women live under in this country and abroad.
It's primary time in New Hampshire (every four years, whether we want it or not) and I think it should be a question asked of every candidate.
"Are moslem women entitled to the same human rights as American women?"
Followed by "Why are female genital multilation and honor killings going on in the United States?"
And, of course "What are you going to do about it?"
So another 'muslim honor daughter-slaughter' takes place....why do these mad butchers come to America in the first place? Where did he get his weapon?
I'm betting this guy read about the Canada killing and decided he was a "better" father than the canadian was. Thus 2 deaths instead of one.
Dallas Morning news is still clueless about this story.
"...you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free......"
The MSM doesn't report the truth because they want us to be enslaved in ignorance.....
The Left cares only about power, not about people and certainly not about ethical behavior.
Posted by: n.a. palm: The MSM doesn't report the truth because they want us to be enslaved in ignorance.....
I believe it's more a fear of violence a.l.a. the Danish cartoons, than them wanting us to be enslaved. That and the inability to admit that islam isn't a "Religion of Peace".
I think one reason feminists in the West, in particular, the US, have been so silent about the lack of equal rights for Muslim women, is that for them to start defending their Muslim sisters (here in the US and overseas) would be to highlight the sheer pettiness of their cries about glass ceilings, equal pay for equal work, etc.
Salem Witch Hunt: Burn her, she's a witch.
Muslim Father: Burn her, she is dating an infidel.
Helping bearded muslims here in local surgery centers with lithotripsy of their painful kidney stones is pushing the limits of my professionalism and tolerance.
I now realize that painful operant conditioning is the only way to treat and re-educate brutal bullies, and infanticidal muslims.
Vote Spencer/Fitzgerald 2008
"The west should stop using the liberalisation of Muslim women to justify its strategy of dominance"
leonthepigfarmer,
Muslims should stop using the life style of a seventh century self-styled Prophet as an excuse for terrorizing the rest of the world.
"The Left cares only about power, not about people and certainly not about ethical behavior."
I can speak with some veracity on this matter. The above statement is the stark truth. Thirty years ago I was on the Left, a budding young revisionist Marxist intellectual, and then I began to drift away from the Left in the late eighties because my eyes were opened to the truth about what socialist societies were really like. "Scientific socialism" did not, in fact, produce a more moral human being. The Left does not really care about women's equality or treatment. Those are only summoned occasionally to suit a convenient ideological tool with which to lash capitalist, democratic, Judaeo-Christian civilization. I knew these people were vile phonies, even during my brief academic period when I was a Marxist, because these people would snidely mock my remaining allegiance to my Roman Catholic faith.
The Liberal/Left end of the spectrum may give some lip service to the plight of women in Islamic countries, but it politely declines to lay the blame for this misogynistic violence at the doorstep of Islam because it isn't wise to criticize an ally.
Why doesn't Greta at Fox (or any other MSM) pick up this story and beat it into the ground like the Holloway/Peterson stories. ..oh sorry, brain fart.
Have the police even found the DAD or is he stil loose?
Assalamau Laikum all,
Indeed a very sad case of two lovely young adolescent womens losing their lives to this monster. There can be defence to his actions.
Being a taxi driver one suspects that he probably worked long hours in the service of an infedel taxi firm and could not spend enough time to educate and bring them up as model muslimas.
At any rate he should have shown some flexibility in their upbringing if he wanted to live in the West. It seems that he failed on most counts and rather than blame himself...took it out on the girls so to speak.
My suspicions are that he probably had suitor(s) in mind which the girls simply ignored...and the red mist decended over his somewhat simple mind.
In attempting to bring down this sort of crime, your administration must again really look to tighten your pathetic and loose gun laws... preferably banning them.
From what I read it seem all too easy to get hold of a gun to kill your loved one(s). I hope your police catch him...and quickly.
As for the girls....like I said to someone in a different thread all life (the girls, mine and yours) is in the hands of Allah Paak.
We will all leave this earth life when he wishes...so it's not an all time huge issue.
Life is not so precious...mostly the pain in losing it for the majority of humans is a matter of a few minutes.....as it has so sadly been proved by these girls.
Most importantly, it is what you do while alive here on earth ...making provision for the after life that is far more important...I don't know how much prayer and dawa the girls would have carried out ...but I wish them the best of luck in their after life and pray to Allah SWT to keep these sweet ones by his side.
The universal silence of the feminist groups on this issue is probably due to one or more of the following:
1. Bush Derangement Syndrome
2. Cowardice
3. Hatred of anything on the right, and covering up of any and all sins on the left
4. Hypocrisy
Remember how they covered up for Bill Clinton and Teddy Kennedy?
I think another reason can be added to why western feminist groups don't speak out. It's cultural. By this I mean the feminists in the west have been able to organized and influence politicians and voters. There was also an underlying thought that women were indeed equal, by men too. Please, no nitpicking about glass ceilings, etc. save that for later. That doesn't appear to be the case in islamic nations. The women under islam know the consequences if they organized and move for equality. They have no organic male support. The western feminists don't fully understand this. It's quite possible they don't even acknowledge the help the movement has had by progressive men. But if the men, who often hold the power to effect change in laws, don't help then it's just a bunch of loud women. And in islamic nations, loud women don't fare too well. Then there is the whole relativist thingy. You know, the west is just as bad, yada yada yada. Now there have been some cases of women achieving some measure of prominence in islamic nations, but I propose that it is mere lip service by the men in power in order to keep the money flowing. Anyway, I've rambled on long enough.
Checked both WFAA and The Dallas Morning News, nothing new on the Said case.
Naseem:
Instead of telling us infidels how wrong the guy was who killed his daughter, why don't you go to your mosque and tell them? Why don't you start a movement to teach Muslims that this kind of thing is absolutely wrong?
You see, we infidels already know that this kind of thing is absolutely wrong; the problem is, a sizeable number of your Muslim friends think that it is perfectly acceptable. They are the ones you need to convince of the error of their ways, not us.
I am a Person of the Book, and very glad of it!
Why is the Left silent? for several reasons IMO.
1)The Left doesn't work from a morality point of view, but instead from a ideological one. Hence the silence from NOW and other supposed women organizations.
Another thing, a lot of them have also drunk deeply from the toxic well of post-modernism, which wipes out all critical thinking ability and qualitative judgement. To them all cultures and people are the same. The Dalai Lama or the Pope is no better than Charles Manson in the eyes of a Leftist.
2)The Left's traditional target for their ire has been Republican white Christian males not those strange obnoxious men with turbans, scraggly beards and homicidal tempers.
3)The Left's main goal is the obtaining of power and wealth like any political movement, not helping people or defending the values that make the west a decent place to live.
They won't speak out, as long as they belong to the democrat party. The party is now controlled by the multiculturalist and post-modernist. The main stream media won't either for the same reason.
Most feminist are in the ivory tower now and once in those confines they conform....Multiculturalism. Getting upset over one little muslim girl getting killed over Islamic traditions would upset the multicultural force!
Assalamau Laikum Person,
I think on the whole muslimas are quite happy with the status given to us by Allah SWT....you may not belive this statement...but talk to some mualimas...they are quite happy as I am....so there is little need to ruffle the feathers...that is the kaffur way....and that leads to instability and rubbish talk of "equality".
There can never be equality...only that which has been given to us by Allah...and that is plenty.
I too am trying to become a peron of the book...the Quaran...thanks you so much for readind it.
I think Naseem is really one of us and spews that stuff to make muslims sound really dumb. I mean, my guinea pigs sound smarter than Naseem's post.
The real person who disguises him/herself as Naseem is really a satirist. And banning guns? Well, the muslims would just start using dull knives then. I have read a book a number of years ago called, 'Princess', and when a muslim father wants to do an 'honor killing' he pushed his daughter in a pool, or he could lock her in a room, he can do any number of things. We have read the taliban, Pakistanis, etc have thrown acid, fire and other things to disfigure and torture women. One carved his wife's face up so bad she was taken to the USA to replace her nose, put in some false eyes, etc. This is islam at its finest - when the psychopaths are allowed to do whatever they want and just write it off as 'honor killings' and know that they will go to heaven for doing the deed for mohammed and allah. Yep - one of the finer things of life in muslim-land.
Banning guns are a left winger's fantasy.
The latest offering by Naseem has some merit, at least in again demonstrating the cognitive deficiencies of the slaves of Allah.
"Being a taxi driver one suspects that he probably worked long hours in the service of an infedel taxi firm and could not spend enough time to educate and bring them up as model muslimas."
An easily solvable problem. Stay in Egypt. I am quite sure he was not coerced here to the US, nor after this disply, is he even wanted.
"My suspicions are that he probably had suitor(s) in mind which the girls simply ignored...and the red mist decended over his somewhat simple mind."
Ahh, the well-documented red-mist of violence and the simple mind. Staples in the Islamic community that has been known to manifest itself over things as trivial as cartoons.
"In attempting to bring down this sort of crime, your administration must again really look to tighten your pathetic and loose gun laws... preferably banning them."
That really is rich, coming from a person living in a country where every third person in the street is masked and carrying a rifle.
"From what I read it seem all too easy to get hold of a gun to kill your loved one(s). "
The fatal flaw. it is obviously the gun's fault, not the mindset of the eternally enraged Islamist that killed his own daughters.
That was priceless Naseem, thanks for that.
The Left cares only about power, not about people and certainly not about ethical behavior.
Posted by: Wimbledon Womble
They are also so totally blinded by their hatred of the right that they will not admit the truth because we could not possibly be correct. Another way of looking at it is that they are always right and know what is best.
PersonOfTheBook, stole my thunder as I was writing. Like your name 8^).
@Naseem
As for the girls....like I said to someone in a different thread all life (the girls, mine and yours) is in the hands of Allah Paak.
Your saying the the father killed them with allah's blessing. How sadly fatalistic and wrong!
From what I read it seem all too easy to get hold of a gun to kill your loved one(s). I hope your police catch him...and quickly.
Guns don't kill or keep people from being killed, it's people with a twisted belief (Islam) that kill. Islam is death but Jesus is LIFE.
We will all leave this earth life when he wishes...so it's not an all time huge issue.
So you agree that it was OK for the father to kill them. Because it was the will of allah. See above.
Being a taxi driver one suspects that he probably worked long hours in the service of an infedel taxi firm and could not spend enough time to educate and bring them up as model muslimas.
How convenient, working for infidels justified him taking their lives because a model muslim woman would wear a head scarf. Death to infidels.
Most importantly, it is what you do while alive here on earth ...making provision for the after life that is far more important...I don't know how much prayer and dawa the girls would have carried out ...but I wish them the best of luck in their after life and pray to Allah SWT to keep these sweet ones by his side.
What I did was put all my faith and trust in Jesus Christ, which is far superior to anything that we can do. Luck has nothing to do with it. Building up value (prayer and dawa) is but filthy rages in comparison to the free gift of God. It is a matter of fact that it insults God to think we can do anything to equal what Jesus has done. I have eternal life now, not when I die. Islam is not the way!
1 John 5:13
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life.
1 يوحنا 5:13
هذه الأشياء وقد كتبت اليكم الذين يؤمنون باسم ابن الله ، حتى ان علكم تعلمون ان لديك حياة ابدية.
R_not:
That's what I've been trying to tell people for quite some time now: that he is a provocateur, probably a non-Muslim, who is enjoying winding up the commenters here.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
"How many of you actually went out and found out about feminists' reactions to Islamic misogyny? Or do you simply repeat what you want to be true so you can assume moral ascendency over the dreaded feminazis?"
Feel free to provide quotes if you can.
The Left hasn't the power to speak out. Doing so would compromise its multicultural platform and its cultural relativism.
Given that the mistreatment of Muslim women has its roots in the Koran, how do Leftists speak out against it without condemning (at least partly) the beliefs of many Muslims? That would suggest that they view their own culture as superior or find Islamic culture wanting in this regard. This might require them to align themselves with (horror!) people who believe Western civilization and its values are worth preserving. No can do. It would be tantamount to suicide.
Naseem: Robert Spencer could very well be correct that you are not who you say you are, but rather a provocateur (if the latter shame on you; if the former it seems you'll go to your grave and never figure out how the world works). Nonetheless, your statement that banning guns in America is what really needs to be done reminded me of a bumper sticker I saw on the back of a pick-up truck about a month ago. It read: "Guns kill people the same way spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat." Ponder that, Muslim or provocateur.
Robert,
With Naseem I agree. The arguments made seem rather childish in nature. Definitely intending to rile some readers. However, I commend you in that you still allow the readers to respond even as you council them to not. My view is that if one does choose to respond to Naseem, use of sarcasm or humor is the best avenue. Arguing on points is pointless. So to all who respond to Naseem, feed the troll candy, not meat. Use it as a humorous interlude, a way to break your tension. Then get back to the topic at hand.
OT
Anyone here visit Pajamas Media? If so someone wrote an article advocating Kosovo independence, one response was given then the comments closed. Who controls that? The author or PM?
tanstaafl echoes the foremost thought in my mind when speaking about the Presidental candidates. I am just not convinced that any of them understand the threat we are facing from islam. I heard on the radio this morning that Giuliani supports sending more troops into Afghanistan. I really like Giuliani but I do not agree with putting more boots on the ground. Help anyone please?
CRUSADER,
Accept the fact that whoever you like in politics will push for a policy in which you do not agree with. In the case of Giuliani you don't agree with his desire to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. Is that the only issue you have? If not, what else bothers you? If it is then accept that you won't always agree but that your politics and his mesh nicely overall. Also, compare actions to words. Now granted Rudy's foreign policy actions are nil but he has done other things and stated certain positions that will allow a person to choose. My self, I lean towards Fred. Now, I know he has a staffer who likes the muslim money and that is something that is causing me consternation like Rudy's Afghan statment has caused you. But overall Fred's views and mine mesh. Not perfectly, but better than the other candidates. I would love to have a President that spoke of islam as it is, and not as people wish, as well as share my other views, but that ain't happening this election. Still too much PC.
So in summary, judge your candidate by their overall views, not just one issue, and see if there is still doubt. Hope this helped.
Thank you Kevin; you have helped me. I do belive Giuliani would be a good President because he does seem to understand the threat from islam more than the other candidates. I also believe a secure American border is neccessary and Duncan Hunter is a candidate that has proven with his ACTIONS that securing the border is one of his priorites. My dream team of course is Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald.
I will continue to research the candidates--thank you again, Kevin
I would just like to say that Spencer and all the others of the "anti-idiotarian" Blogosphere should do more "interactive" media like this. Most people tend not to be big fans of reading nor writing. Ever seen the comments section of YOUTUBE?? Uggh. But videos can go a long way in informing those who have the attention span of a fly. May i suggest a new internet channel? Maybe call it DNN? you know, Dhimmi news network! :)
Kevin: I agree with you about Naseem. Whether this person really believes the rot she/he posts or is a provocateur, this person is a loser and should be reponded to, if at all, for laughs and nothing else.
PMK
It is not so much they are powerless to speak out,as it is an unwillingness to do so. To do so would only refute everything they they have been brainwashing everyone with.
George Bush, Despite his many faults, ended an 8 year run of uninterrupted BS. Where they had expected to gain another 4-8 years of with Al the Bore. Followed by another Clinton.
Only by bashing Bush, a moderate Conservative at best, could they hope to maintain their momentum until a more favorable time comes.
What else on Earth could the repetition of the term "change" mean by every Demoncrat running for Office?
The denial of Radical Islam, Economic Justice, End the War, justifying the exposure of all the means of defending our Country, Criminalizing the actions of our Troops in combat, Giving Foreign Nationals captured on the Field of Battle Constitutional access to the US Courts...
A more Conservative view point is held by the American people than the MSM will show. When the polling on Immigration for wanting the Border closed is at 70% and the viewing and circulation of TV and Print Media with a Leftist slant declines, tells one all they need to know. Except, it seems, ALL the Conservatives running for Office.
These examples tell me the average American is seeing through the BS and would continue to do so despite the Attacks the MSM will perpetrate against anyone who speaks out.
Someone with the will, will find the way for others, by standing their ground when telling those who deserve it, where to get off.
"Life is not so precious...mostly the pain in losing it for the majority of humans is a matter of a few minutes.....as it has so sadly been proved by these girls.
Most importantly, it is what you do while alive here on earth ...making provision for the after life that is far more important..."
Posted by:Naseem
Getting lazy, Naseem? These incidents are so frequent now that you have to cut and paste from your own previous posts? Please, try not to be both boring and repetitive.
The left is more concerned with their pagan god of multiculturalism then anything else. If it means ignore violence against women, gays, for the greater good (multiculturalism ! ) this is what we see.
Regardless, the west is decadent beyond extreme in this regard. The west has encouraged this sexual climate and thrown traditional morals out the window. The left has created the environment that gives Muslims a wonderful excuse to hate us, to hate our way of life. It certainly isn't why Jihad is waged on us, but it's a nice excuse we have given them and of course the Islamic world will hate us for what we do with our women, and especially when we try and place values, shameless values on their incredibly conservative minds.
Muslims are crazy about women, sex. They dress their women in tents, hide them and throw away the key. They are literally at one end of the spectrum, while the west now, is at the other end, where nothing is immoral anymore. This combination is explosive and I'm surprised we haven't heard alot more of these honour killings, considering how restrictive Muslims are and how liberal and flagrant western society has become.
"I think Naseem is really one of us and spews that stuff to make muslims sound really dumb."
Posted by: R_not
R_not,
That is really weird; I had the same thought last week! LOL
I am currently listening to Mitt Romney--he speaks quite a bit about jihad, the jihadists wanting to establish a caliphate, monitoring mosques and strengthening our military...I like what I am hearing
flowerknife_us,
I would go a step further and completely remove the Conservative label from GW. But that is just me.
CRUSADER,
What?? Something I said actually has helped. Power, infinite Power!!! Wait, best not let it go to my head.lol Glad I could be of some help.:)
The troll may or may not be a mahometan, but the gun control argument is most certainly relevant to the mahometan plans for us infidels. See David Kopel's recent article on 'Dhimmitude and Disarmament' in the George Mason Law Review.
R_not
I posted a while ago that Naseem is really one of us, possibly an Ahmedi or even a Pakistani Christian, who is thoroughly alarmed by the inroads being made by Islam in the West. Many of her posts show that.
A real educational came when a genuine 22 carat Muslim appeared on JW some time ago. It was quite humouress to see Naseem taking him down. The poor chap was left all at sea - never returned after his altercation with Naseem.
If we were to take the Aqsa Pervez case alone and ask why leftist/liberal/feminist/whatever groups don't speak out for their dead sister, I think the answer is pretty obvious. No new facts have been released by Canadian law authorities about the motive for the girl's death since the first days of the slaying. To my knowledge the Canadian authorities said absolutely nothing about this being a religious issue. The judge considering the defendant's bail said nothing about religion. It appears we all will have to wait until the trial or wait until Pervez rises from the dead to tell her story. So other than deplore the senseless murder of a teen-age girl, what exactly would one expect from an organization that believes in human rights? Would you expect them to engage in speculation, guesswork and pontification to condemn something that may or may not be the crime you describe here in these comments? How would any responsible organization, whether its NOW, Amnesty International, or Save the Whales comment intelligently on something without adequate information? And I mean information from a sources other than somebody's blog, like someone who has direct knowledge of the incident.
http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/
"I am currently listening to Mitt Romney--he speaks quite a bit about jihad, the jihadists wanting to establish a caliphate, monitoring mosques and strengthening our military...I like what I am hearing
Posted by: CRUSADER at January 3, 2008 3:25 PM "
Im just worried if he gets the nomination that the evangelicals will stay home and hand the Dems the White House. But that is a good start for Romney. Actually using some terms like "jihadists" and "Caliphate" and suggesting we monitor mosques.
Robert
Hugh has been against banning Naseem on the assumption that she is what she says she is, and the resultant pedagogical value, but if you think that this is a non-Muslim trying to pull a fast one on us, then it's definitely worth banning. Otherwise people who respond to her are simply winding themselves up for nothing.
Instead, shouldn't we attract (for want of a better term) real Muslims who could show their true colors, rather than a pretend comedian?
As for Ahmadiya, I think A Khokar is probably a better representation of them than Naseem, although to be honest, they too aren't much to write home about.
Elric66, I have the same concerns about the evangelicals (and I am one!) but hopefully they would realize how much is at stake and vote for Romney regardless of their insane concerns.
Kevin, you do help more than you realize; I enjoy reading your posts and always learn something from each one.
Abscedere,
That happened to me too. No reply but assumed I wanted to join their organization which didnt even have the decency to reply. In other words, they wanted me to join an organization that ignores me. I also emailed them on the UK genital mutilation in the UK. Again I expect no reply. But its good to know they are fighting for the right to own non sexist auto insurance. They sure have their priorities straight.
Why doesn't the Left care about Muslim violence against women?
Could it be because they are irresponsible, ignorant, irrational, and adolescent, who relish rebellion against authority... even when they are the authority... but mistake those traits for brave, freethinking, creative openness? Or was that just a rhetorical question?
Assalamau Laikum Infedel Pride,
Look here, I don't need to prove my credentils to you...
tum too gora loog ki juti thala may rahata haan!
For those who think I am a pretender...
App ko kya paata, maan Ahmadi begum hoon, mera naam Naseem haa aur Lahore ki Waasi hoon.
Now ask IP to translate the urdu and smoke it.
Mr. Spencer, aasi koi baat nahi haan, kya iis begum say dosti karo gay.
Abscedere,
I recieved a polite reply that "even though they weren't responding to that particular case, they were always conerned about hor killings. Please sign up and send money to help." (paraphrasing)
Posted by: 13 Martyrs at January 3, 2008 3:35 PM
Rob,
Stop wasting your time here. The authorities will not state that the Parvez murder was religiously motivated. That statement is very anti-PC and not SOP in Canada at the moment.
That being said, it does not make their claim true, but rather just watered-dwon and PC doctored.
What's up?, traffic a little slow on your blog today?
Posted by: Naseem at January 3, 2008 4:12 PM
The angry and near-illiterate Naseem is the most humorous one.
Well,well,well. I appears some one we care little for, is a bit upset.
Let the powers that be make sure there is no loss in the translation. We would not want to be accused of misunderstanding anything.
App ko kya paata, maan Ahmadi begum hoon, mera naam Naseem haa aur Lahore ki Waasi hoon.
... and that proves you're from Islamostan?
Klaatu barada nikto!
... there, proof I'm from Alpha Centuri.
Geezus, get your fingers on the right row of keys. Better yet, learn a language that will survive the 21st century.
flowerknife_us,
Regardless of how conservative the American electorate is, it won't matter. The MSM has systematically marginalized (literally and figuratively) all but the "top tier" candidates. They are focusing on the horse race (daily tracking polls, etc.) to the exclusion of issues. Tom Tancredo didn't hit it big in Iowa and so he quit, even though Iowa is a state that can't even pick a nominee. Winners in Iowa, unless they're incumbent presidents, hardly ever get nominated. Candidates with a history of supporting amnesty are suddenly getting religion with regard to illegal aliens. Do you believe them? I don't.
In any case, few Americans are going to base their vote on illegal immigration, the Patriot Act, the Supreme Court or other such issues. People vote their pocketbook. We may call ourselves conservative but we're more likely than not to vote for the candidate who promises to bring home the bacon. At a time when jobs are leaving the country with all deliberate speed, candidates like John Edwards have a better chance than Duncan Hunter or even Ron Paul.
When did this become a Star Wars Fan Club site?lmao
oop eep ooop ah ah.....lol
No question, God has molded Robert Spencer into an eloquent and a persuasive speaker. This was a fine piece.
I could not help but notice however the many compliments thrown toward David Horowitz. David Horowitz does good work. He is a great American patriot.
Little doubt, he has helped Mr. Spencer, get out his message to a large and sympathetic audience, myself included.
My problem with Mr. Horowitz -- as one Jew to another -- David Horowitz has sold out the land of Israel and the people of Israel due to his almost servile, uncritical support for this immoral / amoral U.S. president.
As a Jew, I can never forgive David Horowitz for supporting enemies of Israel like Mr. Bush.
Mr. Horowitz should know better. Most Jews learn from our history.
Naseem: You ought to give it up. Whether you're sincere or not, either way you're a loser. Good for laughs, though.
monk: If President Bush is an enemy of Israel, as you stated above, what world leader is Israel's friend?
Thanks Wellington. No world leader is Israel's friend or the Jews' friend.
May I ask you, what world leader came to the Jews' rescue during the Holocaust?
What world leader bombed the railroad tracks to Auschwitz? What world leader bombed the crematoria in Auschwitz?
What Christian world leader is my friend? What Christian is my friend?
Wellington, this is my enemy -- this man whose Crawford, Texas ranch is on formerly Mexican land:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3490191,00.html
Bush: Expansion of settlements hindering peace talks
Week before embarking on historic visit to region, US president voices concern that Israel's ongoing expansion of settlements in the West Bank hinders peace efforts with PA, urges immediate evacuation of illegal outposts. White House: No Abbas-Olmert-Bush meeting scheduled
Naseem's message translated:
"Robert has me pegged, but I'm too much of a coward to admit to it - plus - I really need the money because the pay is lousy at the .99 Store."
Wellington,
Bush is "concerned" the Jews are living and building in their historic, God-given homeland.
Why are Christians silent? Where is the outrage Wellington?
You know, at first I was going to respond to monk. But then why?
Why not respond Kevin? Why?
monk: Thanks for your replies. I could sense the pain with which you wrote them. I will try to respond with respect and with an awareness that Jews have suffered terribly over the centuries for simply being Jewish. By the way, I am not Jewish. I am of German and Polish Catholic descent, but I count no one more of a Zionist than myself. I think Israel has every right to exist and my major criticism of said state is that it has been too kind, too lenient to its enemies. I have posted before at JW that I think Israel made a huge mistake after the Six-Day War by not expelling the Arab populations from the West Bank and Gaza and formally annexing those territories to a Greater Israel.
You asked about what world leaders came to the rescue of Jews during the Holocaust. I respectfully submit to you that the major reason why FDR, Churchill and others did not act decisively enough at the time is because no one really believed the Germans could be as barbarous as they really were. When Jan Karski (real name, Kozielewski), after posing as a guard at the Belzec concentration camp and successfully leaving that death scene, made his way to Britian and America and told of the horrors he personally witnessed, he was not believed by Anthony Eden, Foreign Secretary in Churchill's war cabinet, or by FDR. Even Felix Frankfurter, a Jewish-American on the United States Supreme Court, dismissed Karski's assertions of fact. Frankfurter said after being told that Karski was telling the truth, and I quote, "I did not say this young man was lying. I said I cannot believe him. There is a difference." So, you see, it's very easy now to criticize Britain and America for not doing more to stop the slaughter of Jews, but this is revisionist history at its worst. Even after more reports began to filter into Allied headquarters that the death camps were real, there was an additional problem, assuming such reports were accurate, that the six specific death camps for the Jews (Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Maly Trostenets and Birkenau {Auschwitz}) were in extremely isolated areas (deliberately done by the Nazis) and far beyond the range of Allied bombers for almost all of the war. When the death camps were finally liberated in the last days of the war, Western commanders like Eisenhower, Patton and Montgomery were shocked by what they came across.
You ask what Christians are the friends of Jews. I would respond that millions upon millions are. Israel has no better non-Jewish ally in all the world then tens of millions of Christians here in America. Regularly, American Christians are in the forefront of defending Israel. My own plumber, an Italian-American and devout Catholic, has on the back of his work van a bumper sticker that reads, "Fight terrorism, support Israel."
As for Prersident Bush, I would note two things. One, a few years ago, early on in his presidency, he was called by many the best friend Israel ever had, principally because of his denunciation of Islamic terrorism and also becuase he insisted that any Palestinian state must be democratic (he meant true democracy, not the sham democracy of Hamas in the Gaza Strip) and be ready to leave in peace with Israel. The second point I would make here is that no President of the United States, not even a President Tancredo, could afford to avoid the dog and pony show of pretending that Israel should make peace with Palestinian Arabs as long as America is tied to Middle Eastern oil. No president of the United States could risk economic chaos should Arab states and their allies decide on cutting back on oil production or even stopping it completely.
I wrote all of the above with respect to you and to the Jewish world in general. I will look forward to your reply. Long live Israel.
The silence of the President on this issue is probably due to one or more of the following:
1. Bush Derangement Syndrome
2. Cowardice
3. Hatred of anything on the right, and covering up of any and all sins on the left
4. Hypocrisy
Remember how Bush covered up for Bill Clinton and Teddy Kennedy when he took power posing as a conservative ?
Hi there.
This is "the left" speaking.
I strongly oppose violence against women, whether it is committed in the name of Islam (as in Sa'udi Arabia), racial superiority (as in Rwanda/Sudan), or just because (as in North Kivu).
But I was wondering...do you think it's worse to wear a hijab? or to lose your home, and watch your son get grenaded in the street? Somalia women experienced both in 2007. First, an Islamic government took power. It imposed Sharia' law, which I am sure was restrictive for many. But it also stopped the violence and began rebuilding the country.
Enter Ethiopia, backed by U.S. intelligence and diplomacy. Ethiopian troops invaded the country, overthrew the government, and restarted the civil war. Since then, hundreds of thousands have fled Moqadishu, the Somali capital. It is the worst human rights crisis in the world.
This is the problem I see with the Jihad Watch value system. Throughout Western history, the great political philosophers have grappled with the ideal life. Plato and Aristotle favored "the good life", St. Augustine sought the City of God on earth, and Enlightenment thinkers envisioned a government by the people, for the people.
Jihad Watch seeks none of these things. It has no positive worldview for society. Instead, its sole value is "not Sharia'". In this universe, it is better to catalyze the worst human rights crisis in the world, than to see women under Sharia'. I am concerned such an attitude drives those of the Jihad Watch mindset to inhumanity, and to unwittingly abdicate the values that have taken us so far.
So I want to ask you all, in complete seriousness: What DO you want for the world? What is it about Sharia' that makes this dream impossible? And what gives you the right to make that choice for the Somali people, of whom a majority support the Islamists?
I am serious about this dialogue. Anything good I hear, I will raise to my leftist campus friends after winter break--and report back if you wish.
Best,
Shlomo
PMK
I never said changing the debate would be easy. The/A candidate needs to express their position outside the Box the MSM puts them into. The MSM has been trying to engineer the election for the last 3 years. They treat it like a Football pre-game show. Trying to make a match up sound good no matter how miss matched the contest may be.
The MSM has a way of preforming an inquisition upon those who's view they wish to demean and praise those who toe their line.(agenda).
At some point, A leader will need to throw these self appointed media masters back into their own Frying Pan, with a healthy dose of controlled emotional reason. A projection of Facts the commentator cannot refute on the cheap.
Clinton tried it but failed because the Facts did not back him up. But it did get play in the news.
The 70% polling for closing the border was not intended to be seen as a single issue. But as broader ground that Americans would unite on with other issues. The MSM downplayed the wishes of the majority and highlighted the minority view and still lost. The MSM lost the battle so they dropped it. It became a losing issue for them so the less said about it the better.(for them)
A true leader would take a winning issue like this and run like hell with it. Using it like a springboard for other fundamental issues that resonate with the majority of American people.
The bottom line is the population is being sold a Socialist bill of goods. A System that has never worked no matter where or when it has been applied. The same goes for Multi Cultism. The 2 go hand in hand.
Shlomo_Michael: The Islamic government in Somalia stopped the violence and started rebuilding the country? This is like saying that Castro shut down freedom across the board in Cuba but, hey, he provided everyone with health care (which is third-rate anyway except for the bigwigs in the Communist Party). Oh, yeah, and let's not forget that Hitler built the Autobahn and put more people back to work. I submit to you that you're horribly guilty of moral equivalency reasoning.
Sometimes it takes violence to end violence and repression. Here's an example: World War II. My unsolicited advice: quit being an apologist for Islamic extremism and keep your eye on the big picture. Just as America had to align itself from time to time with unsavory characters during the Cold War in order to win that war, so must America and those who love freedom accept tactical approaches that are less than ideal to win strategically. You know, the Left is replete with erroneous thinking, but one of its stupidest inclinations is to point to the tree in danger of being cut down without any concern for the forest at large.
'shlomo'
First: I do not think that the current warfare in Somalia is 'the worst human rights crisis in the world'.
How about Darfur? 'Arab' Muslim genocide and scorched-earth tactics pursued against black Muslims under the pretext that these people are 'bad' Muslims?
How about the past fifty years of outright, cold-blooded, continuing Muslim Arab Jihad against, and genocide or enslavement of, animist and Christian populations in the southern Sudan? Over a million deaths.
As regards non-Muslim entities - Maoist China's invasion and continuing occupation and exploitation of Tibet has received very little serious attention, yet there, again, there have been enormous numbers of deaths and cultural and environmental devastation.
The rule of the military junta in Burma/ Myanmar is vile and cruel - many poor Burmese children are so malnourished that their eyesight is damaged. The human rights and land rights of the non-Bama minority tribal peoples have been consistently violated.
Finally, stalinist North Korea is one of the ugliest regimes on the face of the planet. Its whole system is one enormous human rights violation, its people are brainwashed, starved, beaten, tortured and murdered wholesale; its Christians are killed out of hand. ( However, I do not think NK presents anything like the same level of threat to the world at large as does, for example, the immensely wealthy House of Saud. How many academics do you think Kim Jong Il has been able to buy lately? How many diplomats and journalists? Likewise the Burmese regime is limited in its 'projection' of power).
Just because I post here and criticise the sins of the Empire of Islam in its various manifestations, does not mean I give a 'free pass' to other, non-Muslim oppressors and abusers.
Second: you accuse us who post at 'jihad watch' of having no positive program, of being merely 'against sharia' but not 'for' anything specific. Right. You asked for it. You want to know why I oppose sharia? Here are my reasons.
I detest sharia because I detest all forms of oppression and violence, and I particularly detest sacralised injustice. *Because* I believe in equal rights for women, the right of girls to a good education, to inherit equally with their brothers, to work, and to receive justice if they are raped, to have equality before the law (their testimony of equal weight with a man's), and not to be beaten, and not to be married against their will nor when they are pre-pubescent or barely out of puberty, I reject sharia. I look at my nine-year-old daughter and *know* that physically and emotionally she would be destroyed by a man forcing himself upon her; and so I reject sharia.
I reject sharia (with its apostasy and blasphemy laws) - and I *also* condemn the tyranny in North Korea - because I believe in freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. I condemned South African apartheid - I therefore *also* condemn dhimmitude.
I love music - from country and western through 'world music' (such as the Indian raga or Cambodian classical music) and synagogue chants right through to J S Bach and Italian oper a- and *therefore* I reject sharia, because strict Quranic Islam suppresses music. My daughter and my husband sing in church. The world of Islam has *nothing* to match the glorious sacred music of Christianity, of Judaism, of the Buddhists, the Hindus, and the tribal peoples of the world with their endless ramifying song cycles. If the jihad plotters got their dream, world domination, all of this ravishing richness and beauty would be sadistically stamped out, reduced to silence.
(An aside: The Somalis, being somewhat 'slack' Muslims, have up till now maintained a lively body of traditional song and poetry - this is under attack from the saudi-funded jihadists; as is the previously fairly relaxed Somali approach to female 'covering' - and Somalis themselves have complained bitterly about the impact of the sharia enthusiasts upon their culture).
I love the visual arts - two of my children are gifted artists, as was my mother - and the thought of a world devoured and blighted by Islam, in which sculpture and the visual representation of living beings, would be forbidden, and in which all the Infidel world's accumulated treasure of statues, paintings, temples, the Statue of Liberty, the Venus de Milo, the sublime works of Rodin and Michelangelo, Raphael, Rembrandt, Vermeer, would all have gone the way of the Bamiyan Buddhas, makes me feel physically sick.
My beautiful teenage daughter enjoys high heels, short skirts, and makeup; I affirm her right to go out in public like that, to walk down the street with her head bare, in perfect freedom, in the sunlight; as I also support her right to wear a bikini on the beach or at the pool.
For all these reasons, I absolutely oppose the imposition of sharia - whether that imposition is attempted by force or by infiltration/bribery/fraud/ persuasion - anywhere that it does not already exist; and I regard as preferable, within the Muslim world, those 'secularising' regimes that, for example, refuse to enforce the Saudi-style cover-up of women or full-scale gender apartheid.
Put it this way: I affirm the Golden Rule, and the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Islam does not teach the Golden Rule, but rather, an ethics of expediency, under which Muslims may routinely lie to, rob, rape and kill non-Muslims with total impunity, in order to advance the domination of Islam; and Sharia flagrantly violates human rights, especially the human rights of women and non-Muslims.
THAT is why I reject sharia.
Shlomo,
I can only hope that someone much more informed and articulate than I will respond to your post. But I cannot let it pass without some response.You state with regard to Somalia, "First, an Islamic government took power. It imposed Sharia' law, which I am sure was restrictive for many. But it also stopped the violence and began rebuilding the country." That's very interesting. So you believe that one should accept a foreign government takeover of one's country in order to avoid violence? Fortunately that's not the way Americans approached the issue when the British troops came calling to squash the upstart colony.
Are you then also of the opinion that those Danish cartoonists who drew caricatures of Mohammed are the ones who caused the violence that resulted? And that they should have not exercised their freedom, just to keep the peace?
Then you write "Jihad Watch seeks none of these things (values). It has no positive worldview for society. Instead, its sole value is "not Sharia'". In this universe, it is better to catalyze the worst human rights crisis in the world, than to see women under Sharia'. I am concerned such an attitude drives those of the Jihad Watch mindset to inhumanity, and to unwittingly abdicate the values that have taken us so far."
No positive world view? Driven to inhumanity? Abdication of values? How does the opposition to Sharia have anything to do with those things, and where on this site have you read anything that would indicate that most readers of JW are anything but staunch supporters of freedom, life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and defense of all those values that as you say "have taken us so far."
It really doesn't sound like you have actually read Jihad Watch. Sounds more like you are projecting something onto us which cannot be found here.
Shlomo "This is "the left" speaking" Michael is speaking in tongues in an attempt to alter reality.
He is not the first to do so, nor will he be the last.
The proof is in the pudding, as is said, and Shlomo's choice of words reveals much about his position, which in case everyone here hasn't noticed, is not anti-jihadist in nature and bordering on anti-western.
First, Shlomo wrote about the recent historical facts in Somalia:
"First, an Islamic government took power. It imposed Sharia' law, which I am sure was restrictive for many. But it also stopped the violence and began rebuilding the country."
an Islamic government took power. Innocuous, for it can be construed that the Islamists took power by peaceful or democratic process, which anyone who will simply believe their lying eyes and ears, does not accept.
Shlomo then offers, as a counter-argument, the historical followup in Somalia with:
"Enter Ethiopia, backed by U.S. intelligence and diplomacy. Ethiopian troops invaded the country, overthrew the government, and restarted the civil war. Since then, hundreds of thousands have fled Moqadishu, the Somali capital. It is the worst human rights crisis in the world."
Volumes.
Shlomo_Michael, the character he portrays is in all sincerity, so completely full of shit, it is nearly laughable.
Shlomo wrote:
"So I want to ask you all, in complete seriousness: What DO you want for the world? What is it about Sharia' that makes this dream impossible?"
Shlomo_Michael is doubtfully an anti-jihadist, Jewish leftist. Sure his rhetoric is aimed at portraying that, but seriously, does he think he can maintain that ludicrous stance for long and fool the JW community. Well I for one, am not buying it.
Shlomo is asking for solutions, but in his mind, violent Islamic agression and expansion, with the institution of global Shar'ia as an ultimate goal is not problematic to him on any level.
Shlomo does not read the articles that this site puts forward, or if he does, it is only rudimentary in nature, solely done in order to spin it.
Adversaries on this site are always welcomed, within reason. Dishonest provocateurs, essentially trolls, hell-bent on the adulteration of this pedagogical site, are not and should never be.
I doubt Roobart has successfully returned so quickly, but you never know.
Shlomo_Michael is to be ignored until he engages in an honest attempt at debating his position. Otherwise let him fruitlessly spin his wheels and enjoy his remaining time here which is temporal for sure.
I find it appalling and sickening that the Left and the feminists are strangely silent about vengeance murders for "honor," about the rights of women whose male family members serves as self-appointed prosecutors, judges, juries and executioners.
We _are_ our sisters' keepers. Yet, when questioned in Australia while Sudanese were calling for Gillian Gibbons' death over the teddy bear naming, Germaine Greer used the cop out of cultural relativism to avoid speaking up on Gibbons' behalf.
When did it become politically incorrect to stand up for basic human rights? If you save one life, it is as if you have saved the entire world. We need to raise our voices to save lives and to cry out for justice. The screams of the victims have been silenced.
Karen Tintori, author
Unto the Daughters: The Legacy of an Honor Killing in a Sicilian-American Family
www.karentintori.com
dumbledoresarmy,
Beautiful post. Couldn't have said better myself.
dumbledoresarmy,
Very well done!
Wellington, you wrote: "Even after more reports began to filter into Allied headquarters that the death camps were real, there was an additional problem, assuming such reports were accurate, that the six specific death camps for the Jews (Chelmno, Treblinka, Sobibor, Belzec, Maly Trostenets and Birkenau {Auschwitz}) were in extremely isolated areas (deliberately done by the Nazis) and far beyond the range of Allied bombers for almost all of the war."
Wellington, United States flew aerial reconnaissance missions over Auschwitz. US bombed the I.G. Farben -- Monowitz synthetic oil / slave labor camp at Auschwitz. Why do you say it was far beyond the range of Allied bombers for almost all of the war?
John Pehle, War Refugee Board Secretary, brought requests to the War Department to bomb the railroad line used for the deportation of the Jews from Hungary to Poland, Assistant Secretary of War, John J. McCloy, instructed his aid, "to kill this."
McCloy responded only after Pehle forwarded a report from Roswell McClelland, WRB representative in Bern, confirming that "all sources in Slovakia and Hungary" urged that "vital sections of the lines...be bombed as the only possible means of slowing down or stopping future deportations." Operations Division quickly dismissed the request, responding in typical (FDR and Churchill) diversionary fashion that the "air operations is impracticable for the reason that it could be executed only by the DIVERSION (emphasis mine) of considerable air support essential to the success of our forces now engaged in decisive operations."
Monowitz synthetic oil plant at Auschwitz was twice bombed by the US. During the second bombing, a cluster of bombs was dropped in error on Bikenau, damaging the railroad embankment leading to the camp and the sidings leading to the crematoria.
Your second point "that no President of the United States, not even a President Tancredo, could afford to avoid the dog and pony show of pretending that Israel should make peace with Palestinian Arabs as long as America is tied to Middle Eastern oil. No president of the United States could risk economic chaos should Arab states and their allies decide on cutting back on oil production or even stopping it completely," is noted.
The only thing I would ask of you and this president is to not champion your faith in the Almighty. I do not believe Mr. Bush's empty professions of faith in God; that he prays to God for guidance in all his foreign policy decisions.
What Bush is doing to our only ally in the Middle East is indefensible. I would submit to you, his "favorite (Jewish) philosopher" will reject him in the world to come. I would like to believe God will not only reject Bush but that He will reject all who support him.
I question the depth and sincerity of the friendship these millions of Christians you seem to represent. I often wonder if, more often than not, Israel and the God of Israel are given lip service by many of our Christian friends as they continue to support this monster in the White House, bent on the dismantling and the destruction of Israel.
"As for Prersident Bush, I would note two things. One, a few years ago, early on in his presidency, he was called by many the best friend Israel ever had, principally because of his denunciation of Islamic terrorism and also becuase he insisted that any Palestinian state must be democratic (he meant true democracy, not the sham democracy of Hamas in the Gaza Strip) and be ready to leave in peace with Israel. "
Posted above:
"sham democracy of Hamas in GAza", compared to the shining example by Fatah in Judea/Samaria?
I don't see any President, being able to break away from fantasy land, in this current Politically correct environment, but Bush has been extremely surprising after listening to him speak on 911. Tancredo differed from Bush greatly, on immigration issues, responses to attacks, (threatened Mecca-imagine Bush threatening his SAudi masters ! )and I haven't heard Tancredo preaching the good of Islam like Imam Bush has done. The fantasy land would probably continue, but not nearly to the degree we see it now with this President in office, a vassel to the SAudis.
Bush is supporting all the wrong people. People want a leader, not a puppet who's going to continue the disastrous status quo of make belief policies, that only weaken the US, their allies, and strengthen their enemies.
Bush has had too many Iftar dinners.
Wellington,
You like so many shallow Christian's fail to see that it is God who has placed the full of arrogance and pride, U.S. in this no win corner Where prideful American evil and hypocrisy is revealed daily.
It is God who is making America the bulls eye target from so many directions ,and because we have rejected Him and His blessings ,the curse now follows us and grows daily in every spjhere of life.
As we assume to do to Israel ,division and destruction will fall on us ten fold.
There is no excuse for the evil that Bush does in rewarding Ilsamic terrorism by being in the forefront of dismembering Israel.
Those silent or making pathetic excuses at a time like this,or in suport of evil Bush partake of his evil and will be rewarded in kind.
Arrogant hypocrites like Wellington stand in the front of this line of the doomed !
Dumbledoresarmy:
A most articulate, intelligent and emotionally rational post!
Rocketman, you are not giving Wellington enough credit for his honesty.
Wellington wrote: "No President of the United States could afford to avoid the dog and pony show of pretending that Israel should make peace with Palestinian Arabs as long as America is tied to Middle Eastern oil. No president of the United States could risk economic chaos should Arab states and their allies decide on cutting back on oil production or even stopping it completely,"
Wellington is being brutally honest and frank here.
The bottom line is, the mighty America is afraid of the Muslims! This is a fact. The U.S. as Wellington right says, would rather crap all over tiny Israel in order to appease our mortal enemies, than risk exciting the Muslim jihsdists.
Not crapping on Israel could mean, as Wellington writes, the risk that the Muslims might cut back or stop oil production in order to punish the U.S. economically. Naturally this might be construed as an act of war should economic chaos ensue.
In order to avoid this possibility, better to sell out an ally and keep the savages happy, than do the right thing; than do the noble thing; the just thing. Better to appease the jihadist monster than risk any inconvenience, or heaven forbid, sacrifice!
Would that conservatives like Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Horowitz, etc., might be as honest as Wellington, who tells it like it is.
Mighty America is cowed by the Muslims! It is that simple.
Rocketman, you wrote "Arrogant hypocrites like Wellington stand in the front of this line of the doomed."
Hey, why sugar-coat things like that, rocketman? Go ahead, I can take it. Just give it to me straight. Incidentally, do you ever read your own posts? They come across as rants, not reasonable counter-arguments. By the way, you get a lot of things wrong and one of them is your assumption that I'm a Christian. I'm not.
Sneakyzionistcrusader: Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree about Bush. As I've posted before, I give him some credit for keeping us safe here at home since 9/11. As for Bush pushing Israel for concessions, yeah, I don't like that but I do believe that Bush understands that any concessions offered by Israel will almost certainly not meet with reciprocity from Abbas and Fatah and thus Israel will then be able to not act upon any concession by claiming that Palestinian Arabs are recalcitrant and deceitful yet again. This is Bush's out while at the same time he engages in the dog and pony show that much of the world expects of America and Israel.
And I don't see Bush as a vassal to the Saudis. He knows only too well that while the Saudis may help us on Monday and Wednesday, they will work against us on Tuesday and Thursday. But Bush also knows that the major economies of the world depend on Saudi oil. Any President who would stiff the Saudis completely (and I readily admit that would be enjoyable to watch) will severely jeopardize the entire world right now. It's a ugly reality but a reality nonetheless it is. I don't think you give Bush enough credit for seeing all this, though I do agree with you that his saying kind things about Islam should cease. Oh, one last thing and that is that Fatah is as wretched as Hamas. It's just that Abbas wears Western suits and says soothing things in English from time to time. No person with half a brain is fooled by this.
monk: Allied planes were not able to get to the death camps unitl the last months of the war. I quote here from the Oxford Companion to World War II, First Edition, page 370: "Details of the killings reached the West only in fragments. Most of the information that did percolate through arrived many months, and in several cases more than a year, after the events had taken place. Publicity was given to the details as they emerged, but publicity could not halt the killings, which were taking place deep in the heartland of German-occupied Europe, far beyond the range of Allied bombers, and almost three years before the Allied armies were able to advance into central Europe." Also, and as I have posted above, people in the West just couldn't believe that any people could be so barbaric. That's why I provided you with the Felix Frankfurter episode. When American and British troops began to liberate the concentration camps, they were shocked by what they saw. General Patton, as tough as you get, threw up at one of the camps. General Eisenhower gave special leave to thousands of soldiers so that they could be eye witnesses aplenty to the horror of it all (just one more reason why Holocaust deniers are disgusting loons).
Something else, monk. I think millions of American Christians are deeply devoted to the idea that Israel has a right to exist. Don't discount them too easily. I personally have spoken to many such Christians, even though I myself am not a Christian or religious at all. My best to you and yours and, again, long live Israel.
Hey Well,
Bush over dems in security? Of course no disagreement there. Yes US has tightened up security since 911, but of course they had to.
The concessions Bush continues to throw on Israel to make are harmful in so many different ways that there is just no way of supporting it.
The "Pals" will never live up to anything, and US will continue demanding more concessions from Israel. Excusing Jihadists (Pals) only strengthens them. Morally equating Israel with Pals is harmful. Best example I can give you....if you're getting attacked by the same guy every day, and you go to the police.....how would you feel if the police were blaming both of you, and not the aggressor? The police tells you both to work it out, get along, be nicer, make more concessions, while the aggressor is told the same. While you're willing to do so, the aggressor is not, and continues the "cycle of violence" at your expense, while the police keep telling you that it's both your faults, sometimes mostly yours for driving your nose into that aggressors fist !
Bush does have an out, it's pretending that Islam is a religon of peace, and that he can wish away terror, and throw money at the problem. When Pals shoot up an Israeli, demand more concessions from Israel !
Bush continues to work to appease jihadists sworn to a states destruction, at the expense of US allies and US itself.
Other leaders will not be identical to Bush. I'm sure PC will continue regardless who is Pres. but, not to the same degree as Bush. Tancredo wouldn't be singing the praises of Islam like Bush regardless of the dog and pony show. That pony show is dangerous, and costing alot of lives unnecessarily. Take the pressure off Israel, support the checkpoints, you'd have a 29 year old Israeli father of 2 breathing today as a result. Russia supports Serbia, why can't the US support Serbs also, it's their land, and it's a disgrace that Bush is supporting the UN, EU cronies in stealing SErbian land rewarding terrorists Serbian land. Why must Syria be excused and appeased now? The reformers in Lebanon have been abandoned by teh US the moment the US thawed relations. Why did Bush have to thaw relations? It wasn't just Pelosi, Rice was invovled. Bush fired Rumsfeld for Gates, a proponent of that insane Iraqi Survey Group that Bush claimed he didn't support.
Wellington, Bush is in bed with the Saudis. No country is more responsible for the Jihad than Saudis. Whats being done about it? Saudis still getting their visas to the US, still getting scholarships (for aviation engineering ! )to the US, moreso than pre-911. Flying Bin Ladens around during 911 while airspace was shut down. Prince Bandar being invovled in the Iraqi invasion plans? Bush 41? Carlyle Group?
HOw can you fight a war on terror while being allied with those that export the Jihad ideology that you are at war with?
How about what Hugh says about Egypt, billions in weapon sales? Why? Because he has to play the dog and pony show? Talks with Syria, Iran, to appease them, the left, throwing Lebanon to the wolves? He doesnt' have to do that. Arming, training financing Fatah terrorists? Why? Why can't he simply tell the truth? Why can't Bush simply recognize that Palestinian society has chosen Jihad, their troubles are their own, and cut them off? Why can't he support Israel or Lebanon, or Serbia? He's the president, he's the leader, and he continues the fantasy land dog and pony show?
It's one thing to be cautious on how you speak, but he doesn't have to be so ignorant on every issue, and he is. When Bush says Islam is a religion of peace, that's bad enough, but its' much deeper. He means it. He believes it, resulting in US policy being faulty at it's most basica level.
Stiff the world WEll, the status quo will result in an Islamic nuclear attack. Then for millions, the economy won't matter much.
I don't give Bush much credit, more than a leftist traitor, but he's got it all wrong, he's friends with all the wrong people, he's throwing his allies to the wolves, Lebanon, Israel, Serbia for what?
I think a Tancredo would have been much stronger, less Islam friendlky than Bush. Less appeasing to the Muslim hordes. More likely to break that PC. He's dropped out, but the point is that dog and pony show only continues because you keep getting dogs and ponys in office.
It doesnt' need to be like this, and as long as US continues to set it's policy based around what others think, say, fears of what others may or may not do, the Jihad grows stronger.
Sounds very submissive to Saudis to me, vassel, debatable, but definately afraid, which results in...vassel like behavior.
Wellington, enjoy your weekend :)
Wellington thanks for your response.
Little doubt terrible mistakes and misjudgments were made. I have an well-respected book entitled, "The Abandonment of the Jews" by David Wyman. I use several sources for this period.
For now, I believe I should stand by my view that Israel and the Jews really have very few friends on the planet in which to trust other than a few noble individuals akin to WW II's Righteous Gentiles; those that risked their lives to save Jews from the Nazis.
There was plenty of blame to go around. At the time of the second world war, America was isolationist, fairly nativist, xenophobic, openly anti-immigration and anti-Semitic. Thus American Jewish leaders were afraid to speak out, by and large, to their discredit.
As an example one measure (to help the Jews) submitted to the Senate in 1939 by New York Democrat Robert Wagner, Sr., a Catholic, would have brought 20,000 German Jewish children to stay in American foster homes under Quaker sponsorship. The bill met with a torrent of opposition and died in Committee. "Strictly speaking, it is not a refugee bill at all, one witness testified, "for by the nature of the case most of those to be admitted would be of the Jewish race." The witness, Francis H. Kinnicutt of the Allied Patriotic Societies, was speaking on behalf of the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Daughters of the American Revolution, and several dozen other groups. Scores of equally distinguished witnesses gave similar testimony.
During the Second World War itself, despite repeated Jewish pleas, President Roosevelt met with the leadership of the American Jewish community only once to discuss Nazi atrocities. Roosevelt did almost all the talking. The meeting (please note this Wellington) came one month after the State Department confirmed Germany's genocidal intentions in December 1942. After that, the president stonewalled the issue for fourteen murderous months, until he was embarrassed into taking action by a desperate Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., son of a German-Jewish merchant.
A Fortune magazine poll in April 1939 found that 94 percent of Americans disapproved of the way Germany was treating the Jews, but 83 percent opposed lowering immigration quotas to admit more refugees. Only 8.7 percent favored admitting refugees. (J.J. Goldberg, "Jewish Power," page 111-112)
I am sure some of this that you report from the Oxford Companion to World War II is truthful as far as it goes but I find much revisionism in historical accounts. That is why I rely not on just one source. It is possible the authors of the Oxford Companion wished to paint a more positive and just face to the American response. Americans, by and large, pride themselves as a just and a compassionate people.
It is well documented, the General George Patton you mention, like many in the officer core, was a vicious anti-Semite. See on Amazon, "The Jewish Threat: Anti-Semitic Politics of the The U.S. Army" by Joseph Bendersky.
Patton said terrible things about the Jews in the camps.
'After the war, Bendersky writes, it was Patton who "set the tone for army policies and behavior" toward the Holocaust survivors who were languishing in Displaced Persons camps in the American zone of occupation. Patton despised the Jewish DPs, denouncing them as "animals" and "a sub-human species without any of the cultural or social refinements of our time." '
I've not made an in depth study of the American response to the Holocaust. I have however made a bit of a hobby out of the study of the second world war pope, Pius XII, who is widely considered to have been the "silent pope," due to his refusal to condemn Hitler by name; refusal to condemn the Holocaust, Hitler's genocide and atrocities against the Jews specifically.
We know that the Vatican had some of the most accurate and timely reports from all over Nazi occupied Europe. Atrocity stories and reports of mass-murders and tortures of the Jews, concentration camps, etc., began flooding in from Bishops, Cardinals and churchmen and women from all over eastern Europe into France.
It was the allies that continually pleaded with the pontiff to make a public condemnation of Adolf Hitler, Nazism and Nazi atrocities. Vatican felt this was self-serving on the allies part. Pius and Monsignor Tardini insisted any condemnation of atrocities would have to include those committed by the allies -- Tardini: "The Pope would not take sides." The Pope could not condemn "particular" atrocities, neither could he verify the Allies' reports on the number of Jews murdered.
U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, Myron Taylor and England's Ambassador to the Vatican Francis D'Arcy Osborne pleaded with the pope to issue a statement, which he finally did December 24, 1942; a statement many historians condemn as evasive, convoluted, elliptical and ambiguous.
We we have very few friends on this earth. I do not view Mr. Bush or America as a friend. Some Americans are friends of Israel. I believe very few. Most Americans either support Bush's immoral policies vis a vis Israel or simply do not care, in my opinion. Nothing has changed Wellington. You will never convince me otherwise.
"By the way, you get a lot of things wrong and one of them is your assumption that I'm a Christian. I'm not."
I understand your brand of no Christianity is the same faux package which Bush held loosely to for purposes of decieving the dumb sheep.
It worked well for him.
He no longer needs to do so and his true nature surfaces .
The wolf Bush is here,always has been, a few of the dumb sheep having stirred from their slumber.
The rest like you make excuses for his evil.
Your rant on the Saudi's leaves out the part where they own us.
Please try to get it right.
Please tell me what else I get wrong Wellington ?
monk - I am a Christian and an American and a strong supporter of Israel.
Not that it's much, and I could certainly do more, but I have a bumper sticker on my car that states: "I Stand For Israel".
And we also have a small Israel flag in our home which tells family & friends where we stand. We've also made financial contributions too.
You may want to check out John Hagee Ministries, as he is a Christian and a strong supporter of Israel too, and VERY outspoken politically:
http://www.jhm.org/ME2/Default.asp
Take care, my friend.
"Bush continues to work to appease jihadists sworn to a states destruction, at the expense of US allies and US itself"
You are way to easy on Herr Bush ,sneaky zionist crusader.
He does more than appease the Islamic terrorists,he provides them with HUNDREDS of millions of dlllars for their efforts at peace.
He gives them weapoms and MILLIONS of rounds of ammunition for their efforts at peace.
And of course he goes out of his way to punish those Jews of Israel for the CRIME of building homes.
He always RESTRAINS Israel in their response to Islmaic attacks.
How can anyone in their right mind give a heil to this evil man ?
Watch for the curse of Genesis 12:3 to hit Bush and the U.S. hard for his evil agenda against Israel and for the curse to fall on his silent and loud supporters ,Christian hypocrites and non Christian hypocrites alike.
monk: Thanks for your comments very much. I am sympathetic to much of what you say, no question about it. A more benign, though still pernicious, type of anti-Semitism existed here in America and, in fact, still does. You know, the kind that would prevent Jews from joining the local country club or staying at particular hotels, etc. Of course, I don't really need to tell you this; you already know it. But I would add these comments: No country or political entity in history has been as benefical or innocuous to Jews than has been America, from colonial times onward. The fact that more Jews live in America than any other country on earth, including Israel, is partial testimony to this. Virtually every President of the United States, from George Washington onwards, has made statements condemning anti-Semitism and/or extending some kind of approbation to the Jewish people. (Not that some President here or there wasn't quietly anti-Semitic----FRD liked to tell Jewish jokes, something that appalled Herbert Hoover and yet in the eyes of most Jewish-Americans FDR is far preferred to Hoover; go figure.) Are America and non-Jewish Americans guiltless here? Absolutely not. But I would vigorously argue that Jews have known no better friend than America through the centuries. My bottom line here would be that America has been good for Jews and Jews have been good for America.
As for what was not done during the WWII era, again I am sympathetic to much of what you write. More Jewish immigrants should have been allowed into this country at the time. Two points though I would make: 1) It's easy now to say the death camps for the Jews and concentration camps in general should have been taken out, but there were real logistical difficulties with that and a strategic decision was made that the best thing that could be done for civilians, Jewish and non-Jewish, persecuted by Nazi Germany was to end the war as quickly as possible. Thus virtually all resources were dedicated to defeating the German war machine. One can criticize this in hindsight, and perhaps to some extent justly so, but the strategy of the Allied High Command was not prompted by callousness or malevolence.
The second point I would like to make is that I too have studied the situation with Pius XII in some depth and I have arrived at the conclusion that he is one of the most unfairly maligned major figures of the twentieth century. He is criticized now for not speakiing out more, but he was actually encouraged not to do so by prominent European Jews who concluded (correctly) that doing so would make things worse. An example proving this point came in May of 1943 when Dutch Catholic bishops openly condemned the deportation of Dutch Jews. What happened then? Well, the Nazis rounded up Jews who had converted to Catholicism but left Jews alone who had become Protestant. Pius, an astute diplomat, early on decided to work behind the scenes to save many Jews. In fact, I think a very good case could be made that he saved more Jews from death than any single person in all of Europe.
As for that Christmas Eve message in 1942, which the Allies pressed Pius to issue against his better judgment, it infuriated the Germans with numerous consequences to the Catholic Church, which made Pius all the more resolved to do things surreptitiously, for instance, instructing someone like Cardinal Roncalli (the future John XXIII) in France to issue thousands of fake baptisimal certificates so that French Jewish children could be passed off as Christian. I could write much, much more about this topic but I think this is enough, at least for now. This doesn't mean, by the way, that Pius did everything right. He himself shortly after the war said he failed in many ways to save more Jews (this act of Christian humility has been deceitfully used by dishonest historians to label Pius guilty as charged) but Pius had enormous, and I mean enormous, considerations to take into account. All things considered it is possible to argue that upwards of 800,000 Jews were saved because of Pius's efforts. No other Gentile did as much.
Again, thanks for your input. You know, I think it's a bit easier for a non-Jew like myself to deal with the persecution of the Jews through history. It's something more of an abstraction (which should be resisted) than it is to someone who is Jewish, who would obviously have a personal and more vested interest in examining the horrible treatment Jews have suffered through the millennia. How terrible too that Jews, one of the most productive people in man's history, no sooner endured the Holocaust and German hate, that they have then been forced to endure the calumny and vitriol from the Islamic world for having a country of their own (where Israeli Arabs have more rights than do Arabs in any Arab country) that is no larger than the small state of Massachusetts. In any case, it's been good exchanging ideas with you and perhaps we will continue to do so in the future at this fine JW site.
Why not respond Kevin? Why?
Posted by: monk at January 3, 2008 7:09 PM
You will never convince me otherwise.
Posted by: monk at January 4, 2008 3:58 PM
Sneakyzionistcrusader: Well, you put a lot on the plate and I'll try to respond to some of it. Thanks, by the way, for your comments. You know, the first thing that would happen if we started supporting Serbia would be tremendous ire manifested our way by Croatians (Slovenians too), although I posted before here at JW that America pushing for an independent Kosovo is a bad idea. As for Bush being in bed with the Saudis, I just think that he or any American President can only go so far and no farther with those bastards as long as we need their oil----and they know it. Besides, I think it could be argued that as bad as the Saudi royal family is, and they're pretty damn bad, what might replace them would be even worse. Ponder that nightmare scenario for a moment.
As for Bush really believing Islam is a good religion, I sure hope not. You may be right, though. Then again, he may privately have many doubts. Don't know. But I do know that if a President Tancredo denounced Islam openly and mentioned something about how Mecca might be bombed (not that that idea is abhorent to me under certain circumstances), everybody's 401K plan would be in the gutter within a month. And ponder that scenario as well.
Here's my bottom line: As long as America needs Middle Eastern oil and until we as a nation conclude that all Muslims are hopeless, not just some of them, any American President's hands will be tied in a way that those who post here at JW don't have to worry about. Surely you know this. That's why I think one of our highest priorities should be energy independence. Banning more Muslims from coming here under some pretext should be another. My best to you and yours.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html
Look at this and ask yourself this: Would there be an Israel withou the US?
This is and will be my one and only response. Wellington has done a masterful job in responding.
Israel would not exist today if it were not for the US. It is just as simple as that. Bitch, and complain all one wishes about the overall policy of the US all you want, but the simple fact still remains. Without the US, Israel would have been long gone some time ago.
Israel had several opportunities over the last 60 years to have destroyed its Muslim Foes as Nation states on numerous occasions. They chose not to do so.
Israel pounded the Cra* out of Hesbolah for 30 days under US cover. Israel could have easily invaded and withdrawn it's forces during that time but chose not to do so. So it is our fault Israel was not aggressive enough?
I cannot recall a time where Israel ever did anything it did not feel was in its best interest. Irrespective of any pressure, any American Government brought to bear.
One thing about WWII that can be stated without question is, if the US did not get directly involved. There would be no Jews left at all. With the exception of those in the US and their descendant's.
As a side bar, there would have been no Pope either if he actually spoke out firmly against Hitlers policy. Hitler had no feelings for Human life, Not even his beloved Germans.
You will never convince me otherwise.
Posted by: monk at January 4, 2008 3:58 PM
Posted by: Kevin at January 4, 2008 6:58 PM
That's the best you can do Kevin? My faith is guided by our Bible; by our ancient prophets. Our prophets recorded that when Israel is yet again brought back into our land, "all" the nations will gather against Jerusalem / Israel for war. Prophets of God indicate Israel has many enemies in the world, thus the statement, "you will never convince me otherwise." I know Israel has many enemies in the world. I see the United Nations General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel.
Your argument Kevin, is with your Creator. It is not with me.
flowerknife wrote: "Israel would not exist today if it were not for the US."
Israel would not exist today if it were not for the Almighty. flowerknife would not exist today, nor have breath in her / his nostrils were it not for God.
I am shocked at the number of atheists that read JW.
Kevin, you wrote: "Look at this and ask yourself this: Would there be an Israel without the US?"
Thanks for this chart. Notice 1950. Israel got no aid from the U.S. Zero. This is one of the few areas I agree with Ron Paul who I believe is otherwise a threat to the survival of the United States and the West.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Would you cut off all foreign aid to Israel?
REP. RON PAUL: Absolutely. But remember, the Arabs would get cut off, too, and the Arabs get three times as much aid altogether than Israel. But why, why make Israel so dependent? Why do we--they give up their sovereignty. They can't defend their borders without coming to us. If they want a peace treaty, they have to ask us permission. They can't--we interfere when the Arab leagues make overtures to them. So I would say that we've made them second class citizens. I, I think they would take much better care of themselves. They would have their national sovereignty back, and I think they would be required then to have a stronger economy because they would have to pay their own bills."
Kevin, notice the huge jump in American aid in 1974, following the 1973 Yom Kippur war and the subsequent Arab oil embargo. Paul is right, US aid robs Israel of her sovereignty and assures there will be immoral United States pressure on Israel to make suicidal concessions of land to our enemies, as we see Bush doing right now. Benjamin Netanyahu campaigned on the pledge he would, as prime minster, wean Israel off U.S. aid and dependency.
Insight Magazine (1996): You also discussed creating a viable Israeli economy that would enable the phasing out of American economic assistance over time. What must take place to begin this process?
Netanyahu: We must first convert to a true free-market economy and make it self-sufficient. Israel can have one of the world's foremost economies. It should be able to wean itself off economic assistance within a few years. In fact, I believe we can reach the phasing-out of American aid in the foreseeable future, and I have said that we shall begin this process before the year 2000."
Netanyahu did not make good on his pledge and thus we have the spectacle of an American president traveling over to Israel in a few days with the avowed aim of dismantling the Jewish state, thereby leaving her defenseless before her / our jihadist enemies. This Kevin, is the fruit of American aid. It is not given gratis. There are strings attached.
I have long said, I would rather live in a tent than take foreign aid from America. Permit us to purchase state of the art American-made weapons like every other nation. Israel can survive without foreign aid.
Let Mr. Bush keep his aid. Let us keep our precious land Kevin.
I cannot believe some of the comments I am reading from regular readers on this site.
'Israel cannot survive without America. If we do not sacrifice Israel and appease our jihadist enemies there will be economic chaos', etc.
Robert Spencer is an avowed Christian. His writings are sprinkled with quotes from the bible, from Jesus and other great teachers. His latest book is entitled: "Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't."
Where is the moral courage and the faith on the part of readers of Jihad Watch? Spencer has moral courage and faith in God. Doesn't he?
Wellington, you wrote: "Pope Pius is criticized now for not speaking out more, but he was actually encouraged not to do so by prominent European Jews who concluded (correctly) that doing so would make things worse.....Pius, an astute diplomat, early on decided to work behind the scenes to save many Jews."
This is critical. Please allow me to respond to these justifications for silence. They are quite common. I have read them often.
According to this rationale Wellington, men like Robert Spencer should be silent and not speak out against nor condemn evil or evil doers, lest the evil doers get really angry and kill even more innocent Christians and Jews.
I have been active for several years in our pro-life movement, standing in peaceful protest at our local abortion mill with my mostly Catholic friends, because their priest takes a strong, outspoken position in defense of the life of the unborn. This is to the Church's credit. I know these Christian protesters and side-walk counselors anger the abortionist. Often the abortionist curse and hurls epithets at these peaceful protesters as they enter the abortion mill. I also know these protesters are saving lives.
According to this rationale, best to be silent in the face of this evil, lest more innocent unborn children are murdered.
Because some weak-kneed European Jews counseled the Vicar of Christ on earth, he should be silent in the face of evil? Silence in the face of evil is not an option.
Lincoln wrote: "To sin by silence, when they know they should protest, makes cowards of men."
Jewish leaders in America prior to and during, chose by and large, to "work behind the scenes" rather than confront the evil openly; rather than confront Roosevelt's inaction openly. Books have been written. I will not repeat the mistake.
Bush is doing evil to Israel, our only ally in the Middle East. He should be openly condemned. I have and will condemn him.
Eugenio Pacelli, Pope Pius XII is not an example to emulate. He was a tragic figure of a pope. Pope John XXIII, Giovanni Roncalli, from what I have read, was a fine Pope and a moral man. Pius was not moral. Neither was he a man of great courage in my opinion.
monk: I write respectfully to you and thank you for your comments again. You are obviously a very principled and intelligent person. Nonetheless, I find you way too harsh with Pope Pius XII. You asked whether Robert Spencer should be quiet. No, I don't think he should. He bravely, extremely knowledgeably and effectively has for years now been in the forefront of pointing out all the many troubling aspects of Islam which Muslims themselves, with few exceptions, don't want to address. But Mr. Spencer lives in modern America and not in Mussolini's Italy, which was in alliance with one of the most evil regimes in history during the largest war of all time. Furthermore, Pius was a formal head of state leading hundreds of millions of Catholics, including clergy across Nazi controlled Europe. He had a myriad of considerations to take into account that almost no one in the past hundred years anywhere on earth had had to deal with.
Furthermore, as I mentioned above in a previous post, Pius saved huge numbers of Jews doing things his way. Are you so sure that if he had openly denounced Nazi treatment of Jews and others persecuted by the Nazis, he would have saved more people? I think a very good case could be made for the argument that had Pius done so, he would have been locked up by German or Italian authorities just as Napoleon did to Pius VII, and his influence after that would have been negligible. Would you not concede at least the possibility that Pius' approach was the best of all the lousy options he had before him. I gave you the example of what happened in Holland in 1943 to illustrate how public condemnation of Hitler's Germany actually backfired.
Furthermore, are you aware that Jewish scholars like Joseph Lichten have documented Pius's ransoming of many Jews from the Nazis by selling Vatican assets? Also, Pius authorized an extensive Vatican network of seeking out hide-outs for Jews throughout Italy. Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog of Jerusalem made a very large cash gift to the Vatican shortly after the war and extended a special blessing "for his (Pius) lifesaving efforts on behalf of the Jews during the Nazi occupation of Italy." When Pius died in 1958, then Foreign Minister of Israel, Golda Meir, gave an extremely moving eulogy at the United Nations. Are you also aware that both the International Red Cross and World Council of Churches (before they became tainted with modern liberal sentiments) completely agreed with the Vatican that relief efforts for Jews would be far more efficacious if done quietly and behind the scenes?
The criticism of Pius didn't begin until five years after his death when a playwright named Rolf Hochhuth wrote and produced a play called "The Deputy," which accused Pius of being complicit with Nazi Germany's design to eliminate the Jews of Europe. It was slander pure and simple and began the unfortunate and dishonest revisionist history that has sullied the reputation of a man who was very great, very shrewd and very decent. I know of few examples in all of history of someone so good who has been treated so badly.
Again, I write with respect to you but I ask you to reconsider the possibility that your criticisms of Pius are misplaced and are the product of bad history and Monday-morning quarterbacking in the worst way. My best to you and yours.
Monk. There may be Atheists here but I do not put myself in that category.
So I will adjust my statement.
The Nation State of Israel would not have come into being without the US recognizing Israel in the Earthly realm.
I will take for granted you accept the rest on its merits.
Wellington, flowerknife, the lead story: "The termination of Stephen Coughlin on the Joint Staff is an act of intellectual cowardice"
I understand Wellington you are not a Christian believer. Flowerknife is not in this category; not an unbeliever.
In Genesis 12:3: The Almighty pledged to the ancient patriarch Abraham, and his descendants; Israel: "I will bless those who bless you and the one who curses you, I will curse."
George W. Bush is cursing Israel. I don't know what to say in America's behalf. Wellington believes all this in nonsense is my guess. Flowerknife, well I am uncertain.
Wellington, you wrote: "Mr. Spencer lives in modern America and not in Mussolini's Italy, which was in alliance with one of the most evil regimes in history during the largest war of all time. Furthermore, Pius was a formal head of state leading hundreds of millions of Catholics, including clergy across Nazi controlled Europe. He had a myriad of considerations to take into account that almost no one in the past hundred years anywhere on earth had had to deal with."
Are you suggesting -- quite honestly I believe you are -- were Spencer living in Mussolini's Italy, he would cower in fear and silence? I believe you are suggesting this.
Pius was reputedly the Vicar of Christ on Earth. Christ gave his life for his beliefs and faith. Pius had a myriad of considerations to take into account other than obedience and righteousness?
monk: I certainly am not suggesting that had Robert Spencer, or Abraham Lincoln for that matter, lived in a police state like Mussolini's Italy they would have lost their courage, but they might have adopted a different tactic or approach to be effective. Neither Spencer now, nor Lincon a century and a half ago, would have to worry about being jailed for merely speaking their mind, even though doing do in a free society still carries some risk. Nor here in America would concerns about family members disappearing because of government action be something one would have to take into account. You seemed determine to condemn Pius for not publicly condemning the Nazis even though doing so may very well have led to this Pope's not saving nearly as many Jews as he did. It seems you won't even consider the possibility that Pius's approach was optimum, at least most of the time, and was what led to his saving more Jews than any other person in Europe, bar none.
Frankly, monk, I'm stunned by this resistance on your part to accept nothing but full and complete public condemnation by Pius of Nazi Germany, irrespective of what results would have ensued had he done so. Do you really think more Jews would have been saved had Pius acted the way you think he should have? If so, could you provide specifics how that would have been accomplished? I would vigorously argue that if Pius had adopted your approach literally hundreds of thousands of more Jews would have perished. Ponder that for a moment.
Wellington wrote: "Frankly, monk, I'm stunned by this resistance on your part to accept nothing but full and complete public condemnation by Pius of Nazi Germany, irrespective of what results would have ensued had he done so."
A few years back, I invested a call to a Florida professor that I had read on this topic; he taught, wrote and lectured on the Holocaust. I had a couple of questions.
Fist question, who did he recommend as a good resource on this controversial subject? He recommended against John Cornwell, thinking his work too polemic. Nevertheless, I do appreciate Cornwell's work. I regret that he was intimidated and coerced into some kind of a retraction. He owed none in my opinion. Michael Phayer, "The Catholic Church And The Holocaust, 1939-1965," was the book he recommended. Do you have a copy?
The second question was your question. I told him, there are those who say, had Pius pointedly condemned Adolf Hitler, Nazism and the mass-genocide it could have made matters worse.
His response: "How much worse could it have been?"
Jews were starved, tortured, worked to death, shot and gassed. Six million were murdered. No, I believe you are correct. Pius had other considerations. The Jews were expendable.
monk: Well, I think we will just have to agree to disagree but I would make two points here. First, John Cornwell's, Hilter's Pope, is exactly the kind of dishonest history I was referring to. The very cover of the book has Cardinal Pacelli, while still the Vatican representative to Germany while Pius XI was Pope, framed by German military figures in the background, the implication being that Pius and Nazi Germany were two peas in a pod. Problem is the photo was taken in 1931, some two years before Hitler came to power and while Weimar Germany still existed. Also, the absolute worst thing that Cornwell could find about Pius "revealing" his anit-Semitism is that during the WWI era Pacelli remarked one time that many of the higher echelon of those in the Communist movement were Jewish. First of all, that was absolutely true, Trotsky and Luxembourg are examples here. Second, if that's the best you can do to show someone is anti-Semitic, how pathetic is that?
Second point: I would ask you the following. If a person could save X number of people by very publicly speaking out respecting crimes committed against such people but could save X number of people times 10 by covertly and ably working behind the scenes and keeping quiet for the most part, which scenario would you pick?
I respect you, monk, but I think you fail to see that publicly taking the high moral ground at times results in form over substance (hey, just look at the Carter Presidency). The bottom line for me will always be that Pius XII saved more Jews than any other person during World War II. And don't forget that other heroic Gentiles also worked behind the scenes to save Jews and refrained from publicly condemning the Nazis. Schindler represents just one of many examples here. In any case, my best to you and yours and at least we're in agreement on the menace which radical Islam poses to our freedom and way of life.
Monk, you are pretty hard on the Pope for not doing enough for the Jews in WWII. It is nice of you to pass such judgment of him today.
Are you so judgmental upon those Jews who made up the lists as to what other Jews were to be on the Trains for transport to the Death Camps? The old question of what Jew was more worthy of the extra time in the hope of life above another? Or those in the Camps who disposed of their Fellow man for the grace of an extra 40 days?
The window of History needs to be Viewed from both sides, to fully appreciate the full scope of what can be seen through it.
Sneakyzionistcrusader: Well, you put a lot on the plate and I'll try to respond to some of it. Thanks, by the way, for your comments. You know, the first thing that would happen if we started supporting Serbia would be tremendous ire manifested our way by Croatians (Slovenians too), although I posted before here at JW that America pushing for an independent Kosovo is a bad idea. As for Bush being in bed with the Saudis, I just think that he or any American President can only go so far and no farther with those bastards as long as we need their oil----and they know it. Besides, I think it could be argued that as bad as the Saudi royal family is, and they're pretty damn bad, what might replace them would be even worse. Ponder that nightmare scenario for a moment.
As for Bush really believing Islam is a good religion, I sure hope not. You may be right, though. Then again, he may privately have many doubts. Don't know. But I do know that if a President Tancredo denounced Islam openly and mentioned something about how Mecca might be bombed (not that that idea is abhorent to me under certain circumstances), everybody's 401K plan would be in the gutter within a month. And ponder that scenario as well.
Here's my bottom line: As long as America needs Middle Eastern oil and until we as a nation conclude that all Muslims are hopeless, not just some of them, any American President's hands will be tied in a way that those who post here at JW don't have to worry about. Surely you know this. That's why I think one of our highest priorities should be energy independence. Banning more Muslims from coming here under some pretext should be another. My best to you and yours.
Posted by: Wellington
"You know, the first thing that would happen if we started supporting Serbia would be tremendous ire manifested our way by Croatians (Slovenians too), although I posted before here at JW that America pushing for an independent Kosovo is a bad idea."
US doesn't have the authority nor should they have the will in supporting Muslims in the balkans. What's happening is unprecedented. The US is allying itself with nations and bodies (UN,EU) that are going to rip away land for the hopes it will show good will, win the hearts and minds. That's just not right. Kosovo may be majority albanian, but that was part of serbia, which has a majority of people. Secondly, if the US agrees with that logic, that since albanians make up majority of that chunk of land in Kosovo, then why not a peep about the serb majority people status in other balkan regions that were given to the breakaway states of the former Yogoslavia? No, not a peep, it only matters that Muslims make a majority, when in fact they are not a majority, they just all flocked to Kosovo, and have done their best to terrorize the locals into leaving. As for the ire of them? So what? Let them cry.
As for the nightmare scenario if they Saudis are replaced, by whom? Well, the status quo is a ticket to the same place, only the scenic route. Death by a thousand papercuts is the same as death by a bomb. Let the Islamic funadmentalists come to power.....at least you know who you're dealing with and where you stand with them. Right now this lesser of two evils has you in a mass state of confusion.
Well again, if Bush doesn't think Islam is peace, then there's no need to go out of his way to lie to everyone about it. That's immoral, and no excuse for lying. None. Either he's ignorant, or he's immoral.
Wellington in your post to me, you stated that on the one hand, Bush isn't a vassel, or US aren't vassels to the SAudis, but then later you stated that basically you need to appease, to do what the saudis want beca;use of them 401ks. So, that does sound like US are at teh whim of the Saudis, which doesn't sound far off from being modern day vassels of the Saudis.
Wellington no offence, but you claim you're against alot of things Bush says and does, like you're against Kosovo, yet you support the President who disagrees with your stated opinion. You know there is no Moderate Islam, and yet you support the west putting their hopes in with these unicorn moderate muslims.
If you oppose something, how can you support one who supports that which you oppose? I mean no disrespect, just making an observation.
Regards
sneakyzionistcrusader: Your questions to me aren't bad ones. I just think that the world is a very complicated place, in part due to religion itself which demands compliance with its positions or else (notice that the two other ways of exploring the universe, philosophy and science, do not do this). This is one of the reasons (there are many) why I am not religious in the least------I don't like threats being held over my head for not accepting or believing in something. Difference, though, between Islam on the one hand, and all other major faiths on the other, is that Islam threatens all kinds of terrible things in this life (the one I and you partake of) while other religions threaten an assortment of negatives in the next life or the spiritual world beyond (which I think is completely mythical) should one not accept certain premises.
As for so-called moderate Muslims, here's what I truly think: There are no moderate Muslims; there are only passive Muslims who are bump-on-the-log believers just as most Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc. are. And I think there's a shot at these turkeys asserting their humanity over that stupid religion of theirs. Thus I believe it worthwhile to see if democracy (not the sham democracy of Hamas, which is merely majority rule with a warped ethical system) can't take hold in at least a few Muslim countries so that the Muslim world itself is divided. The alternative is taking on all of the Muslim world, something that might very well have to happen, and soon. President Bush understands, I believe, this same choice-----either we get some Muslims on our side or we have to take them all on. Now, I wish the President would cease saying nice things about Islam, but he may have concluded that that is the best course for now. I would disagree with him on this point if he thinks kindly about there being a "good" Islam out there, but the result would be the same----either we work with some Muslims against others or we have all as enemies.
So, you see, the overall strategy for now is one I agree with-----the West and some Muslims against other Msulims, but, of course, it's understandable that I will have specific tactical reservations or disagreements with those, like President Bush, who are pursuing this strategy. For instance, Bush has spoken out for an independent Kosovo. I think this is a bad idea, even though the Serbs have played their cards over the last fifteen years very badly.
My respect to you, pal, and I look forward to more give and take from thoughtful persons like yourself here on JW. Would be interested in any response you might have to this one. Take care.