| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Walk back the cat.
Walk the cat all the way back to the real problem, which is not the nauseating speech given by Rice, wildly inaccurate and wrong in its every phrase, wrong in its diseased sympathy, wrong in its implied geopolitical calculation.
Whoever crafted this speech with and for her (was Philip Zelikow now coming into his own?) and whoever has been bending the ear of this dutiful student of Kremlinology (who is not particularly adept either at Russian history or Russian language -- her one attempt to use it in public, while in Russia, led to all kinds of mockery, and she won't be repeating that kind of thing) is ignorant about virtually everything that is important to know about this present crisis. But as far as George Bush is concerned, she is a towering intellect. One understands why he may think that.
Nevertheless, this speech reveals that she still hasn't a clue as to what the immutable geopolitics of Islam are about. Indeed, she has demonstrated a belief in various falsehoods: the entire edifice of the Arab rewriting of the history, cadastral and demographic, of the sliver of territory, that of the Mandate for Palestine, intended by the League of Nations for the sole establishment of the Jewish National Home (without prejudice to the "religious and civil rights" of "other communities" but carefully leaving out the phrase "political rights"). She also seems to believe that the local Arabs have abandoned, or soon could abandon, their goal of Jihad against Israel.
They haven't. They won't. They can't. Unless this is grasped, unless the difference between Fatah and Hamas is seen only as one of tactics and facade, between those who like Abbas believe, but only out of necessity, in the Slow Jihad, and Hamas that believes, out of ideological firmness, in Fast Jihad, and unless the impossibility of Muslims ever accepting an Infidel state continuing to exist (whatever its size) on land once possessed by Muslims, then there will no possibility of an intelligent American policy. That is assuming, of course, that the survival of Israel is seen as it should be, as essential to the moral, intellectual, and possibly physical survival of the West. Nothing will come of this nothing.
Grim recognition of the basis of Muslim jurisprudence in regard to all treaties with Infidel lands would not or should not dishearten. If Rice, or Zelikow, or the others who have exhibited for decades a kind of genius in reverse by avoiding coming to grips with clear Islamic texts and doctrines -- does no one in the State Department have a copy of the Qur'an and Hadith? Does no one have a potted summary of the Life of Muhammad, the Perfect Man? Does no one read the Muslim jurisconsults? Does no one have a CD-Rom of the Encyclopedia of Islam? Does no one have the money -- cannot the American government spring for -- a copy or two of Majid Khadduri's "Law of War and Peace in the Law of Islam"? Yes, I know the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan cost a lot, but you can find a copy on Amazon for about $20, so why not give it the old college try? And then once you have the book, skip a reception or photo opportunity or two, or just napping on the damned plane, and actually start to inform yourselves about the one subject you most need to know: the doctrines, the tenets, the attitudes of Islam. And it is not merely a matter of reading, and re-reading, but of making sense of what one reads, of thoroughly assimilating it, of applying what one reads, or making connections between what one reads -- Islamic history and the present, and the likely future. It means, above all, stopping the grotesque amount of attention given to ways to appease Muslims or to pretend that they can be appeased, and to focus instead outside the Middle East, and especially on present and growing threats to the West, through the instruments of Jihad known as Da'wa and demographic conquest. What will happen to the armories of the Western countries, what will happen to NATO, in thirty years, or twenty, or even ten, if Muslim populations, if adherents of Qur'an and Sunna, continue to grow, and grow more powerful and more demanding, and if Muslims are taken into the security services, and the military, and into the inner sanctums of political power? Anything? Nothing?
That someone of Rice's incapacity, aiding and abetting someone of Bush's incapacity, and whisperingly advised by those of the incapacity that this hideously ill-advised speech demonstrates, dripping as it is with misconceptions, is cause for the greatest alarm. And those who continue to prate, as loyalists to Bush, that "he knows what he is doing," should, at long last, shut up or, still better, distance themselves completely from him and his crew of incapables, beginning but not ending with Rice and her vaporings.
Posted by Hugh at October 29, 2006 3:50 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
I wonder where W would be today if his last name were not Bush. Used car sales? For sure he would never have gotten into Yale, never would have had Daddy's friends around, making sure he made enough dough to buy the Texas Rangers etc etc etc. Hopefully we can upgrade to at least a mediocrity in '08.
P.S. My apologies to all understandably incensed used car salespeople.
Posted by: materialguy![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 29, 2006 4:27 PM
Somebody really does need to give Rice a reality check. Yes Hamas and Hezbollah are bad-they want to wipe out Israel as soon as possible. The PLO is also bad and this seems to elude Rice. The PLO wants Israel gone as well, only they are patient and are willing to eat up Israel slowly from within (using Western aid to do so). At this point Rice must look nearly as bad as any Palestinian leader to Israel and she's making the US look like a very unreliable ally. This can only help Islamaniacs everywhere.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 29, 2006 4:31 PM
does no one in the State Department have a copy of the Qur'an and Hadith? Does no one have a potted summary of the Life of Muhammad, the Perfect Man? Does no one read the Muslim jurisconsults? Does no one have a CD-Rom of the Encyclopedia of Islam? Does no one have the money (* +
Hugh, there are people like yourself spend a heck of lot of time learning about the evil tactics of Islam. People like Dr. Rice, she aint no dumb cookey, is on an image building trip in ME. Cool down a little will you. She aint gonne give an inch. Bush is most likely aware of her mission and it is well pre-calculated.
She is there to piss the Arabs so they can be some what tamed. Who knows Bushies may be looking for support to contain Iran. After all it is politics. Who says you ought to appease folks back home all the time. You can't anyway, even when you try your darn best.
at October 29, 2006 4:33 PM
And what of the Kennedy dynasty: Spanish tests and Chappaquiddick and Kansas City office buildings? What of the self-made deplorable Clinton starting a lateral dynasty (akin to "lateral hiring")? The clawing upwards toward privilege, all the way to the Presidency and beyond (the Clinton Global Initiative), or the privilege inherited rather than worked for, what is the difference? Scion or self-made man, it hardly matters.
Posted by: Hugh at October 29, 2006 4:39 PM
Hugh,
You should read Noah Feldman's NYT article 'Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age':
He is a law professor and is on the CFR, and he discusses the legalistic tradition. This will provide some insight on how some members of the foreign policy elite are coming to grips with Islam.
For example, I remember him saying that the only real massacre in Islamic history happened with the Turks against the Armenians, when the former were already 'secularizing'. That's not what I remember Bostom saying.
Posted by: Benjamin at October 29, 2006 5:07 PM
as much as you harang Rice, look at what the Clinton and his gang believe in? it gets really sad does it not? there has to be someone in the government who knows islam. l am thinking that Rice is doing a double speak for the PC crowd.
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at October 29, 2006 5:44 PM
Here’s a little tidbit of what the good lady thinks,
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas102806.php3
at October 29, 2006 5:57 PM
It has been argued here that virtually all the Muslim’s resentment of the West is driven by the Palestinian issue.
Others argue that this merely flung fuel on a fire which had been raging for 1400 years.
Both answers are, I think, inadequate.
Firstly, to answer that it “merely flung fuel on a fire which had been raging for 1400 years.”
Almost certainly, you have to be American to come out with this answer. Not European.
Or obviously Jewish but I will keep this part of the discussion to Americans.
Take one of the key events that led to the creation of Modern Israel, the passing of resolution 181 in the UN General Assembly.
The USA supported it, the British vetoed it.
And indeed to this day, American support for the existence of Israel is much higher than in Britain or in any European country.
Why? To a huge extent because America’s sense of it’s identity depends on it’s Judeo-Christian heritage. That is what Modern America was founded on. That and an exercise, so it is believed, of idealism and enlightenment culture – the American Revolution and foundation of a republic. That plus a certain amount of colonialism i.e. the emigration from the old world, the treatment of the native Americans etc, which gives Americans an uneasy conscience to this day. But this, after all is why America identifies so closely with Modern Israel. America’s creation may have been, in part, colonial but Americans often still their conscience by arguing that at least they brought Christianity to the Continent. Zealous, Christian Americans think their country, at it’s best, can be a beacon of light to the nations, a new Jerusalem etc…….. and indeed America, at it’s best, has done a lot of good.
If we try to find a purely Christian perspective on this, without being specifically American, what do find? Well, Christians know there was an Israeli State which once existed in biblical times. They are aware, if they are knowledgeable, that the diaspora, the scattering of the Jews, began when a Jewish uprising against the Romans failed, that the Romans virtually destroyed Jerusalem, that the Jews, even though they were driven from their homeland managed to survive as a people, that they became for virtually 2000 years a people without a state. Even if you accept that the Palestinians are a people without a state, they have only been stateless for 58 years. An Israeli writer such as Benny Morris, referring to both sides, called them righteous victims.
From a more purely political point of view, what is the European or British perspective on this? The British appreciate the Palestinian point of view slightly more than the Americans. The fact that Britain was a colonial power in the region, after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire means they have a history there. Well most European countries believe, rather self-righteously, that the colonial days are in the past, and that, rather smugly ,they are now infinitely morally superior to the Americans etc.
In fact, European countries are full pc smug types who think the best way to atone for their colonial past is to bash Israel constantly. Every “progressive” newspaper supports this. A typical “progressive” hero such as Nelson Mandela stated that “Israel was founded on a unique act of colonialism,” i.e. colonialism justified through religious fundamentalism.
Which shows that he knows nothing at all about the spread of Islam.
So what am I getting at?
Well, Islam has it’s colonial history……… as does Europe, America and Israel.
Personally, I think I hit the nail on the head when describing the difference between the American and European perspective on this.
at October 29, 2006 6:05 PM
I've linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/10/re-fitzgerald-walk-back-cat.html
Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at October 29, 2006 6:13 PM
"That is assuming, of course, that the survival of Israel is seen as it should be, as essential to the moral, intellectual, and possibly physical survival of the West".-Hugh
Re your quote: I see that Israel's foreign minister said recently that Israel needs better public relations, that the world needs to be better educated re Israel and the nature of the so-called Arab-Israeli conflict. She's right. Israel has had rotten PR that has allowed the Arabs to portray them as bullies who "stole Arab land". More must be done to educate the public re the absentee owner Arab land sales to Zionists, the fact that most land in the area was "public land" (in the Ottoman Empire), and other matters. Israel has to be more adept at public relations. (That PR must include the role of the Islamic belief-system in the conflict.) Better PR is vital to Israel's survival and possibly the physical survival of the West.
--------------
I agree with your assessment of Condi and Bush's overestimation of her. They are "the blind leading the blind". But the truth is that they are representative of a basic American optimism re the overcoming of differences and of coming to an understanding and compromise with opposition for the good of all. They have a very American point of view that is being applied to a place where it does not fit.
I had a similar opinion as Rice at one time. Many people have (or had) that view, but end-up scratching their heads as they watch Israeli-"Palestinian" agreements blow-up. Folks have not or do not understand that the Islamic belief-system is the Rosetta stone of the so-called "Arab-Israeli" conflict. However, more and more people get it in that regard, and eventually that understanding will even reach to folks like Condi Rice and Bush. Jihadwatch and other sources of info have done a great deal to educate the average guy on this matter. The elites are still one grade behind.
Posted by: Frank
at October 29, 2006 6:33 PM
We must understand that Rice is not a conservative mind. Then again, neither is Bush. Aside from his anti-abortion views, Bush could have been the product of an ivy league school. Oh, wait a minute...
At any rate, about Rice, she is a pseudo-intellectual african American woman. What do you expect of her? As such, she is virtually incapable, for reasons of culture and educational background, from having any cynical thoughts about muslims, or any other ethnic group. With the exception of an endorsement for the Second Admendment, (albeit only for arming against racists) she has no conservative, much less right-wing, pedigree. None. Nil. Zilch. It was not part of her childhood, not part of her early education, not part of her higher education, and certainly not part of her politics. This woman gave lectures at Berkeley no less, after taking a course on international politics taught by none other than Madeleine Albright's father, Josef Korbel. Oi Vey.
She was a registered Democrat until 1982, when she switched parties only because she saw the future of the Republican party with Reagan. She is an opportunist if anything.
Rice became interested in politics when the bad guys were white with Russian accents. That was the motivation for her studies and the extent of its geopolitical depth. And even then, I don't think her heart was in it for any patriotic reasons. She didn't study Russian politics because she hated the Russians. For her it was just an academic exercise and a route to a comfy government job. Just like her music studies. But the music studies didn't pan out.
So why is she the secretary of state for a republican administration? Well, to be frank, she is a black woman with an education. And she has never appeared in a rap video. For Bush, that was good enough. He has killed two birds with one stone. He got a black, and a woman, into a high profile cabinet post. He billed himself to be the compassionate conservative, which means, in Texas, a white guy who hires a black woman. Did it get him any votes? Probably not. But it made him feel good. And compassionate. And clever.
Posted by: August22
at October 29, 2006 7:01 PM
From the Army of Western Hirelings, comes this despatch:
"At a gathering of the USIA Alumni Association in Washington D.C. on October 4, the former U.S. Ambassador to China and Saudi Arabia Chas. W. Freeman told the audience that the threat the United States now faces is vastly less grave but much more ill-defined than that we faced during the Cold War. That era, which most here lived through, was one in which decisions by our president and his Soviet counterpart could result in the death, within hours, of over a hundred million Americans and a comparable number of Soviet citizens. That threat was existential. The threat we now face is not. Muslim extremists seek to drive us from their lands by hurting us. They neither seek to destroy nor to convert nor to conquer us. They can in fact do none of these things. The threat we now face does not in any way justify the sacrifice of the civil liberties and related values we defended against the far greater threats posed by fascism or Soviet communism. Terrorists win if they terrorize; to defeat them, we must reject inordinate fear and the self-destructive things it may make us do."
"Vastly less grave threat" from Islam. Muslim "extremists...neither seek to destroy nor to convert nor to conquer us. They can in fact do none of these things."
Check with people in Paris, in Malmo, in Rotterdam, in Birmingham, Leeds, and London. Check all around Europe. Consult, one more time, which is one more time than Chas W. Freeman ever has, though he was once the smiling and compliant American ambassador to Saudi Arabia (say, you don't think he receives any money, directly or indirectly, from the Saudis or any other Arab source do you? He wouldn't, he couldn't...could he?) Qur'an and Hadith and Sira. Ask yourself if Muslims are taught to "neither seek to destroy nor to convert nor to conquer us." See if there is anything in the texts, anything at all in the history of Islamic conquest from Spain to East Asia, over a period of 1350 years, anything in the behavior, over the past decade or so, of Muslims in Holland, Great Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, Australia, anything at all that might lead you to conclude that Chas. W. Freeman might have it wrong, might even have it wrong deliberately, might deliberately be engaged in sinister apologetics on behalf of Saudi Arabia and of Islam.
at October 29, 2006 7:22 PM
. . .they [Bush and Rice] are representative of a basic American optimism re the overcoming of differences and of coming to an understanding and compromise with opposition for the good of all. They have a very American point of view that is being applied to a place where it does not fit. -from post above.
Stephen Browne, an experienced anthropologist, who lived in Saudi for one year "came back with the gloomy opinion that over the long run we are going to have to hammer these people hard to get them to quit messing with Western Civilization."
For readers who are just discovering the truths about Islam, I thought I'd post Browne's "Short List": why not all humans are the same. [BTW, 2 years ago, after election day, I left on a one month sojourn into the Middle East. I lived in Damascus for 2 weeks - my brief experience taught me we are in for rough times ahead].
1) They don’t think the same way we do.
2) When you meet them in just the right circumstances, they are a very likable people.
3) Their values are fundamentally different from ours, their self-esteem is derived from a different source.
4) Not only can they not build the infrastructure of a modern society, they can’t maintain it either.
5) They do not think of obligations as running both ways
6) In warfare, we think they are sneaky cowards, they think we are hypocrites.
7) In rhetoric, they don’t mean to be taken seriously and they don’t understand when we do
8) They don’t place the same value on an abstract conception of Truth as we do, they routinely believe things of breathtaking absurdity
9) They do not have the same notion of cause and effect as we do.
10) We take for granted that we are a dominant civilization still on the way up. They are acutely aware that they are a civilization on the skids
11) We think that everybody has a right to their own point of view, they think that that idea is not only self-evidently absurd, but evil.
12) Our civilization is destroying theirs. We cannot share a world in peace. They understand this; we have yet to learn it.
Read the full list here: http://rantsand.blogspot.com/2006/09/observations-on-arabs.html
Posted by: Malinois at October 29, 2006 7:46 PM
From the interview linked by tgusa:
SECRETARY RICE: Well, you can look at any opinion poll in the Palestinian territories and 70 percent of the people will say they're perfectly ready to live side by side with Israel because they just want to live in peace
Regarding other modes of violence, following the war, there is no change from earlier polls in Palestinian support (57% in favor) for armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel.
http://www.huji.ac.il/cgi-bin/dovrut/dovrut_search_eng.pl?mesge115933980032688760
SECRETARY RICE: I just don't believe mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. I think the mothers want their children to grow up to go to university.I haven't seen a society yet where ordinary people, given an opportunity, wouldn't opt for a better life and for peace.
Um Nidal, also known as Mariam Farahat, became famous when she was filmed bidding her 17-year-old son Mohammed farewell to die through terror. She ordered him "not to return except as a shahid [martyr for Allah]" - and he followed through.
http://www.likud.nl/extr391.html
SECRETARY RICE: I haven't seen a society yet where ordinary people, given an opportunity, wouldn't opt for a better life and for peace.
In the poll, nearly two-thirds of the Palestinians questioned (63%) agree that Palestinians should emulate Hizbullah’s methods by launching rockets at Israeli cities.
http://www.huji.ac.il/cgi-bin/dovrut/dovrut_search_eng.pl?mesge115933980032688760
SECRETARY RICE: I don't believe that most people in the Middle East really want to blow themselves up.
The June 2002 poll by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre showed that a large majority - nearly seven out of 10 people - supported the suicide operations, about 60% of those expressing their "strong" support.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2072851.stm
Secretary of State of denial
Posted by: Charles Martel at October 29, 2006 10:28 PM
Hugh/
Her boldness is a child of ignorance and baseness" as you amply demonstrate.
Bacon also said, as I'm sure you remember, "Mahomet made the people believe that he would call a hill to him, and from the top of it ... and when the hill stood still he was never the whit abashed ... Mahomet will go to the hill"
Both from Francis, Lord Verulam Viscount St. Albans - known as Francis Bacon, Of Boldness
Somehow both quotes seem apposite tonight - but I could have them both wrong. For Heaven's sake, never trust my memory.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 29, 2006 11:04 PM
More appropriately the Secretary of State of Damage Control. What happens if we disengage? We have armed and trained 400,000 young Iraqi men. We’ve got 100,000 or so Western soldiers in the Baghdad area supervising Iraqi forces and the slaughter between Sunni and Shia in the street is accelerating. Iraqi forces are not deemed capable of policing the police. The Prime Minister demands Shia detainees are released from US custody.
If (when) we leave, the place erupts. And there are powerful forces on all sides, which all have a dog in the fight. World War One started when some guy shot another in Yugoslavia. It was facilitated by the advance planning associated with railroad logistics (days). 400,000 religious zealots are a larger spark than a lone gunman. And nuclear planning needs to be measured in minutes, not days.
Hugh is right that the best answer is containment and internal conflict. Keeping the conflict localized will not be easy though. Not to imply that Rice’s dumb statements are associated with sound strategy, but one would like to think that somebody in power is working to contain the inevitable. Or, more sinisterly, looking to pass it on to their successors in 2008. Or maybe they're just in denial.
Posted by: limes at October 29, 2006 11:06 PM
Dominic; I've learned not to trust my either.
Posted by: limes at October 29, 2006 11:14 PM
Previewing your Comment
limes/
The only problem with this site is that one feels that one should respond quickly. It seems only polite to do so. For me this means that I end up relying on my, sometimes (oft-times?), faulty memory when I quote. Usually my doubts about the attribution, and accuracy, of that which I quote are resolved by those with better memories - or a more advanced knowledge of the workings of Google than that which I possess - and I have to stand corrected.
However, it is the sense, the import, the deeper meaning of that which we quote, say and post that matters. It is our support for the anti-jihad and for Robert, Hugh, Marisol and all the others which counts. The literal accuracy, or otherwise, of that which we post is not the issue - its import, however, and its deeper meanings are (is? - grammar is such a frightful thing, don't you find?).
But ignorance, the colossal, mind-bending, wilfull ignorance of such as Dr. Rice is, and should be, for all of us, a salutary lesson in how our modern politics works. Either she is wilfully and deliberately ignorant or she is bending the truth in such a way as not to 'frighten the horses' - don't frighten them (us) because I want to be the first female, and black, President of the USA. In other words, her power-trip is more important than our survival. Could you vote for that?
Dominic.
at October 29, 2006 11:55 PM
And (I do hate beginning anything with 'and, but somehow no other word will do here) Chevron - the big oil company, honored Rice by naming an oil tanker Condoleezza Rice after her.
Funny how all the big, rich, oil folk have ended up in government at the moment and can't see past the moslem, big, rich, oil folk. In fairness to Chevron, and I really hate to be fair to such an arrogant, couldn't-care-less-about-pollution company, the controversy over the naming of the ship led to its being renamed Altair Voyager.
So, what's in a name?
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 30, 2006 12:14 AM
But then, of course, she (Dr. Rice) was a director of the Chevron Corporation, was she not?
Also remember that she sat on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training in the Military - whatever-the-hell that means.
If you look at her biography it is fairly obvious that all that Dr. Rice believes in is the advancement of Dr. Rice. Not a bad thing for anyone to believe in that they should believe in themself, but, please tell me, what, exactly, apart from herself, does Dr. Rice actually believe in.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at October 30, 2006 12:22 AM
well the fact she was a dummycrat untill 82 tells a lot i have not met one yet that knows how to think letalone read or belive the truth about islam when its not complimentry abd state is full of them
Posted by: islamakapigeaters at October 30, 2006 12:55 AM
Judging by her newly acquired shaky voice, she may now be aware of the scope of the problem and her role in it. My anger is reserved more for the system than it is for her on a personal level. She accepted what was offered.
Posted by: limes at October 30, 2006 1:03 AM
With all due respect, I find many of the views bordering on blantent rascism, refering to Rice almost in terms of Bush's 'house niger.'
Rice is not doing anything that we have not done the past 60 years, try to convince a historically hostile peoples to co-exist. My view, it is absurd to continue to tolerate the existance of the West Bank and Gaza. I beieve it should be incorporated into Israeli territory tomorrow and the Arabs allowed to apply for Jewish citizenship or move to Jordan, SA, Lebannon, etc. (which historically rejects them).
It can not be denied that Arabs living in Israel enjoy a more properous existance than their breatren in Arab lands. Just imagine if the political pawns of Palestine had accepted Zionism from the get-go, they could have experienced the growth and prosperity of S. Korea and Israel. Yet, Israel is not even acknowleged to exist for all practical purposes in the damn UN.
The 50 nation Arab bloc carries much weight, we may well be working to gain some kind of support from them, (Iraq stability) so to not mouth the Palestinian rights and hopeful wish of a shared humanity may be the 'right course' for the times.
I remember Golda Meir: "We can forgive them for killing our childern, but we will never know peace until they learn to love their children more than they hate us." Smart Lady, could Rice be attempting to send that message again?
Posted by: Grateful1 at October 30, 2006 6:26 AM
Plus, I have to add I sense the Islamic movement is gaining strength on the 'hope' of Iran getting a nuke. The promise has been made by Uncle Aj to eliminate the Jewish cancer.
To absorb a nuke retaliation from us or Israel is just considered the icing on the martyr cake, since they get to die and reap the benefits of paradise as warrior martyrs just for burning in a nuclear fireball.
The '12-ers' hunger for the day. I belive a little kiss-ass in the Arab world right now may prove to be a saving grace because not ALL Arabs share the dream of mutual annilation for the glory of the Caliphate.
Posted by: Grateful1 at October 30, 2006 6:37 AM
"With all due respect, I find many of the views bordering on blantent rascism, refering to Rice almost in terms of Bush's 'house niger.'"
Posted by: Grateful1.
Really? Could you please elaborate?
at October 30, 2006 12:51 PM
"With all due respect, I find many of the views bordering on blantent rascism, refering to Rice almost in terms of Bush's 'house niger.'"
Posted by: Grateful1.
As I suspected, no response at all. If you throw out comments like the above, it would be great to see you stand behind them. I wont hold my breath.
Posted by: tgusa at October 31, 2006 10:28 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)