Archive for the ‘appeasement’ Category

News Flash, Fear of terror by bigoted Arabs – Muslims, is not “racism”

May 7, 2009

Islamism, Multiculturalism and British Society (page 9) …which a radical minority determined to “Islamicise” British society can represent itself as its victim. In the recent documentary film Obsession: Radical Islam’s War against the West, adocumentary in which I served as historical adviser, there is a chilling scene that exemplifies the problem we are dealing with. It is a video of Mohammed SidiqueKhan (who masterminded the 7/7 massacre in London) in an anorak and Arab keffiyah, spouting homicidal hatred of the West in a broad Yorkshire accent. Denouncing the atrocities allegedly perpetrated against “our people” (meaningMuslims in general) by the British government in Iraq, he calls for blood vengeance.“We are at war and I am a soldier” was this British-born Anglo-Pakistani suicide bomber’s last message to “you” (meaning Britain) from “my people” – meaning the Muslim umma. Recent surveys show that British Muslims are receptive to this kind of “us” and “them” polarization, even if they do not necessarily approve terrorism per se.
In this climate of appeasement, even a moderate critique of Islam becomes anoffence against peace, reconciliation, dialogue or the virtues of cultural diversity. Freedom of speech turns into a one-way street. Muslim leaders openly preachcontempt for Western democracy, secularism, Jews, gays, feminists and other “Kaffirs” but Islam is off limits. Euphemism and evasion take over as soon as it comes to documenting any Muslim involvement in terrorism, violent crimes, “honor” killings,” rapes, or incitement against the “infidel” West.

 Mainstream journalists, seem terrified that they will be accused of “Islamophobia” or racism. Silence is considered more prudent. The task of commenting on Muslim crimes is left to the tabloids, the British National Party or other far-right groups. Such suicidal cowardice, passivity and self-deception may have serious consequences for British Jews. The report of the U.K. All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, published in September 2006 (to which I presented evidence) did a very good job on most issues but it was evasive about antisemitism among Muslims. It was seen as anoffshoot of propaganda by a tiny minority of extremists. The report evoked the Hizb ut-Tahrir, Al-Muhajiroun, and the case of Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal (sentenced to nineyears in prison in February 2003 for inciting racial hatred); it mentioned Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri, but it did not investigate the growing resonance of antisemitic viewsamong British Muslims.
The facts reveal, however, that the majority of Muslims in the U.K. are by no means the moderates they are so often made out to be. Nearly40% believe that the Jewish community is a legitimate target “as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East”; no less than 46% think that there is a Judeo-masonic conspiracy to control the British media and politics; and more than half of British Muslims agree that Jews had “too much influence over the direction of U.K. foreign policy.” These are appalling figures. There may be a multitude of different reasons for such antisemitism. There is the high-profile of the Arab-Israel conflict. Some Asian Muslims in Britain (80% in fact

(Page 10)
originate from the Indian subcontinent) even try to be more “Palestinian” than the Palestinians. There is also a fundamentalist component, influenced by Islamist ideologies whose seedbed is Pakistan but which are spread in Britain by Saudi-financed preachers in the mosques. Some of the hatred is linked to anti-Americanism as well as contempt for Britain. There is loathing for the “Crusader” West as the “protector” of Zionism. Some, Muslim antisemitism may also express latent envy and resentment towards the Anglo-Jewish community, seen as too rich, integratedand supportive of Israel.
These antisemitic attitudes, are reinforced by the unrelenting hostility in parts of the British media towards Israel. The “quality” British media often present terrorist violence by Muslims against Israel as legitimate “resistance” driven by the highest and most altruistic aims. The BBC, has never once referred to the suicide bombings of Israeli civilians by Fatah, Hamas or Islamic Jihad as anything other than the action of Palestinian “militants.” It is as if these brutal murderers are the equivalent of trade unionists calling for higher wages in a British industrial dispute.
In such a media context, British Muslims can only feel reinforced by the “victim culture” of contemporary Britain. The dominant liberal-leftist culture encourages the excessive inflation of terms like “Islamophobia” while it often questions the seriousness of antisemitism in Britain elsewhere. But figures compiled by the British police is recent months indicate that Jews are four times more likely to be attackedbecause of their religion than Muslims. Some of these assaults are carried out by white racists and bigots on the margins of British society. But they and the British National Party are far outside the mediaconsensus – universally condemned as fascists, neo-Nazis or racists. Left-wing or Muslim antisemitism is another matter.
When linked to the Palestinian cause,hostility to Israel, Zionism and Jewry enjoys considerable sympathy in British society. Islamist Judeophobia in Britain cannot be reduced to the question of Iraq or Palestine. It has adopted many of the themes of the Jewish world conspiracy, especially Jewish control of the media, and political domination of the United States.In Britain, the obsession with the “injustice” allegedly done to the Palestinians, has allowed antisemitic fantasies to acquire some credibility not only among marginalized Muslims but also in mainstream elite opinion and among the “chattering classes”.This is a dangerous symptom of the broader malaise which currently affects British society as a whole.
http://sicsa.huji.ac.il/pplondonistan.pdf

No tears for terrorists
18 Apr 2006 … The bleeding-heart defense team for convicted al Qaeda terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui wants to tell you a sob story. Like so many apologists for jihad, Moussaoui’s lawyers are … to spread Islam and supplant America as the world’s superpower. …On Monday, while Moussaoui’s defense team played their violins in court, apologists across Europe and the Muslim world played the same song for the suicide bomber who murdered 9 innocent civilians and wounded scores more at a Tel Aviv restaurant. The bomber packed his explosives with nails and shrapnel soaked in rat poison to increase the suffering of the victims.
Police had to pick bits of flesh off the blood-drenched streets and parked car windshields.
But it’s not the fault of terrorist Sami Salim Mohammed Hammed and his sponsors at Islamic Jihad. Blame “Israeli aggression” and “anti-Arab racism!”
The dry-eyed know there is one Root Cause for this carnage. It’s not America, Israel, racism, or psychological imbalances. It’s evil. Just evil …
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin041806.php3

A Soft Jihad Grows in Brooklyn
by  Aryeh Spero

10/25/2007
In Brooklyn, New York, a public school named the Khalil Gibran International Academy (KGIA) has opened.  Its primary purpose — demonstrated by its advisory board, its apparent curriculum and the lining of school walls with pictures of Arab figures and heroes, is to teach Arabic and Muslim language and culture and to inculcate the children with radical Islamic ideology. 

One of the school’s more notorious public supporters is convicted cop-killer and former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal.  The school’s advisory board includes several imams, one of whom has displayed the Muslim Brotherhood slogan on his mosque’s website: “Jihad is our way, and death in the way of Allah is our promised end.”
 
A spokesperson for the school speaks not of the duties of American citizenship but the aspiration towards “global” citizenship.  Perhaps that is why this public school, unlike P.S. 132, calls itself an “international academy.” 

Many New Yorkers are appalled that taxpayer money is being used to finance a public school whose purpose will likely advance the Islamic religion and Islamist ethnic identity.  Three local parents, two of whom are teachers, started a grassroots effort called Stop the Madrassa to question this inchoate madrassa disguised as a neutral public school. 

Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes has written extensively about KGIA and other such schools now spreading across the country. On the opening day of school, Sept. 4, 2007, civil rights, religious and community leaders held a press conference on the steps of New York’s City Hall demanding answers from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his Schools Chancellor, Joel Klein. From out of town came Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, and attorney Brian Rooney of the Thomas More Law Center. That day, Citizens for American Values in Public Education was born, created to fight the problem of Islamization in schools across the country. 

 Immediately a request was made of the Department of Education, under the Freedom of Information Act, as to the curriculum, teachers, lesson plans and textbooks of the school. This is not unusual given that schools — for reasons of transparency and accreditation – must pre-publicize educational content prior to the school year. Indeed, many are wondering about the use of public money for an institution, such as this, with religious overtones. The response to these legitimate concerns is that those that are asking these questions must be “racists.”

For example, Mumia Abu-Jamal asserts: “Racist and right-wing groups and media outlets have demonized the school…”  Councilmember Leticia James talks of “anti-Arab racism …”   The New York Collective of Radical Educators, in its statement supporting KGIA,  called on “New York City to continue to be a voice in the struggle against anti-Arab/anti-Islamic prejudice…” Even Brooklyn’s Borough President, Democrat Marty Markowitz, labeled inquiry into the school “disgraceful, xenophobic, and racist.” 

The intent of calling “racist” those who question the school’s goals and legitimacy is, no doubt, to silence critics of the school’s agenda. This attempt to silence Americans is very similar to CAIR’s lawsuit that was brought by Muslim organizations against citizens on an airplane who alerted flight attendants of the fear they felt witnessing highly erratic conduct by six belligerent and provocative imams on a plane. 
 
What should be every American’s right to self-defense, or the right to inform appropriate authorities of  possible harm or danger, has now been characterized by a number of  Muslim organizations as “criminal” and, somehow, a “violation of civil rights“ worthy of civil suit. Fortunately, House Republican Steve Pearce introduced the Protecting Americans Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007, protecting citizens from lawsuits when simply informing authorities of possible danger.  
 
It appears that yet another strategy for silencing critics of radical Islam is emerging. It is alleging that critics of suspicious Muslim activities are guilty of “stalking,” “harassing,” or “assaulting.” This new mode of attack is, it seems, being hatched here in Brooklyn. Dhabah Almontaser, the school’s former principal, recently claimed that those non-Muslim community members who were critical of her stewardship at the school “stalked me wherever I went and verbally assaulted me with vicious anti-Arab and anti-Muslim comments.”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23020

Appeasing Islamofascism: The ‘Christiane Amanpour’ of the BBC – TV Series Has ‘Extremist’ Christian Beheading ‘Moderate’ Muslim

July 20, 2008

Appeasing Islamofascism: The ‘Christiane Amanpour’ of the BBC – TV Series Has ‘Extremist’ Christian Beheading ‘Moderate’ Muslim

New TV Series Has ‘Extremist’ Christian Beheading ‘Moderate’ Muslim

Last week, the BBC aired a new TV series titled “Bonekickers” touted as a “groundbreaking” show where “history comes alive,” and a series that is “Based in fact.” The premier episode, though features an odd thing if “fact” is the aim of the Beeb’s new TV series: a Christian beheading a Muslim. Yeah, THAT is really a “fact” based premise, isn’t it?

Of course, the few remaining Christians in Britain have found themselves a bit put out by this “fact based” show where it is a Christian beheading a Muslim instead of the other way ’round.

And it isn’t just a beheading, the entire episode turns our current “fact based” reality on its head as the plot gives us a group of “right wing Christians” bent on purging England of its immigrant population, a group the TV series is fictionalizing as the “White Wings Alliance.” In a day when extremist Muslims the world over are killing people for not being a Muslim, this show features the exact opposite situation. Christian “extremists” killing innocent, moderate Muslims. For what reason? Only the Beeb knows for sure.

The whole premise is so ridiculous that Andrew Anthony of the Guardian newspaper said, “A Martian watching TV drama of late would probably conclude that the country is crawling with homicidal Islamophobes, desperate to kill those few Muslims who have not already been interned by the government or shot by the police.” In his droll way, of course, Anthony is saying that none of that is happening despite the outrageous plot line that appears in this “fact based” series.

The Independent’s reviewer was no kinder saying, “Murderous Christian fundamentalists, like the ones on Bonekickers, are frequently on TV, but their Islamic counterparts rarely make an appearance. Our TV controllers have a tendency to make like the three wise monkeys when it comes to Muslim extremism: hear no evil, see no evil, broadcast no evil.” So much for “facts.”

From the Bonekickers website, the show is describe as such:

Bonekickers is a highly original six-part series about a dynamic team of archaeologists… As a team their skills combine under a variety of imperatives to extract bodies, books, weapons and all manner of artefacts which lead them into an investigation of the past that will unlock dangers and mysteries in the present.

Based in fact, the series has on board the expertise of Professor Mark Horton, Head of Archaeology at Bristol University, a specialist in the archaeology of historical societies around the world and Bonekickers consultant on the factual evidence and background to the relics featured in each episode.

In any case, many viewers complained about this upending of reality, so many so that the BBC had to respond with a statement. And the BBC has responded to critics of their new series quite unsatisfactorily, it seems.

Complaint

We’ve received some complaints from viewers who felt the scene featuring a beheading in Bonekickers on BBC One, Tuesday 8th July 2008 was inappropriate viewing.

The BBC’s Response

We regret that some viewers felt the beheading scene was inappropriate. It appeared half way through episode one of Bonekickers, by which time the character’s extreme fundamental belief’ had been revealed, providing the audience with a good build up to the scene in question.

This storyline looked at religious fundamentalism within a fictional Christian group, and one character in particular who took his beliefs to an extreme. His ignorance and misguided behaviour lead to the beheading of a peaceful Asian Muslim character in the drama. His actions are clearly condemned by leading Muslim and Christian clerics. The drama also has the balance of a Christian character that has a deep faith which she uses humbly and only for good.

The killing and the method used reflected the flawed beliefs that the character had. It does not attempt to condone or glamorise such a violent act in any way. The drama seeks to highlight the consequences of a misguided fundamentalist taking his beliefs to violent extremes.

The inclusion of the scene had been carefully considered and was very much central to the story line and reflected the character’s extreme fundamental beliefs and state of mind.

They regret nothing, of course.

So, lots of “extremist Christians” running about the countryside beheading moderate Muslims over there in England? There must be. After all, we did mention that this is a “fact based” series, didn’t we?

Speaking of bones, this appears to be another reason why the west hasn’t the backbone to stand up to Islamic extremism, doesn’t it?

(Photo credit: Blackstar.co.uk)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/07/13/new-tv-series-has-extremist-christian-beheading-moderate-muslim

The ‘Christiane Amanpour’ of the BBC ( http://www.freedomszone.com/archives/2007/10/are_islamists_worse_than_other.php )…that infamous Islam-ized journalist’s style of trivializing the real menace upon the world TODAY from Islamofascism by “equating” religions as “there are extremists everywhere”…

Technorati

Got Fitna?

April 1, 2008

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103 the FITNA film

YouTube – Part 1 : http://youtube.com/watch?v=5kcev1K-NOc
YouTube – Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=TdLMFs4fv4E

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=25777Geert Wilders’ ‘Fitna’: Insightful and Inciteful – HUMAN EVENTS

http://bradthor.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=228 Brad Thor’s Forum

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/27/video-fitna/ Fitna update

http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2008/03/how-to-download-fitna-verified.html How to download FITNA– VERIFIED

Technorati – ]

The “I” [Islamofascism] word is denied in Dallas

January 27, 2008

The “I” word is denied in Dallas


original-atf-billboard-design.jpg
edited-atf-billboard-design.jpgcomment by Jerry Gordon

Pictures are worth a ten thousand words. Contrast these America’s Truth Forum Symposium bill board in Southlake, TX in the Dallas Forth Worth Metroplex. Note the very PC language changes in the two bill board design. The missing “I” word for Islamists says it all.

Note this comment from Bob Spencer at Jihad Watch:

Why the changes? The sales manager of a Dallas-area billboard company explained: “My boss wouldn’t go along with this type of advertising since we have an international clientele — some of whom might be on the other side.”

The other side? On the side of the jihadists?

Imagine an American billboard company in 1942 toning down an anti-Nazi billboard because, well, some of their clients are Nazis!

Hugh Fitzgerakd of Jihad Watch delves into the suppression of free speech in this Jihad Watch posting. He believes that the focus on terrorism, while important misses the opportunity to discuss the 800 pound elephant in the virtual room of ideas at the ‘next’ conference-cultural Jihad:

The next conference should not be about “Terrorism,” “Islamist” or otherwise. Instead, it should be all about the “instruments of Jihad.” And those instruments include, but are not limited to, terrorism. Subjects of talks should include, but not be limited to, these: “The Money Weapon, and How To Diminish It.” “Campaigns of Da’wa In The West, And How To Counter Them.” “Demographic Conquest by Muslims, and How To Halt, and Even Reverse It.”

Give the conference in New York.

Give a European version of the same conference in London, or Brussels, or Paris.

Don’t stop.

A tip of the chapeau to Stephanie.

January 21st, 2008 at 10:41 • Jihad Watchcultural JihadCensored billboards in DallasIslamic intimoidationAmerican Truth Forum Terrorism Symposium0 Comments

Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of American Congress for Truth, Brigitte Gabriel or the Editor or the staff of American Congress for Truth. Any comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, harassing or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted at the sole discretion of the Editor. However, the fact that  comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Brigitte Gabriel, the Editor or the Staff of American Congress for Truth. 

Islamofascism: Why It Is Fascism and Why Hating It Isn’t Racist

December 9, 2007

Islamofascism: Why It Is Fascism and Why Hating It Isn’t RacistNicholas M. Guariglia
06 Dec 2007
This is getting a bit tedious, but for as long as there are those who decry antifascists as something they are not, there must be those who forcefully defend the spirit of antifascism. A few weeks ago, student groups across some 200 universities aligned with commentator David Horowitz, amongst others, to declare Islamofascism Awareness Week. Such “cause-awareness” charades –– global warming/cooling awareness, the danger of giant man-eating squirrels/how to save endangered giant man-eating squirrels, etc. –– where do-gooders sit around a table and discuss how they “feel,” usually leave me with a feeling of exasperation. But for this, I will concede: defending liberal Western munificence against foreign clericalism is no small gig.

This task, however, seems to begin with two fallacies leveled against the democratic resistance. The first untruth being that Islamist fanaticism is an aberration, not commonplace abroad; a political equal to its religious counterparts, not authoritarian; its followers simply misguided distorters of actual Islamic instruction, not the enforcers and heeders of literal Islamic text. The second lie, perpetrated by relativists and multicultural therapists, would be that challenging this despotism, in all its forms, is somehow indicative of racism; that hating a belief is the equivalent to hating a people. These two falsities should be confronted at the very start, and at their very core.

Let’s start with the latter, and, I propose, the indisputable: Islam is not a race. Even its harshest critics, if they limit their criticism to doctrine and to those only who follow it, are not to be labeled bigoted or racist. Religion is an idea, a belief system not immune from mockery or even detestation, and abhorrence for it is perfectly ethical (and legal, at least in this country). Succumbing to political correctness would have me now declaring impartiality for all the monotheisms, claiming an equality for each theology. I am all for equal-time ridicule, but not today.

So let me be clear. There is very little about the Islamic faith, in particular, that I find believable or inspirational. The given-at-birth compulsory submission to a deity –– as its translation boasts –– is not my bag. An illiterate businessman-turned-general talking to angels and going on fantastical night journeys across the sky, taking six-year-olds as his wife, invading and converting large portions of planet, insisting his word alone is the final and unalterable directive of the divine… None of this makes me want to humble myself, get on my knees, and bow my head. I look at the life of Muhammad –– the pedophilia, the megalomania, the conquests –– and see John Mark Karr with an army.

But my contempt for this theological arrogance does not render a hatred for, or suspicion of, Muslims as individuals or as a people; nor will it, nor should it. I have a fair amount of Muslim friends, some of them very good friends, and, in the mold of Dr. King’s litmus test, I judge them, like everyone else, based upon the content of their character –– not their genetic makeup. This is not racism anymore than disdain for Marxism is racism; anymore than abstract anticommunism undermines the concreteness of a beautiful Cuban girl, or the sincerity of a Russian acquaintance, for instance.

Those on campus who were wearing green to protest the original protesting of fascism should at least forfeit to irony: the green they don takes us back the “green shirts” of Haj Amin al Husseini, the Palestinian mufti and long time Hitler companion and proxy, as well as the Nazi-admiring Hassan al Banna, brown-shirt wannabe and founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. The lack of study into the fascist origins of contemporary Middle Eastern movements is just another sad example of Western self-loathing and academic indifference, but thankfully we have colleagues like Ryan Mauro to shed some light for us.

How quickly we forget that Mussolini, for example, was admiringly called Musa Nili across the Arab world. Who remembers the Waffen SS hit-squads that armed the warriors of Grand Mufti Husseini –– plush with Third Reich subsidies –– to liquefy anti-Nazi citizens of the Baltic? Did your last professor point out that the predecessors of al Qaida –– who Hitler called his Gebirgsjäger Muslim killers –– slaughtered 100,000 innocents by 1943?

It continues: Nazi agent General Khairallah Tulfah would go on to raise and mentor his Tikriti village nephew, Saddam Hussein. Future Egyptian presidents Nasser and Sadat –– supposed secularists –– mingled with the Brotherhood, which in turn spawned Egyptian Islamic Jihad, cradle of al Qaida linchpin Dr. al Zawahiri. (Nasser would later rely on ex-Gestapo goon Joachim Daumling to craft his own secret police force.)
Hitler’s propagandist Johannes von Leers would flee postwar Germany, change his name to Omar Amin, and become a lead official in Egypt’s information ministry, just as Sami al Joundi of the Syrian Ba’ath would brag, “We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in Nazi literature… we were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kempf.” (Eichmann aide Alois Brunner would also assist the Assads in Damascus.)

I could go on, but must I really?

When defending the label of fascist, however, none of this fascist-entrenched history really matters. The premise of subservience to a celestial dominion and the coerced obedience to the earthly holy men who implement this dominion is enough: it’s Islamic and it’s fascistic. It is a creed that seeks to control what you think, say, hear, read, eat and drink; who you talk to, who you befriend, and who you hold hands with. This is the root basis of totalitarianism and it’s all in your God-given Qur’an. Societies, cultures, and peoples can most certainly change, but self-described infallible doctrine cannot. It was not designed to reform. Its divinity and irreversibility is the reason for its existence.

There used to be a proud secular tradition of liberal antifascism, but the veneer of multiculturalism and relativism has prodded such thinkers into a state of fear. Many are afraid to come across as intolerant of intolerance, lest they seem as if they are asserting political supremacy or cultural superiority. This is why Western operas have been canceled, why cartoons have been taken out of circulation, why movies have been taken off air, and why journalists and authors with prices on their heads are in hiding all across Europe –– all products of a free and wonderfully crude culture under threat from book-burning mullahs.
But there is good news. You do not have to oblige yourself into justifying deplorable atrocities in the name of “understanding.” You do not have to defend the apocalyptic Haghani Circle of Iran, or the Salafist lecturers in Pakistan, or the Wahhabi royal family. You do not have to applaud the “transparency” of the Iranian committee entitled the “Council for Spreading Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Thoughts.” When Hina Saleem’s father cuts her throat, buries her in the yard, and faces her head towards Mecca before rigamortis sets in –– for the sin of loving an Italian man –– and most of the Islamic organizations in Europe (from the Union of Islamic Communities in Italy to the Islamic Cultural Association in Brescia) defend the murderer, not the victim, you do not have to conscript yourself into appreciating or defending this insanity. You’re allowed to hate it.

Not all hate is improper. My hatred of the fascistic impulses of archaic shari’a law stems not from ignorance of “the other,” but from knowledge. The more I learn, the more that is revealed, the stiffer my backbone becomes and the more I come to despise. This hatred is fine, as its converse would be immoral indifference.

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1359

Technorati – ]

It’s The Left And The Islamo-Fascists, Not the Term ‘Islamofascism’ – That’s Soiling The Name Of Islam

November 11, 2007


http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2007/11/its_the_left_an.php

It’s The Left And The Islamo-Fascists, Not the Term ‘Islamofascism’ – That’s Soiling The Name Of Islam
Topics: Understanding Islam
Islamofascism Week is over, but not the controversy.

However, unless one has maintained a 24-hour existence in a remote cave somewhere in the hinderlands of some remote jungle, how can any rational human being deny the role Islam plays in 21st century terrorism? What is it about the Left that brings them to defend radical Islam and refuse to admit that it is indeed extreme fascism with an extreme propensity for terrorism and intolerance? What is it about the term “Islamofascism” that brings the Left to refuse to acknowledge it as representative of militant Islam? Is it the case, as Jamie Kirchick’s suspects (hat tip JPost.com), “that the Left’s aversion to the use of ‘Islamofascism’ has much to do with the simple fact that Islam is a non-Western religion, supposedly comprised of the wretched of the earth, and thus, a different standard must apply to its most fanatical adherents, whose real motivation must, at ‘root’ be a legitimate anti-imperialist impulse”?

Or is the Left simply off the reservation of reality – as usual?

As Petra Marquardt-Bigman points out at JPost.com, in the war of words, the front lines are drawn clearly enough: employing the term Islamofascism is just a “conservative smear tactic”, and as Jeff Jacoby once documented, for the truly dedicated practitioners of political correctness, no verbal contortion is too grotesque to avoid having “Islam” or “Muslim” appear anywhere near the word “terrorism”:

… it is by no means true that the resemblance between the fascist and totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century and Islamist extremism has been acknowledged only by conservative or right-wing writers. Indeed, several writers with impeccable leftist credentials have published books on the subject, most prominent among them perhaps Paul Berman’s Terror and Liberalism (2003). But as some of Berman’s critics have demonstrated, substance counts little in the sound and fury of political debate, and anybody who argues that Islamism has fascist or totalitarian traits will have to resign himself to be denounced as a neo-con Bush supporter, no matter how strongly he has stated different positions.In the current controversy about Islamofascism, Christopher Hitchens has once again explained why this term is an entirely valid one to describe contemporary jihadist ideology. Focusing on the often expressed criticism that any comparison between jihadism and fascism is ahistorical, Hitchens lists several striking similarities: “Both movements are based on a cult of murderous violence that exalts death and destruction and despises the life of the mind. […] Both are hostile to modernity (except when it comes to the pursuit of weapons), and both are bitterly nostalgic for past empires and lost glories. Both are obsessed with real and imagined ‘humiliations’ and thirsty for revenge. Both are chronically infected with the toxin of anti-Jewish paranoia”. Moreover, Hitchens notes that calls to re-establish the caliphate are reminiscent of Hitler’s ambitions for a German “Reich” or Mussolini’s fantasies about reviving the Roman empire.

Hitchens concludes his list of comparisons arguing that it is “in some ways encouraging” that both fascism and jihadism have some sort of self-destructive “death wish” since “both of them stress suicidal tactics and sacrificial ends, just as both of them would obviously rather see the destruction of their own societies than any compromise with infidels”.

Indeed, this easily brings to mind the often fondly repeated assertion of Hamas politicians that they are “not seekers of office, but seekers of martyrdom”. But if history is any guide, the self-destruction of such movements tends to entail so much destruction for everybody else that there is hardly anything “encouraging” about it.

Like I’ve said, what is it about about the term Islamofascism that fails to describe radical Islamism?As Denis Prager notes in his piece today, Muslim student groups and other Muslim organizations joining with the left in the ad hominem condemnation of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week was most unfortunate. Many Muslims know well that there is indeed such a thing as Islamo-Fascism, and they should be the first to join in fighting it. It is not those who use the term “Islamo-Fascism” who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists.

And it is the Left that is helping the Islamofascists do the sullying ….

Related reading: If Not Islamofascism, What Name to Give?

Technorati –

YouTube: Horowitz – Liberal Arts [Glenn Beck Interview on the ‘Islamo-Fascism Awereness Week’]

November 8, 2007

YouTube: Horowitz – Liberal Arts [Glenn Beck Interview on the ‘Islamo-Fascism Awereness Week’]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwZ8IcdhUAw David Horowitz – Liberal Arts
Technorati –

MSM Doesn’t Care About Google’s Pro-Jihadi Censorship

November 7, 2007

MSM Doesn’t Care About Google’s Pro-Jihadi Censorship

Photo of Matthew Vadum.

By Matthew Vadum | November 6, 2007 – 16:41 ET

As Islamic scholar Robert Spencer can tell you, the mainstream media has barely noticed that Google, the Internet search engine giant, is now deciding for its users which ideas are acceptable and which are not. It’s never been a secret that Google leans left and won’t tolerate ideas it doesn’t agree with. The company hired global warming profiteer Al Gore as senior advisor and has a history of purging content based on ideology. More evidence of the company’s thinly-veiled, warm and fuzzy politically correct authoritarianism keeps popping up.

Now Google Video has suppressed a video of a speech that Spencer, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), made at Dartmouth College. Spencer, whose family comes from the Muslim world, sees his work as “calling attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence.” He carefully explains his belief that “Islam is not a monolith,” and says that he has “never” characterized all Muslims “as terrorist or given to violence.”

Google de-listed several conservative e-zines and blogs from its news crawl last year, banned anti-MoveOn.org ads, and is complicit in state censorship in communist China.

Whether you agree with all of his statements (and I’m not sure that I do), Spencer criticizes Islam for its shortcomings. He’s not preaching intolerance, and apparently there was no violation of Google Video’s rules which preclude the posting of “illegal content,” “invasions of personal privacy,” “pornography or obscenity,” “hate or incitement of violence,” “graphic violence or other acts resulting in serious injury or death,” and “violations of copyright.” But that’s not good enough for politically correct Google, which seems to believe that if you fail to genuflect at the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace altar, you’re guilty of “hate speech.”

So Google finds itself in the same camp as the Wahhabi front group known as the Council of American-Islamic Relations whose lawyer calls Spencer “a well-known purveyor of hatred and bigotry against Muslims.”

Playing the “bigotry” card is an effective smear technique mastered by CAIR and its allies. As Spencer notes:

Cries of “hatred” and “bigotry” are effectively used by American Muslim advocacy groups to try to stifle the debate about the terrorist threat…It is not an act of hatred against Muslims to point out the depredations of jihad ideology…those who make the charge know better in any case: they use the charge as a tool to frighten the credulous and politically correct away from the truth.

The mainstream media has been silent on this outrage so far, but some bloggers have sounded off. (See Little Green Footballs, Stop the ACLU, and Girl in Short Shorts.)

Meanwhile, the do-gooders at Google have embraced the soft authoritarianism of so-called corporate social responsibility or CSR. This socialist doctrine holds that profit is illegitimate and requires businesses to “pay back” the communities from which those profits were extracted. The late economist Milton Friedman railed against CSR, arguing here that companies that divert revenue to “socially responsible” ventures are in effect taxing their shareholders. Taxation is the province of government, not business, and CSR makes corporate executives civil servants. Google’s approach to CSR involves a commitment to spend $1 billion of its shareholders’ money saving the world by fighting poverty and reversing global warming. As John Reosti writes in “Google.org: Reaching for Utopia,” (available in the new issue of Foundation Watch):

Certainly, there are reasons to applaud Google, the Internet search-engine powerhouse whose name has become so identified in the public mind with World Wide Web searches that it has become a verb, to google. After the wealth-destroying scams of Enron, WorldCom and their ilk, it is refreshing to come across a corporation that makes money and goes public in announcing its philanthropic intentions. But there are reasons to be uneasy about the course Google has charted. Google’s corporate origins are unique and its corporate philanthropy is so innovative and extravagant that any misstep could make the company subject to close government scrutiny and undermine the financial success that benefits its shareholders.

Liberal and environmentalist groups have already benefited from Google’s philanthropy. The venerable Brookings Institution received $200,000 for a 2008 conference on plug-in hybrid vehicles. The Energy Foundation received $50,000 for climate change research. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) received $100,000 “to support the Environmental Entrepreneurs Climate Campaign to assist with the implementation of the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.” The race-baiting National Urban League was one of five groups to share in a total of $750,000 awarded for Hurricane Katrina relief.

Not surprisingly, it’s hard to find anything but praise for Google’s adventures in philanthropy. Softball items have run in BusinessWeek, the International Herald Tribune, Slate.com, and USA Today.BusinessWeek, the International Herald Tribune, Slate.com, and USA Today.

—Matthew Vadum is Editor of Organization Trends and Foundation Watch at the Capital Research Center.

CNN’s Arab Propagandist Hala Gorani

November 2, 2007

CNN’s Arab Propagandist Hala Gorani introduces us to a western-type Arab singer ‘Caramel’ as if that’s a ‘normal Arab today’.

11/2/07

The Arab Hala Gorani http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/gorani.hala.html introduces us on http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/ywt/ to a western-type Arab singer ‘Caramel’ as if that’s a ‘normal Arab today’.

The Arab Hala Gorani has a long history on CNN to ‘glorify Middle east cultures’ on her show ‘Inside the Middle east’ http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/middle.east/, she’s a master on picking & selecting the rare and never on the mainstream. In other words, not showing reality but being a propaganda tool for the Arab world, when no one speaks [really] for the west in that wild jungle of hatred.

In this age of “multiculturalism” that is nothing but a tool by Islamists, it’s not the time to lie and be a propaganda machine instead of showing what’s most important, what most Arab Muslims have by in large, intolerant mostly that is, from their burning venomous mainstream media to the ‘guy on the Arab street’, the dark cult of the ‘angry Arab’ from their native world onto Paris or Amsterdam or Sydney, etc. is being cheered and boosted by Arab journalists and leadership.

Until the Arab Muslim leadership & media will not change, this cult will only keep growing no matter what “excuse” they try so hard to sell us.

A suggestion to Her ‘Inside the middle east’, Like to select postivity in that world? start showing us [exactly] how many in that world like the west [no matter what ‘policy’ we take].

____________

This is another [from 2006] example of that Arab Hala Gorani

This is just such powerful proof of how lame the Media-Left have become. The CNN interview of Abdurahmen Jafar of the Muslim Council of Britain conducted by Hala Gorani is just too aggravating. Especially when the rotten twit compares the 12 cartoons to anti-Semitic cartoons during the Nazi era in Germany as an indication that Europe is now 60 years on “re-learning to hate”. Yeah right – he might as well have said in the middle of the night, the sun is up, let’s switch off the lights with Hala obligently replying “Your right, it’s practically glaring in here. Someone switch the lights of pleeease”. How can she let him get away wih this blatant distortion; as CNN’s hostess of ‘Inside the Middle East’, a half-hour programme featuring stories on the “most important social and cultural issues in the region”, surely she must be aware of the daily plethora of precisely such Nazi style hate cartoons published unabatedly THROUGHOUT the last 60 years.
http://www.allthingsbeautiful.com/all_things_beautiful/2006/02/is_there_any_di.html

Or this one

CNN’S ‘INSIDE THE MIDDLE EAST’ PROGRAM IS DEFINITELY ONE-SIDED

September 10, 2005.
This weekend:

1) Hala Gorani featured the Christian minority in Gaza: there was not one mention of Arafat’s persecution of Christians (which led to their enormous diminishing and becoming the tiny minority as such). However the transparent fear of the Arab-Christian priest interviewed, his reluctant & extra caution of words should be clear to everyone that Hamas’ totalitarian cruelty (and it’s 70% popularity among “moderates” there…) is all over the place.

2) Jim Bitterman reported on the ‘situation’ in France, and the effect post Gift-Of-Land in Gaza to the “Palestinians”. We were expecting Mr. Jim Bitterman to be mentioning the obvious ONE SIDED violence from Arab Muslims on Jews, whether physical brutality on people passers by that happened to be Jews, or burning down Synagogues etc. instead he started off by being blurry and painting it inaccurately, as he said tension between Muslims and Jews…, AS IF Jews were –in some cases– the attackers as well… Maybe it is that wrong notion that all sides are equally to blame, as that cliche of “extremists on both sides”, (Let’s face it, as on the Arab Muslim side, is there any organized murderers of civilians on the Israeli or any Jewish side?) is well entrenched in journalism today, either to appear as politically correct or to make the impression as being “objective”.

We are very sorry that Mr. Bitterman is either naive in this area or feels that he has to “say” it, for such is the form-formula for journalism today.

http://www.think-israel.org/sep05bloged.html#sep05.98

_______________


Do You think Hala Gorani from CNN is symphatizing with islamic terrorists since she is from Syria?
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070911105624AAX9yDh

I believe she is not appearing authentic but artificial and wrong.
http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070924222652AAWOE3d

CNN Uses Medal Ceremony to Take Shot at Surge… HALA GORANI: Should Americans expect a bloody summer because of this, a bloody summer for the troops in Iraq?
http://www.newsbusters.org/node/13243

Technorati –

What THEY say

November 1, 2007


We are dealing with an enemy that believes, in the words of bin Laden, “Death is better than living on this earth with the unbelievers among us.” The al-Qaeda Charter, for all its malevolence, has the virtue of clarity. It states, “there will be continuing enmity until everyone believes in Allah. We will not meet [the enemy] halfway and there will be no room for dialogue with them.” As if to reinforce the point, an al-Qaeda training manual says this:
“Islam does not coincide or make a truce with unbelief, but rather confronts it. The confrontation that Islam calls for with these godless and apostate regimes, does not know Socratic debates, Platonic ideals nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.”
http://www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.3069/pub_detail.asp
Technorati – ]