Interesting to note that the AP trips over itself to translate "Allah" to "God"--musn't give those unsavory evangelicals anything to latch onto--but prefers not to translate "Islam" to "Submission (death, or self-debasement)."

Posted by: Mad_Jack at October 11, 2005 6:46 AM

These mercenary terrorists have wreaked havoc in several parts of the world. These criminals turn terrorists, or some may call them freedom fighters or jehadis,are generally fugitives. They enjoy not only the hospitality of the host but also do not refrain from attacking girls, women and teenaged sons, in that order, of the host family. The bittered guests have no other option but to remain silent as they are always afraid of these gun-totting mercenaries. Interestingly, these blood-thirsty savages do all these acts in the name of Allah.And even most of the NGOs, in the name of human rights, turn a blind eyes towards this sordid development.

Posted by: AnilM at October 11, 2005 7:05 AM

The Jihadists are the largest NGO organization in the world. Certain national governments, such as Saudi Arabia, are using them to confront a powerful national government that they could not possiblly overcome using traditional means. This should be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Posted by: epg at October 11, 2005 8:02 AM

And they have a Lot of help:

Today’s Extras on Jihad’s 5th Column:

Prof shills for sharia:
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1388

Mugged by Leftist anti-Semitism:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19793

Excerpt:
Her cheery note ended with a warning: "You're not going to believe the anti-Semitism that is about to hit you." "Don't be silly, Ann," I replied. "There's no racism on the left."

And I'm out the door, stay safe, Everyone!

Posted by: Gary at October 11, 2005 8:12 AM

First of all, I don't know if this was already pointed out; I've been out of the loop for a few days.

Do any of the Mullahs in Pakistan that said Hurrican Katrina was a punishment from Allah want to restate that now?

Oh, but they already have. You see, when a natural disaster hits a non-Muslim area, it is "punishment from Allah for being infidels" and when it hits a Muslim area it is "punishment from Allah for not enforcing Sharia more stridently."

***************************************

And I'm out the door, stay safe, Everyone!

...seconds later, Gaiour slips in through the back door...

Thanks, Gary! We forgot how to spell "frontpagemag." And thank you Gary, for reminding us that we have to hate liberals for what a few left-wingers do. Dam. Too bad I can't find aaaaanything on the 'net that points to extremism (especiailly Anti-Semitism) from the right-wing. What to do, what to do?

Okay, here's a little something. The "Christianity and Islam are verrrry similar" movement, book (including a free copy) adn websites: go to google and type in "more in common than you think" and see the 900 sites that appear. Read it and weep; I would rather be descended from Monkeys.

BTW Gary, contrary to your lies about me I don't hate anyone that believes in God. I just hate people that make God out to be a big asshole. I hate people that re-create God in their image.

So I do like Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Confucianists, etc. You know, the people that haven't killed anyone, the people that DON'T proselytize and seek converts.

A few Christians also fit the bill and occasionally a Muslim will too.

************************************************

And Gary? You forgot to counter this back at the ACLU lie-fest, so I'll leave it for you every day until you do:

Bush is handing your tax dollars to "Faith-based" Muslim "charities" to fund Dawa and Jihad.

Posted by: kj at October 11, 2005 9:24 AM

"An all-out civil war in Iraq could further inflame Sunni extremists elsewhere. More militants among Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi sect, who practice an austere and radical brand of Islam, might try to aid Iraq’s minority Sunnis."
-- from the AP article, editorializing, above

When Saddam Hussein was deposed, Sunni rule in Iraq ended. The army, with its Sunni officer corps and overrepresentation of Sunni Arabs in the ranks (they make up only 20% of the population), could have prevailed, had another Sunni quickly been put in to replace Saddam Hussein.

That did not happen. It did not happen because the Americans were exceptionally clever. Every good thing that will come out of Iraq now, as far as Infidels go, will be entirely the result not of anything the Americans have done deliberately, but of what they have managed to do quite by accident, and in most cases in direct contradiction to what the Americans have tried to accomplish. It is that crazy, that much a comedy of errors that will, in the end, if they only begin to grasp a few home truths about Islam and about Iraq, will make this intervention in Iraq not only better for all those withiin Iraq (not "Iraqis") but better, in the end, for all Infidels and for all Muslims (if one defines "better" as weakening the hold, the power of Islam, over Muslims themselves, who are mostly born into a cult they did nothing to deserve, and which from birth they are inculcated and only the most intellectually and morally aware, at least at this point, can see through and then, if they dare, and if filial piety and a sense of "Arabness" does not hold them back, can even throw off).

When Saddam Hussein's sons were killed, when he was captured, when the Americans played so successfully that amusing game of Fifty-Two Pick-Up and left only a handful, when Jack Armstrong, All-American Boy (I mean Bremer, of course) dissolved that army, the Shi'a -- the Shi'a whose most plausible and unrepresentative representatives (can-do Chalabi, Nafisi-esque Ambassaddor Francke, soft-voiced Kanan Makiya) who were so influential in Washington in presenting such a rosy picture of Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations -- the Sunnis who had ruled the pseudo-nation-state of modern Iraq from its founding, from the Shatt al-Arab to the mountains of Kurdistan, despite their steadily declining share of the population (for the Shi'a have been outbreeding them, just as Muslims in general outbreed non-Muslims -- a nice example of that demographic conquest, within a Muslim country, by one Muslim sect, that is now taking place within Western Europe), kept control through force and the threat of force. It is no different in Syria, where Alawites, a military caste first thrust into that position by the French, who chose them precisely because among the various kinds of Muslims, the Alawites, with their worship of Mary (Mariam, whose picture adorns the houses in Alawite villages), were sufficiently syncretistic to meet the needs of the French authorities. Indeed, the Alawites are -- and this has to be kept in mind -- awful, but nonetheless as far as Christians in Syria are concerned, their only protection against the even more awful "real" Muslims (as Armenians from Haleb describe them to me). By the way, under the world press's radar, the Alawites in early September killed a number of "real" Muslims in Hama -- not five, as was reported in Jane's, but considerably more. And the reason the Syrian governmnet will not do much to stop those "real" Arabs from flowing into Iraq is 1) if they were to do so, they would be showing themselves to be insufficiently loyal to Islam as Alawites, in cahoots with both the American Crusaders (in Muslim eyes, fellow Mary-worshippers)and more loyal to their fellow Shi'a, those Rafidite dogs now taking over Iraq whichl, of course, belongs to the true Arab Muslims, the Sunnis.

This editorializing by the AP is nothing new. It presumes to warn us about the "dangers" of civil war. Whose side is AP on? It appears to be presenting information from a Muslim viewpoint, and even from the viewpoint of Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (I just can't bring myself to write "Prince" Abdullah any more than I can refer to the "King" of Bahrain -- these are just tribes, full of Emperor-Jones-like self-promotions), who "warns" of "civil war" to the Americans. If he "warns," and the Arab League "worries," should the Americans care? Isn't this a very good sign, that they fear the consequences of that civil war, because they know that such a war has a great likelihood of using up men, materiel, and money on both sides, with the two chief beneficiaries (no, America was NOT the chief beneficiary; no, Israel was NOT the chief local benficiary) of Saddam Hussein's removal -- Iran and Saudi Arabia -- will see that benefit dissippate as they become involved in what will be the proxy war of Sunni and Shi'a, right smack through Iraq. And there is no possibility of this being resolved to the satisfaction of the Sunnis. While they may, in the larger world of Dar al-Islam, constitute 80% of the population, in Iraq they are 20%, and the longest of all of Iraq's porous and impossible-to-police borders (save by the mighty American forces, and even they have problems) is that set down by the Treaty of Erzrum in 1847, a treaty between the Ottoman Empire and the Persian Empire (as it was then named). Iranians of the more enthusiastic sort will willingly help their co-religionists, even if many of those co-religionists will be wary of the Iranian version of an Islamic polity -- for where else can the Shi'a in Iraq turn?

And while the Sunnis have to date been far more ferocious and ruthless, the Shi'a have a 3-1 advantage in population, have used their free time to construct militias, have received more and more training from the innocent Americans who keep thinking they are building an "Iraqi" army and an "Iraqi" police force when what they are really doing -- without realizing it -- is training the Shi'a to defend themselves, and more than defend themselves, against the o'erweening Sunnis.

And the Sunnis suffer, as Muslim Arabs so often do, from delusions. Their delusion is that their numbers are far greater than in fact they are. They really believe that they are not 020% of the population, but more like 42-50%. Some even talk confidently of a "Sunni majority" because they somehow count the Kurds, who are largely though not completely Sunni, as on "their side." Oh no they aren't. The Kurds are for the Kurds, and they have had it, up to here, do gorla, au ras bord, with the Arabs, Sunni and Shi'a, for the forced arabization of historically Kurdish lands, for all those Arabs who participated in the persecution and mass-murder of Kurds (decades ago Kurdish pilots, flying MIGS of the Iraqi Air Force, tellingly defected, with their planes, to Israel), mass-murder conducted by Arabs, silently approved by Arabs, and not mourned by a single Arab statement either from the Arab League, or from any Arab government, or from any Arab "intellectual" as some presumptuously call themselves.

While the Arabs, Sunni and Shi'a, are at each others' throats, the Kurds can get on with what they should do, the opportunity for which will never come again -- establishing their own state, and taking back the oil fields of Kurdistan, which for the entire history of those oilfields, have been exploited for the purposes of Sunni Arabs, the revenues used to fund the very oppressors of those Kurds (just like the oil in the Christian south of Nigeria funded the Muslim army that conducted a Jihad against the Christiain Ibos during the Biafra War, or as the northern Arab Muslims will take the oil revenues that will flow from the fields in the southern Sudan, to fund their once and future war against the non-Muslims in that southern Sudan). What could be better than to have Sunni and Shi'a Arabs fighting while the Kurds, once they have silenced their own tiny group of domestic fanatics, more Muslim than Kurd -- the Ansar al-Islam -- can work to achieve their ends.

And what about Iran? Whatever aid is extended to the Shi'a in Iraq, will simply drain away men, materiel, and money that would otherwise go toward aggressive policies elsewhere. It is money that might be spent on the nuclear weapons project, or sent to Hezbollah in Lebanon (come to think of it, would Hezbollah not be in a quandary if the Shi'a were on the ropes in Iraq, or seemed to be? Could they stand by? Would they?). Iranians within and without Iran who detest the Islamic Republic might see a civil war in Iraq, in which the worst elements in Iran participated, as helping to weaken rather than strengthen the Islamic Republic within Iran, and those opposed to the regime might take the occasion (like the Kurds) to strengthen themselves at a moment when the government's attention is diverted.

The American policy has been to sacrifice lives -- yes, including the lives of those who quite justifiably never expected to be fighting except in case of a major, world-shaking conflagration, those Reservists and National Guard members who for the past two months have constituted 56% of the casulaties in Iraq -- and money (what if that $300-350 billion had been spent on alternative energy and conservation projects instead? Where would the world-wide Jihad be if the OPEC oil revenues were to diminish, and the rich Arabs cut down to pre-1973 size, when the Jihad as an idea and a duty existed, but those huge undeserved oil revenues, had not yet been available to supply the wherewithal?), not to promote civil war, but to do everything possible to prevent it.

The American policy has been to ignore the real nature of Iraq: those few who kept insisting that the Sunni-Shi'a split was real and deep and had lasted for nearly a thousand years before the United States existed, were simply paid no attention to. Those who insisted that the Kurds deserved to be supported, were also dismissed -- not only because they failed to make the argument that has been made at Jihadwatch (and only here) for two years -- that an independnet Kurdistan would be an inspiration to other non-Arab Muslims chafing under, and resentful of, Arab cultural, linguistic, and political dominance (the Berbers of North Africa come swimmingly to mind).

And the great intelligence failure of the entire war was to misaprehend the nature of Islam. It is not a "war on terror" so much as a war against the Jihad. Terror is one weapon. How slow, how painful, how halting, how awkward, how inarticulate, has been the slow realization of something like reality by this Administration, by the Pr4esident and his dutiful, but not historically aware staff, including Condoleeza Rice. She in particular, a good girl who has Done All the Right Things, is not exactly an original thinker and would never ever suggest that there is something wrong with the Party Line about Islam (a "great, peaceful, tolerant religion hijacked" etc.)and about the LIght Unto the Muslim Nations Project in Iraq, and who not only has hectored the Kurds (as she hectors the Israelis to get with the program, the program being this idiotic "two-state solution" that would simply accommodate the Slow Jihadists, and reveals her misunderstanding of how further territorial concessions can only whet, not sate, Muslim Arab appetites. Will no one inform her? Will she not take the time to do a little less hithering-and-yonning by superdeduper plane, and instead sit at home, and read a bit more, and think? Remember: the greatest Foreign Minister in 19th century England was Lord Palmerston -- and he never left England. He didn't have to -- he knew history, he understood the influence of culture, or belief-systems, on men. Reception speeches at airports, the busy motorcade, the exhaused round of seemingly instructive meetings with leaders or rulers or despots who are plausible, smiling, and often lying, does far less to make matters clear, especially in the case of Islam, than would be a few days spent reading around to find out what it is, by god, that Muslims are taught in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. And a few hours with Robert's guide for the perplexed, or Bat Ye'or's various studies of what happened to non-Muslims under Muslim rule, or her study of what has been happening, under American and even European noses, to contribute to the seemingly unstoppable, and certainly unappeasable, Muslim presence in Europe, and finally the study of the immutable doctrine of Jihad, from the texts collected by Andrew Bostom, and just published for the edification of all those who wish, ignoring whatever contretemps they may have experienced in their dealings with the compilar, to find out about Jihad.

The best thing, the most intellligent thing, the thing that will cause the least further damage to American and Infidel interests (including the morale, and quality, of the Reservists and possibly the regular army as well, both of which have suffered becaue the folly of the Iraq policy has not gone unnoticed by most of the officers and men who have already served in Iraq. Men and officers may accept the Party Line the first time they are in Iraq, but when they have had time to think, and when they return to Iraq a second or a third time, they can compare the official business of how wonderful and democratic the "Iraqis" are with what they see on the ground, what their experience is whenever they come into contact with those same "Iraqis." The officers and men cannot be fooled indefinitely. And the disconnect between what Rice (prating about how the situation in Iraq is like that of postwar Japan and Germany) and Bush, who keeps hallucinating about Islam and about his plan for "democratic" Iraq while every day demonstrates that Islam is not on the ropes but on the march, not least within the Lands of the Infidels (as they call them), and that military means are perhaps the least of the instruments that need to be employed to counter the Jihad.

Doctors take an oath to Do No Harm. Perhaps Infidels shold take an oath as well. Do not move heaven and earth to patch things up within warring or resentful sects of proples within Islam. Let them go at it. Take advantage of whatever situation offers the possiblity of such division and demoralization. Iraq offers, as no other place on earth offers, the two main kinds of exploitable divisions within Islam: the sectarian split between Sunni and Shi'a, and the ethnic split between Arabs, with their supremacist ideology, and non-Arabs, with their justified resentments at the consequences, political and economic and civilizational, of that Arab supremacist ideology of which the venicle is Islam. "The national religion of the Arabs" and the promoter of "Arab imperialism" -- as non-Arab apostates such as Anwar Shaikh have called it. Do No Good to the World of Islam, except that which will necessarily lead to a weakening of Islam itself (perhaps that is what Bush thinks his Democracy-Is-On-the-March project will do -- but it won't, not in Iraq anyway).

Do not sacrifice the lives, the money, the morale of American Infdiels in order to convicne the Sunnis and Shi'a to live together harmoniously, as supposed Partners in a Democratic and Prosperous Iraq. The effort will be costly. And it will fail. And it was never the right thing to do in the first place. But victory can be plucked from seeming defeat, or since such words as "victory" and "defeat" are not appropraite for a war of self-defense against the Jihad that will go on probably forever, rather gains can be made out of seeming losses, if only what is going on is understood correctly, and correctly exploited.

Stop thinking that making things better for Muslims, giving them prosperity, shelling out more billions for example to the corrupt and clever (the Slow Jihadists), or uncorrupt and more immediately violent (the Fast Jihadists) fo the endless war by Muslim Arabs against the tiny Jewish state, which no territorial concessions by Israel will do the slightest, in the end, to mitigate, but will only, like the money being supplied by the foolish E.E. bureacracies and their counterparts in the State Department, can only strengthen the Arab side, and whet rather than sate its appetite. That appetite arises not from "poverty" but from something else -- from the texts of Islam, from the example of Muhammad, from Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. So strong is the ethnic identification of even some Christin Arabs with Islam that one may have been fooled in the past, by the facade of a few Palestinian islamochristians, such as Hanan Ashrawi or Naim Ateek (who has quite a number of Christian religious groups doing his sinister bidding in divesting themselves, not so much of stock, as of any sympathetic interest in, the fate of the Jews -- an extraordinary accomplishment, particularly at a time when the Arab Christians are persecuted and murdered by Muslims in Bethelehem and the rest of the West Bank, and fleeing either to Israel itself, or to countries far from the MIddle East).

Infidels, many in Western governments appear to believe, can dampen the hostility of Muslims by giving very large amounts of aid, as is now done to Egypt, to Pakistan, and of course to the "Palestinians" who have what is and will always be a non-viable polity, for while the absence of natural resources is not an obstacle for others, it is for those so richly endowed with that attitude of inshallah-fatalism, combined with a resentful twisting of their aggressive Jihad ideology into a belief that Infidels at least owe them a living, in the form of permanent support. And Infidels have been inclined to participate in this meretricious and vicious fantasy, in which the fantasy-victims now usefully self-promoted to a fantasy-people (the "Palestinian people"), engage in extortion. Even when the Crime Boss died, taking with him apparently the bank account numbers to that had been $5-6 billion in funds supplied entirely by Infidels, this has not stopped the Infidel governments in Europe and the United States form emptying the pockets of their own helpless taxdpayers yet again, to support those who would, given their world-view, not only destroy all of Israel (and the Christian access to the Holy Land, one can be sure, would no longer be easy once, with Israel removed, there would be less need to play to Christian audiences -- especially since, in Europe, the most formidble -- so far -- among the organized opponents of islamization have been the Catholic Church and the Protestanst Evangelicals.

The rich Arabs have benefited from the largest transfer of wealth in history. All of that wealth, some $10 trillion since 1973, has been entirely the result of a geological accident, and not of any hard work or entrepreneurial activity on their part. They have not, with that money, created modern economies but rather wage-slave (and sometimes outright slave) economies, that use outside workers from Asia, Europe, and America, and with a sliding social and legal scale, in which all non-Muslims are at the bottom, and among the Muslims, Shi'a are like Infidels, and non-Arabs below other, Arab Muslims, and finally the local Sunni Arabs lead all the rest.

Yet Infidel governments have not seen fit to force the issue of rich Arabs not supporting poor Arabs. The poor Arabs would vastly take their wealth from the Infidels -- after all, it is only right, it is only just. It is as close to the looting of non-Believers that Muhammad, in his many campaigns, so encouraged and that is set out in the Sira for all to read about. Or, to take another relevant source for the attitude that the Infidels simply must pay for us, but we owe them nothing but continued and relentless hostility -- for they are Infidels -- is the jizya itself. The jizya was a tax that had to be paid. Non-Muslims did not dare to stop paying it, because if they did so, or if even one non-Muslim did so, the entire community could suffer the consequences, which might even includ, given that the status of being "protected people" (protected from the Muslims themselves) would be removed, death.

But what is Infidel aid to Egypt, or to the "Palestinians" (i.e. local Arabs, scarcely distinguishable from all the other local Arabs, on either side of either the Green Line or the Jordan River), if not the jizya? For the Infidel governments are afraid to end them. Though Egypt is a world center of antisemitism and anti-Americanism, though the Egyptain press and television are non-stop in their encouragement of the most vicious canards about Americans and about Jews, the American taxpayer has sent about $60 billion to Egypt, and there is no sign of it stopping -- even as Egypt, in 2004, was the third-largest buyer of arms abroad (after China and India), spending some $7.5 billion. To be used, those arms, against whom?

The entire policy toward the states and peoples of Islam, in the MIddle East, in Africa, in Asia, and within the Lands of the Infidels, has to be rethought, and reworked, by those who have taken the time not to accept the word of the vast army of Western apologists for Islam, but to study the texts, and study the Western experts on Islam whose work was so carefully sanded over, insabbiato, by the dunes which Muslim and non-Muslims, hirelings or true believers, constructed so as to hide the work of those -- Clement Huart and Arthur Jeffery, K. S. Lal and Charles-Emmanuel Dufourcq, C. Snouck Hurgronje and Antoine Fattal, and many dozens of others, who knew Islam in a way that not only the Armstrongs and the Espositos do not and could not possibly know it, but also in a way that Bernard Lewis, with his personal and professional ties to Turkey, and to kind hosts in Amman, and his apparent inability to get an practical policies right (he was an enthusiastic supporter of the Oslo Accords from the beginning; he was an enthusiast for recreating Iraq, even co-signing with James Woolsey an astounding political advertisement for his friend and patron Prince Hassan of Jordan to be the new Sunni monarch of Iraq; he still appears to be studiously ignoring the work of Ibn Warraq and still ignoring, if no longer belittling, the work of Bat Ye'or, and one wonders if he has yet considered the work of people who, like him, were linguistically gifted, and who, unlike him, were not fooled by the temporary phenomenon of Kemalism, or by other considerations, into mistaking Islam for other than what it was, and lived at a time when one uninhibitedly could write the truth.

Victory in Iraq, or gains in Iraq, will only be won by Infidels if Iraq becomes a source for division and demoralization of Islam itself. It will, if the Sunnis are left on their own, face to face with the Shi'a, to recognize that they have forever lost power in Iraq, and there is nothing they can do about it -- which will not stop them from trying. It will, if the Kurds are promoted, and the Turks forced to accept the new situation (in return for American guarantees not only of Turkish territorial integrity, but of backing for Turkey in any disputes with Syria over the water of the Euphrates).

This should be obvious. In 1933, or 1936, or 1938, it was obvious to some what Hitler was up to, and what should be done about it. Had a certain French minister not been shot, along with Alexander of Yugoslavia, in 1934, had Leon Blum and other French leaders not been intimidated by the cagoulards so that, when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, the French could have responded by moving troops in and precipitating, before the Nazi military machine was ready, a telling conflict, had back in 1918 the American and British and Czech Expeditionary forces been not 19,000 but ten times as many, supporting Denikin (see "Put' russkogo ofitsera" by him), then Soviet Russia might have died aborning.

Well, what was not obvious yesterday, or still today, for even at Jihadwatch one encounters a wilful refusal to see that same obvious, will be sooner or later. Even by those still toeing, out of timidity or toadyism, or sometimes both, the party line.

One hopes sooner.

Posted by: Hugh at October 11, 2005 12:19 PM

I think the Royal Family is more than happy to send Saudi "trouble makers" to Iraq for a little R and R. Yes, this is part of the plan to stabilize the ME.

Posted by: crusader rabbit at October 11, 2005 1:14 PM

Hugh - It's always a pleasure to find your comments here at JihadWatch. Thank you for the history lesson and the application to modern politics.

Posted by: epg at October 11, 2005 2:10 PM

Do not sacrifice the lives, the money, the morale of American Infdiels in order to convicne the Sunnis and Shi'a to live together harmoniously, as supposed Partners in a Democratic and Prosperous Iraq. The effort will be costly. And it will fail. And it was never the right thing to do in the first place. But victory can be plucked from seeming defeat, or since such words as "victory" and "defeat" are not appropraite for a war of self-defense against the Jihad that will go on probably forever, rather gains can be made out of seeming losses, if only what is going on is understood correctly, and correctly exploited.

Poignant, and trenchant.

*****************************************

Cornelius, we recently discussed Reagan's Beirut Abortion. Do you recall the way it all ended? I don't mean years later with ex-Marine Ollie North (R-Traitor) illegally arranging sales of Stingers from the Whitehouse basement. I mean the end of engagement itself.

Remember? You seem pretty young, so let me refresh your memory. Under the leadership of the Walking Nap, we had to drop everything, leave the Lebanese Christians to the tender mercy of Syria and Iran, and hightail it to Grenada because.... the commies were taking over, of course. THAT was important; avenging the murder of 241 US Marines wasn't.

What say you?

(Insert blame of ACLU, lib'rul media and/or democratic-controlled Congress here.)

Cornelius, you said that you would visit the CIA world factbook website, the one that describes the economies, health standards, etc.:

www.faqs.org/docs/factbook/index.html

for all the worlds nations. You said that you would check into the living standards of the peole of Cuba compared to those of other Caribbean nations; specifically St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Haiti, and Barbados.

***********************************************

off-topic alert...off-topic alert...off-topic alert

Did anyone else read the latest National Geographic write-up on Lord Nelson? It's amazing.

I know you all seethed and complained when the UK, Spain, and France staged the memorial for the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar (since the three coutries are allies now, and have been for some time, THEY chose to not turn the event into an insult for each other; Drudge et al. saw it another way, but what the hell, some people see "evidence" of their direst predictions everywhere.) But National Geographic did a damn fine job describing the man that saved the day for England, and crushed Napolean's desire to invade. He gave his life during that battle (did you know that British Navy officers were forbidden from laying down on the decks of their ships to avoid sniper fire from enemy ships, even as they order their sailors to do so? THAT took nerve.)

Over at wikipedia, they say his last words (according to one account) were "Thank God I did my duty."

Posted by: kj at October 11, 2005 2:44 PM

And they have a Lot of help: Today’s Extras on Jihad’s 5th Column:

Oh, poor Gary. He forgot to mention the help given to the Jihadis of Saudi Arabia. You know, there’s a great conservative republican that is working FOR the Saudis in a lawsuit brought against them by the widows, orphans, and survivors of the 9-11 attack. Talk about un-American. Apparently, some people think that EVERY lawsuit that takes money from a billionaire is “frivolous.”

So what if Saudi money funded the madrassas in Pakistan that spawned the Taliban?

So what if Saudi money financed Al-Qaeda?

So what if Saudi ideology encouraged the attacks on 9-11?

So what if Saudi state-sponsored preachers call daily for attacks on America and our allies?

So what if 16/19 of the 9-11 hijackers are FROM Saudi Arabia?

So what if a Saudi prince (you know, the guy that just bought 10% of FOX?) told Guiliani that “America’s foreign policy” was to blame for 9-11?

They still deserve the help of this high-powered, anti-Semite (he said “F*** the Jews. They don’t vote for us anyway.”) trial attorney:

http://www.hereinreality.com/baker.html

Gary MUST have forgotten, right? I mean, he doesn’t really think that some obscure college professor has more pull that a former Secretary of State, does he?

BTW Gary, like most liberals, I happen to think that Albright is a butcher in her own right. But SHE’S not the one helping the financiers of the world-wide jihad, James Baker IS.

Posted by: kj at October 11, 2005 3:54 PM

Hugh, that was a mega rant! Whist I dont normally disagree with your take on events or even the essence of what you say in this particular posting, please don't fall in to the style of prose that is normally ascribed to the 'mad mullahs'
Your messages inspire by their brevity and incisivenes and long may they do so.
Kindest regards.

Posted by: Sir Cumfrence at October 11, 2005 4:53 PM

'some obscure college professor' ~kj

And do you think that Mr. Spencer is wrong about these 'obscure' college professors also, kj? Or LGF? Or Campus Watch? Or any of a score of other sites Mr. Spencer links to?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/005778.php

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/001104.php

http://www.campusreportonline.net/main/articles.php?id=267

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002556.htm

http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/hatewatch_briefing_20050408-print.php

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/103517.php

I'd say you need to argue your point with Mr. Spencer, kj. He apparently sees more to it than you do.

Posted by: Gary at October 11, 2005 5:33 PM

Speaking of 'some obscure,' kj, remember what a certain obscure actor did to the future of the South after the Civil War?

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/reconstruction/summary.html

http://djwinfo.blogspot.com/2005/09/guest-column-by-representative-paul.html

excerpt:

* The Republican Party was founded in 1854 on the principle of preventing the spread of slavery, while the Democrat-controlled Supreme Court handed down the Dred Scott decision (1857) declaring blacks non-persons.

* When the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery passed Congress in 1865, 100 percent of Republican Congressmen voted for it, but only 23 percent of the Democrats.

* When the 14th Amendment passed Congress to protect freedmen from state violations of their rights, 94 percent of Republicans and no Democrats voted for it. Southern Democrats created the KKK, however, which was anti-Republican as well as anti-black.

* Republicans passed the 15th Amendment to guarantee the vote for freedmen, while not a single Democrat in Congress voted for it. Southern Democrats invented methods to disenfranchise blacks: poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, black codes, white-only primaries, and so on.

* Every African-American elected to Congress between Reconstruction and 1934 was Republican.

* Republican Congressmen passed the 1871 Civil Rights Act against Klan violence and the.

1875 Civil Rights Act, while not a single Democrat voted for either. The 1875 law was the last civil rights bill to pass for 90 years due to Democrat opposition.

* Three African-Americans have presided over national Republican conventions: John R. Lynch, 1884, Edward Brook, 1968, and JC Watts in 2000. No African-American has presided over a Democrat convention.

* The U.S. Senate recently apologized for failing to enact laws against lynching until a few decades ago. Republicans and some Northern Democrats tried repeatedly to pass federal anti-lynching legislation well into the 20th century only to see it blocked year after year by Southern Democrats. That's why Herbert Hoover won 3 of 4 black votes in 1932 vs. FDR.

* Senator Dirksen (R, IL) provided the crucial votes to pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act over a Democrat filibuster.

----------

Enough. Have a good evening, all.

Posted by: Gary at October 11, 2005 5:46 PM

For God? Now, how on earth could that be when Islam does not know "God?"

What Muslims know is an idol they now call al-lah. It is not 'God'. It is the Arabian moon-god and was once known as 'Baal' (as in Babylon and al-lah) and could possibly also have been known as 'Sin' or even 'Marduk.' (We are wondering could the Arab name 'Marzook' be derived from the babylonian name 'Marduk'...after all what is today Arabia once was a territorial possession of Baylonia, which worshiped a perceived deity named 'Marduk').

Is it possible that idols become lightning rods for the actual demon known as 'Satan?' That would explain why idolatry and human sacrifice usually go together as in pre-Columbian Mexico, Guatemala, and Peru--and parts of the Middle East (and possibly including Babylon).

Posted by: pythagoras at October 13, 2005 10:40 PM