| February 2006 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | ||||
July 2007 Stats for The Big Picture.
From NewsMax:
A ship owned by a Chinese government-run company that currently operates two giant terminals at the Port of Long Beach, California was found 10 years ago to have been used to smuggle a huge cache of illegal weapons - with the smugglers saying they planned to import missiles that could "take out a 747."
On the night of March 18, 1996, undercover Customs and BATF agents discovered 2000 AK-47's in a container smuggled aboard the Empress Phoenix, a ship owned by the China Ocean Shipping Company [COSCO] docked at the Port of Oakland.
The guns were manufactured by another state-run company, Poly Technologies, the international outlet for Chinese weapons sales.
According to Vanity Fair magazine, which covered the episode in detail, the Empress Phoenix's gun cargo was earmarked for sale to deadly Los Angeles street gangs.
It was the largest seizure of fully operational automatic weapons in the history of U.S. law enforcement.
Unless COSCO is more involved with port security than the U.A.E. would be, this appears to disprove arguments that there would be no security risk in letting U.A.E. operate ports in the U.S.
I say "continue" because so many of those with whom I agree on almost all subjects -- Prof. Reynolds, Hugh Hewitt, Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer, and others -- support the deal.
However, Frank Gaffney and Michelle Malkin oppose it, as I do as well.
Many supporting the deal agree that it increases the risk to our national security, but say it is necessary to do so, so as not to offend the U.A.E. Charles Krauthammer's recent article on the subject is a good example:
This has raised the obvious question of whether we want our ports, through which a nuclear bomb could come, handled by a country that produced two nationals who flew into the south tower on 9/11 and that has a history of laundering money and nuclear secrets from bad guys to worse guys.
...as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. That would mean a transfer of information about our security operations - and maybe even worse, about the holes in our security operations - to a company in an Arab state where there might be employees who, for reasons of corruption or ideology, would pass this invaluable knowledge on to Al Qaeda-types.
That is the danger, and it is a risk, probably an unnecessary one.
...This contract should have been stopped at an earlier stage, but doing it now would cause too much damage to our relations with moderate Arab states.
If he'd concluded his remarks by opposing the deal, that conclusion would have been equally well supported by the article that preceded it.
This raises the question, whether it is reasonable to increase the risk to our national security, so as to avoid offending an ally? Just the increased, and reasonable, concerns we would all have about our security, would be too high a price to pay.
Whatever infiltration the U.A.E. has had by Al Qaeda up until now, that infiltration would be likely to increase, as Al Qaeda would be very likely to make infiltration of the U.A.E. a top priority, once the U.A.E. has gained control of key points at which the U.S. could be attacked. So whatever history the U.A.E. has of avoiding infiltration, no longer applies.
All this is abundantly clear
to the American people, who overwhelmingly oppose the deal:
Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they're opposed to the agreement.
Finally, I question the very premise on which many of the arguments in favor of the deal are made; I question whether canceling the deal would be deleterious to our relations with the U.A.E. The U.A.E. has gotten control of numerous other non-U.S. harbors in other parts of the world as part of this deal, so they've already gotten a lot out of it. If the U.A.E. is really our friend, they should understand our reasonable concerns. Although he supports the deal, I quote Jim Dunnigan, from a recent Instapundit podcast:
Jim Dunnigan: The U.A.E. is our best ally over there. It is not like the rest of Arabia. It's only about 3 million people. Only 20% are resident; 80% are foreign workers. There's been practically zilch Al Qaeda activity in the U.A.E. and for good reason. The business of the U.A.E. is business. They want nothing to do with radicalism. Although it's a collection of 7 monarchies basically run by Dubai and Abu Dhabi, they have been very forthright in staying away from any kind of radicalism. They've shared out the oil and gas money a lot more equitably than in any other part of the Gulf, including Iran. And they have only gotten by for centuries by staying out of the fights of the big guys in the neighborhood. That's why they have always been particularly close to britain and the united states. they're the one place besides Kuwait where we can operate air bases and have military personnel basically do whatever we have to do.
"The business of the U.A.E. is business." They're interested in the bottom line. If they can't make a profit with us on the port deal, they'll do it some other way. It seems unlikely that they would respond to a cancellation of the port deal in a way that would be damaging to their other business dealings with the U.S.
From Dana Parsons, in the LA TIMES:
Do papers have the right to publish them, even if Muslims are offended? Of course.
But, try as I might, I can't muster anything near outrage that papers, including this one, have not. Other than just publishing them because we can, is it really crucial to the debate that we see someone's depiction of an Arab-looking man wearing a bomb-shaped turban?
Is it so difficult to imagine what that looks like? Is our grasp of the debate lessened by not seeing a cartoonist's depiction of Muhammad?
OK, you might well say, but why not show it, anyway? Why self-censor?
Simple: Out of respect to Muslims who are bent out of shape over it. It's not as though they're protesting the drawing of a building or an animal. Muhammad is their most sacred prophet and cornerstone of their religion. Is it that much of a concession, in this specific case, not to reproduce a cartoon that doesn't enlighten anyway? To me, it isn't. And I don't feel cowardly for taking the position.
Maybe I'm asleep at the switch, but I don't feel any less protective of the 1st Amendment because I willingly forfeit the chance to see Danish cartoonists' renderings of a man who lived 1,400 years ago.
Gideon Kanner, Prof. of Law Emeritus of Loyola Law School, has responded with the following letter to the LA TIMES. The letter was forwarded to this web site. A search for the author on the LA TIMES site appears to indicate that the LA TIMES has not yet published the letter at this time.
Dear Ms Parsons:
Forgive my candor, but what you have written is a pile of hypocritical, self-serving bull puckey. It was only a few years ago that I had a lengthy exchange with your then "reader representative," a woman named Narda Zacchino, if memory serves me, in which I took offense at some outrageous LA Times cartoons mocking and demeaning the Jewish faith. Ms. Zacchino's attitude was, yeah, it was bad (the LA Times removed the offending cartoon from the web, but said nothing in print). So what? was her attitude. I offered to come to Times Mirror Square and publicly apologize if you people ever run a cartoon (by Conrad or otherwise) similarly demeaning the Moslem faith or abusing its symbol of the crescent the way your cartoonists routinely treat the Star of David. So far, I haven't had to deliver, and certainly after reading your vaporings it looks like I never will.
Now, when members of the "the religion of peace" are likely to do something physical if you piss them off, journalistic courage that we never hear the end of, goes out the window, and you suddenly develop "religious sensitivity." In a pig's eye. Plain old self-serving cowardice is more like it.
Gideon Kanner
Professor of Law Emeritus
Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
"UAE: UP FROM 6 TO 21 PORTS!":
By J. Grant Swank, Jr.
It’s 21 US ports, up from originally reported 6!
UAE is ready to take over all 21: 11 in the East, from Portland, ME to Miami, FL, then 10 in the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport MI to Corpus Christi TX, according to UPI’s Pamela Hess, siting P&O Ports North America official web site.
..."The concern is that the UAE may be our friend now ... but who's to say that couldn't change, or they couldn't be infiltrated. Iran was our big buddy," said Joe Muldoon, attorney representing Eller & Co., a port facility operator in Florida partnered with M &O in Miami. Eller opposes the takeover.
Iraq TV Says Top Al-Zarqawi Aide Captured.
I seem to remember reading an opinion that Saudis rarely arrest terrorists -- instead, you read far more often that terrorists sought by Saudis have died in a firefight. A Google search finds far more of one story than the other. Today's news on the subject may be a case in point:
Saudi forces kill suspected militants after siege
By Andrew Hammond
RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi forces on Monday killed five suspected militants believed to be linked to an al Qaeda attack on the world's biggest oil processing plant, the Interior Ministry said.
A shootout began at dawn after security forces besieged suspects in a villa in east Riyadh where several Western residential compounds are located.
An official statement said five men were killed and one other suspected militant was arrested elsewhere in the capital.
"Early this morning security forces stormed a building in east Riyadh which a criminal gang was using as a center for attacks and corruption," it said. "All five were killed after an intense exchange of fire."
I guess the Saudis didn't want to put the effort into besieging the building and capturing the terrorists. This has benefits -- the Saudis don't have to put up with international criticism of the manner in which the terrorists are held, a la international criticism of the U.S. regarding Gitmo.
I would imagine that plans to make a movie based on this will be announced within weeks if not days.
These video interviews that Pajamas Media is doing are revolutionary. They're far more in-depth than the sound bites the networks hand out, and which MSM cherry-picks so as to bias the news in favor of their outdated and counterproductive preferred political policies. Astonishingly, interviews like those PJM is doing, make it possible for Congressmen to be seen and heard in some ways for the first time.
Here's an example in which we've got Congressman Tom Lantos talking about cooperation on the part of leading Internet companies with China in repressing free speech:
Congressman Lantos: These enterprises which have grown so powerful, so wealthy, so full of themselves, apparently have very little social conscience. Apparently they don't appreciate that their success is the result of a free and open and democratic society. What I'm suggesting is, that they do something in addition to doing business merely according to the laws of a repressive regime. I still remember IBM'S cooperation with Hitler's Nazi regime. And IBM's excuse was that they are just obeying the law.
Roger L. Simon: Do you think that some of the difficulty may be related to their competition with each other? That one of them is afraid that if one of their opponents gets a foothold in China, the other will lose out and that's the end of the story?
Congressman Lantos: That's perfectly possible. But there are higher values than market share. Market share is not the ultimate value for which people have laid down their lives.
And here's another one, in which Congressman Hoekstra discusses the vast amount of intel that's been captured on pre-war Iraq, which has yet to be even translated, much less analyzed:
Congressman Hoekstra: There seems to be credible evidence that weapons of mass destruction moved [from Iran] to Syria, and at least that evidence needs to be followed up, to either be proven or disproven. [.....] There's somewhere between 35,000 and 55,000 boxes of documents that have never been fully exploited. There's information that is available. We just need a more intense and urgent effort to get into it.
...for the 35 to 55,000 boxes of documents, they're out of Iraq. They, from my perspective, they ought to be put on the internet. We ought to have Arabic speakers from around the world translating these documents, other people analyzing them, and unleash the power of the net on these 55,000 boxes of documents to see exactly what went on.
I was honestly surprised to see and hear these Congressmen speaking so well, so earnestly, and with so much of significance in what they said. It adds a lot to it to be able to see them. As soon as I saw these videos I realized that I'd been misled by a lifetime of listening to MSM's distortions, into thinking that all Congressmen were more or less blowhards who couldn't produce a straightforward, human, interesting thing to say.
These Congressmen are talking plain sense in a way you'd never discover via MSM's constant distortion, soundbite-based editing, and gratuitous distrust of all things pertaining to the U.S. government.
These Congressmen want to tell us what they mean -- but MSM has prevented them from doing so. MSM, instead of being the megaphone of the politicians, has become their muffler. MSM has become a gatekeeper that perpetuates its own power by severely restricting the ability of the politicians to meet and communicate with their public.
The blogosphere-based media is going to shake all that up and let these politicians be presented fairly to the public, in some ways for the first time.
(This blog is a PJM member site).
Iran came out with this brilliant strategic move today:
Iranian advisor: We'll strike Dimona in response to U.S. attack
By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
If the United States launches an attack on Iran, the Islamic republic will retaliate with a military strike on Israel's main nuclear facility.
Dr. Abasi, an advisor to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, said Tehran would respond to an American attack with strikes on the Dimona nuclear reactor and other strategic Israeli sites such as the port city of Haifa and the Zakhariya area.
So if the U.S., in all likelihood with assistance from Israel, destroys Iranian nuke facilities, Iran will attempt to attack Israel. On the other hand, if the U.S. and Israel do nothing, Iran will merely try to utterly destroy Israel and "wipe Israel off the map." Good threat!
Wm. F. Buckley seems way off base this week, with this nonsense:
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that "The bombing has completely demolished" what was being attempted - to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
The rather elementary mistake Buckley is making is to assume that the only reason we're in Iraq is for the benefit of the Sunnis. Whether the Sunnis split off from the rest of Iraq, or the Shiites root out the violent insurgents among them, the welfare of the Sunnis is not key to our objectives in being in Iraq, which include:
Objective 1 cited here has been accomplished; objective 2 has taken place and is continuing; and with the Iraqi elections and the famous purple thumbs, objective 3 has been well on the way to success -- and per Victor Davis Hanson, who has just returned from Iraq, it is likely to be concluded successfully as well:
Iraq may not have started out as the pivotal front in the war between democracy and fascism, but it has surely evolved into that. After visiting the country, I think we can and will win, but just as importantly, unlike in 2003-4, there does not seem to be much of anything we should be doing there that in fact we are not.
An email sent to this site by Iraqi-American Fawaz Saraf confirms that the welfare of the Sunnis is not key to the success of Iraq:
Two weeks ago, I watched with great dismay, sadness, and frankly horror as Mr. Adnan Dulaimi, of [Sunni political party] the Iraqi Accord Front, on Al-Jazeerah TV, fervently call on Arabs to save Iraqi Sunnis from annihilation, presumably on the hands the Shiite led Iraqi government. Well Mr. Dulaimi, it appears that your Arab brothers must have heeded you call. Your fiery words must have resonated with some of your Arab brothers. They decided that Iraqi Shiites, once again, must be punished. Mass murdering them while they are going about their daily life is no longer enough, so your Arab brothers went after one of their most revered worship places.
After the liberation of Iraq in 2003, Iraqi Shiites and Iraqi Kurds extended their hand to their fellow Sunni Iraqis and asked to join them in building a new Iraq. Yes, they wanted to isolate and prosecute the Baathists (Sunnis and Shiites) who tormented and murdered their communities but they never harmed fellow Iraqis simply because they were Sunnis or simply because they were Not Shiites or Not Kurds. Yet, unfortunately for Iraq, by and large, the Iraqi Sunni community (or perhaps, more precisely, their presumed leadership), could not overcome their resentment over the loss of their monopoly over the government in Iraq. Instead of taking the hands extended towards them by the their fellow Shiite and Kurdish Iraqis, to build a new and democratic Iraq, they sulked, they wanted the “occupier” out, and it almost appears as if that they want the old Iraq back. In their eyes, the murderous insurgency became legitimate resistance, and our liberators became occupiers.
Now, [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq] Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad, wants the Iraqi Shiites and Iraqi Kurds to trust Mr. Dulaimi and his Arab brothers with their future. Mr. Khalilzad is wrong. Mr. Khalilzad’s message to Mr. Dulaimi should be very simple: Accept the new Iraq or the new Iraq will move forward without you. Iraqi Shiites and Iraqi Kurds are unique communities in the Middle East. Their wellbeing, indeed their survival, depends on the continued support of the coalition forces in Iraq.
Why Buckley decided to get out of bed one day this week and absurdly declare defeat is a mystery. But he's declaring defeat on an objective that is not key to American success.
NEWSMAX SUMMARIZES RESULTS OF THE LATEST PEW SURVEY:
Conservative Republicans are significantly more likely to say they are "very happy" than are liberal Democrats, a Pew Research Center survey reveals.
..."Could it be that Republicans are so much happier now because their party controls all the levers of federal power?" the Pew report asks.
"Not likely. Since 1972, the GOP happiness edge over Democrats has ebbed and flowed in a pattern that appears unrelated to which party is in political power."
Republicans still hold an edge when household income is considered - poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats, middle-income Republicans are happier than middle-income Democrats, and rich Republicans are happier than rich Democrats.
This is keeping with views often-stated by Liberals, that they don't like the behavior of America. When Libs such as Cindy Sheehan, Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, etc. etc. etc., shrilly denounce American actions, it appears that they're not just faking that position in order to make GWB look bad -- it appears that in fact they really don't like America. This would certainly make them miserable, seeing that this is their country and they live here.
Conclusion for Libs reading this: join the team that likes America. It'll be better for the nation, and better for you as well.
And by the way, what happened in 1972? Watergate. This PEW poll appears to indicate that after Watergate the Democrats took the view that America could not be trusted -- while the Republicans took the view that it was Nixon who couldn't be trusted, and the American people, government, and economy were not only to be trusted, but made up the greatest nation in the world.
Update 6-1-06: See further thoughts in this post: Liberalism and Evolution: Liberalism Explained.
In about 3 years of blogging, this is the first subject I've seen that has elicited such divergent views within the Conservatives. People who I agree with on most things, differ on the subject.
For example, Frank Gaffney, who I can't imagine being wrong on this, opposes the deal. Michelle Malkin opposes it.
On the other hand, Instapundit supports the deal, after initial reservations. Roger L. Simon expresses views tending to support the deal. And of course, GWB supports the deal.
Last night Congressman Dana Rohrabacher spoke to the Lincoln Club in Los Angeles.
Congressman Dana Rohrabacher
I was very impressed by Congressman Rohrabacher. He seemed like a straight shooter and wasn't afraid to say exactly what he meant. Here are my notes on his views on the port deal -- some from his remarks to the group, and some from a conversation I had with him.
Before 9-11 the U.A.E. supported the Taliban. After 9-11 they had to make a choice, and they reversed course. Since then they've contributed billions to the war on terror. They forgave $8 billion in Iraqi debt. They froze Al Qaeda accounts. They permit our ships to use their ports.
All we're doing is renting dock space from them. They're just managing the dock space -- not the boats that come into the dock space.
Now that the U.A.E is helping us, do you want to slap them in the face?
These views are along the same lines as those of others supporting the deal. From Instapundit:
Yes. Well, this deal struck me funny when I first heard about it too, and in spite of Al Gore's complaints, the notion that the Bush Administration is too friendly with Arab governments isn't one that fails the straight-face test. But I'm now convinced -- especially after talking to Jim Dunnigan and Austin Bay -- that there's not really much to this story.
From Roger L. Simon:
The Japanese martial art of aikido has always fascinated me in its attempt to use the energy of the opponent to defeat him. On reflection, the choice of an United Arab Emirates company for taking over "significant operations" at six US ports may contain elements of that. The UAE folks have now officially been co-opted.
And here's quick sampling of views against the deal. From Michelle Malkin:
First, the deal will outsource port operations not just to any "foreign-based company"--but to a state-owned entity based in a known transit point for al Qaeda operatives and a key transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Second, of course, there's no such thing as a perfect defense. Should we never subject any Mideast companies or individuals to heightened scrutiny because it would offer "no security guarantees?"
...The issue is not whether day-to-day, on-the-ground conditions at the ports would change. They presumably wouldn't. The issues are whether we should grant the demonstrably unreliable UAE access to sensitive information and management plans about our key U.S ports, which are plenty insecure enough without adding new risks ...
From Frank Gaffney:
Questions abound about the security implications of this transaction -- and the rigor with which they were explored by the secret CFIUS panel and what actions, if any, were considered to mitigate its seemingly inherent dangers (assuming that is possible). Most Americans intuitively appreciate that it is not a sensible idea to compound our already challenging port insecurity problems by pretending that the UAE's past association with terror directed at this country may not be a problem in the future, as well.
So far we have people on both sides of the issue making great points. Let's go to Instapundit's podcast with Jim Dunnigan and Austin bay, looking for some sort of a tie-breaker.
Jim Dunnigan: The U.A.E. is our best ally over there. It is not like the rest of Arabia. It's only about 3 million people. Only 20% are resident; 80% are foreign workers. There's been practically zilch Al Qaeda activity in the U.A.E. and for good reason. The business of the U.A.E. is business. They want nothing to do with radicalism. Although it's a collection of 7 monarchies basically run by Dubai and Abu Dhabi, they have been very forthright in staying away from any kind of radicalism. They've shared out the oil and gas money a lot more equitably than in any other part of the Gulf, including Iran. And they have only gotten by for centuries by staying out of the fights of the big guys in the neighborhood. That's why they have always been particularly close to britain and the united states. they're the one place besides Kuwait where we can operate air bases and have military personnel basically do whatever we have to do.
Austin Bay: Well I would add that I have heard from friends of mine, reservists in the national guard and one active duty fellow as well, that in logistics primarily praise the cooperation they've got from the U.A.E., and that's the guys who are on the supply side of the house. [.....] if that's the case, and I believe it to be the case, that the U.A.E. has cooperated extensively in [...] often sensitive but very important military security operations, you have to give them credit for that.
Jim Dunnigan: The only reason the emirates are still independent was because the British protected them from the Saud family when the Sauds were running around basically conquering everything in Arabia. The other problem is, they still have an open border dispute with Saudi Arabia. [.....] their only friends, the only people who are going to keep them independent, are outside of the gulf, basically the big guys, the U.S. and Britain.
This does not appear to be dispositive yet. Sure, at the moment the U.A.E. is our friend. Per Rohrabacher, not long ago they supported the Taliban. Who knows what their position will be in five or ten years? And as an Arabic nation, aren't they easier for terrorists to infiltrate?
In terms of running the dock space rather than ship security, that could make infiltration of them by terrorists equally dangerous. They could well have numerous ways of circumventing security as a result of knowing the docks so well and being so well-known at the docks.
As to "slapping them in the face," they've gotten along fine until now without running the U.S. ports, and they can surely continue to do so. It doesn't appear reasonable to increase the risk of the U.S. suffering another 9-11 so as to avoid a feeling on the part of an ally that they're being slapped in the face. If the U.A.E. is really our friend, they should understand our concerns.
I'll keep my ears open for more information. I'd still be willing to to find out that the deal's acceptable.
"Ohio Men Accused of Plot to Kill Troops in Iraq:"
The Justice Department accused three Ohio men yesterday of plotting to kill U.S. and coalition troops in Iraq, allegedly by seeking to set up a Middle Eastern terrorism camp where insurgents would be trained and equipped.
...The men are accused of spending more than a year downloading militant videos, taking weapons training, and trying to acquire or build explosives. They could face life in prison if convicted of the most serious charge, conspiracy to kill Americans abroad. They are also charged with providing material support to terrorists.
The defendants are Mohammad Zaki Amawi, 26, a citizen of the United States and Jordan; Marwan Othman el-Hindi, 42, of Toledo, a U.S. citizen; and Wassim I. Mazloum, 24, of Toledo, a permanent legal resident who co-owns a Toledo auto dealership with his brother. In addition to the terrorism counts, Amawi is also charged with twice making verbal threats against Bush, court documents show....The indictment and prosecutors allege that the three men discussed how to build and use improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, which have emerged as the biggest threat to U.S. troops battling the insurgency in Iraq. Amawi explicitly stated that he hoped to target the U.S. military with IEDs, according to the government.
A question I've been asking on this site is, What's going on inside the mosques in the U.S.? If the mosques were centers of a sentiment to help the U.S. and all its citizens succeed together, one would expect to see pronouncements from many leaders of these mosques, saying something like, "We hope these men are innocent, but in any case we deplore the actions they are accused of. Such actions are contrary to our teachings." But instead those leaders are silent on this subject. This appears to be evidence that the leaders of those mosques support the actions of which these men are accused.
Look at the solicitude the U.N. has for the Palestinians, per United Nations representative, and Kofi Annan's representative to the Palestinian Authority, Álvaro de Soto:
"We want to avoid massive punishment of the Palestinian people," Mr. de Soto said.
Yet the U.N. has continuously condemned Israel. Why isn't the U.N. at least as concerned about the free people of Israel, as it is about the people who have elected the terrorists of Hamastan their leaders? This is hypocrisy and shows how squarely the U.N. is in the corner of the terrorists.
The U.N. has passed many resolutions against Israel, and very few, if any, against the murderous Palestinians who kill as many women and children as they can. The pretense the U.N. makes is that the Israelis have taken Palestinian land. Yet the U.N. utterly ignores the hundreds of thousands of Jews forced from homes in Arab lands. From the documentary, The Silent Exodus, by Pierre Rehov, available on the web site of Walid Shoebat:
Announcer: In 1948, nearly one million Jews lived in Arab lands. But in barely twenty years they have become forgotten fugitives. Expelled from their native lands. Forgotten by history. And the victims themselves, have hidden their fate under a cloak of silence.
First Eyewitness: And these people had to leave without having a choice to remain.
Footage: a man leading a mob, singing a song, the words of which are, "cut the throats of all the Jews."
Second Eyewitness: It was a question of survival. You couldn't stay. And I still remember the fear that we had that every moment mobs will come and invade our house and kill every Jew that they met, even children of six months, women, and old people.
The hypocrisy of the U.N. in taking the side of the terrorists is shocking.
The U.N. could do immeasurable good, and fulfill its own mission under its charter, by taking a stand against world terrorism, and saying to the Palestinian people and Arab nations, "You know what? You forced almost 1,000,000 Jews from their homes in Arab lands, so you have nothing to complain about. Stop killing civilians. It isn't to be tolerated in the world community." But the U.N. isn't likely to do that, because too many of its member states oppress their own citizens.
Last Friday I posted about the Pakistani Imam, Qureshi, who has gotten involved operationally in financing a hit against the Danish cartoonists. I noted:
Like the cartoon protests, this action by Qureshi is a test, to see what the Islamists can get away with without repercussions. As Victor Davis Hanson has discussed, the absence of such repercussions is a prelude to war. It is highly advisable for the free world to identify and impose some repercussions on Qureshi for his action in becoming operationally involved with an attempt to murder a citizen of the free world.
Some repercussions have begun. The Danish Foreign Minister has characterized Quereshi's actions as murder:
Mr Moeller also condemned the $1m bounty put on the cartoonist's head by Peshawar cleric Maulana Yousaf Qureshi and his followers on Friday.
"It's murder and murder is also forbidden by the Koran," [Danish Foreign Minister] Moeller said.
Moeller's view of the Koran is inaccurate. Moeller continued:
"Islam is also a religion of peace, mercy and forgiveness. That is why it is my opinion, but also the opinion of many Muslims, this is un-Islamic," he added.
Quereshi scoffs at this view:
Mr Qureshi last week defended his move.
"If the West can place a bounty on Osama Bin Laden and Zawahiri, we can also announce a reward for killing the man who has caused this sacrilege of the holy Prophet," he said, referring to the al-Qaeda leader and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
Quereshi doesn't seem to have any interest in anyone's views of Islam as a "religion of peace." He says Islamists can murder anyone they want as far as he's concerned.
The only answer to this logic is that he's right -- and the strongest guy is going to win.
Moeller's response is not yet enough. It is highly advisable for the free world to identify and impose additional repercussions on Qureshi for his sponsorship of murder.
