Saturday, September 20, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
As you may recall I have stated on numerous occasions that the American people are easily distracted (most of it directed and controlled by our elected officials). Well here we go again...
Shall I say it one more time, "Wake up America !"
No, no, no, no! Wake the hell up America ! (You too RC) - Norman E. Hooben
ps RC: More scary news can be found here http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav090808.shtml and this from the President of Russia: September 19, 2008, The Grand Kremlin Palace, Moscow
“The second point I want to make is also something I have spoken about already. Issues are constantly broached now that finally Russia will show its true face, the authorities have thrown aside their masks and Russia will revert to its typical authoritarian regime leaning towards dictatorship, the hawks have won, and no further proof is needed. We realise what motivates this talk. In effect, we are being pushed towards a development road based not on full, normal, and civilised cooperation with other countries but on autonomous development behind high walls, behind an iron curtain. I want to make it clear that this is not our road. We have no interest in returning to the past”.
Speech at Meeting with Representatives of Public Organisations ...and here http://www.newkerala.com/topstory-fullnews-23696.html (Partial quote:"Yesterday's visit by the Russian delegation coincided with a six-hour patrol flight by Russian strategic bombers along the South American coast .The two Tu-160 Blackjack bombers arrived in Venezuela last week and are due to return to Russia tomorrow.The controversial flights, close to US borders, have been criticized by the Bush administration with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accusing Russia of playing a ''dangerous game.'' Two Russian Tu-160 Blackjack strategic bombers have landed at an airfield near Caracas, to prepare for their long flight home, Russian Air Force spokesman Lt Col Vladimir Drik told reporters in Moscow today.Chavez is due to hold talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao and other leaders during a two-day visit to Beijing on September 23-25."
The following cross posted from http://smartgirlpolitics.blogspot.com/2008/09/while-our-heads-are-buried-in.html
On September 8, Russia announced that it will send a naval squadron and long-range patrol planes this year to Venezuela for a joint military exercise in the Caribbean. On September 10, two Russian strategic bombers landed in Venezuela. Both countries say that they were holding joint military exercises over neutral water before the planes return to Russia. This is a direct response to America's defense of Georgia. The US currently has ships off the coast of Georgia delivering aide supplies.
This week Russia took it's aggression a step further agreeing to an arms deal with both Iran and Venezuela. Russia is sending anti-aircraft systems to Iran despite objections from the United States. Russia is offering to send it's S-300 surface-to-air missile system to protect Iran from a possible attack on it's nuclear facilities by either the U.S. or Israel.
Russia also disclosed that Hugo Chavez and crew have requested anti-aircraft systems, armored personnel carriers, and a new fighter jet that will be in production in the next few years. Russia has increased it's own military spending this year by 20-25% above it's 2007 military expenditures. We have had our eye on Iraq and Afghanistan for so long that we are missing an even bigger threat creeping into our own backyard.
I have watched Senator Obama's response to the financial crisis in the past few days. He didn't take a stance on whether we should be bailing out these institutions until the Bush administration did it for him. He says he has his own plan on the issue, but won't share it until he reviews Henry Paulson's plan. How long would it take him to make a decision on our national security?
Also in the news today, was the announcement that Governor Palin had been uninvited to a rally in support of Israel. Senator Clinton was originally schedule to attend, but withdrew from the event after Palin was invited. After Clinton withdrew, Obama supporters, if not the campaign itself, pressured the Jewish groups holding the event to uninvite Palin.
If the Democrats and Senator Obama cannot reach across the aisle on something both sides agree with, how will they reach across the aisle to deal with bigger conflicts? We need someone who will put politics to the side and deal with these growing threats head on.
We must get our heads out of the ground and start watching all of the threats against us. It doesn't help that Russia and China just bought up half of our country in the past few weeks while we were worried about the almighty buck.
ps RC: It's time you gave up the MSM...you are either for them or against them, there is no in between.
The following cross posted from http://radarsite.blogspot.com/2008/09/i-accuse.html
Friday, September 19, 2008
"Since they dared, I too will dare. The truth I will say, because I promised to say it; if justice, regularly seized, did not do it, full and whole."
We asked: Will the most damaging Obama scandal of them all be buried alive?
And from the entire mainstream media we received our unequivocal answer: Yes.
Did Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama attempt to dally in U.S. foreign and military policy during his first trip to Iraq in July? According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari in Amir Taheri’s op-ed in Monday’s New York Post, Obama used his trip to privately lobby Iraqi government officials to delay an agreement that would reduce the number of American soldiers in Iraq, while at the same time publicly calling for a unilateral withdrawal.
This could be, should be, the biggest story of the campaign.
This more than any other scandal, or rumor of scandal should be the end of Barack Hussein Obama. However -- and this is a huge 'However' -- will the media give it the attention it so obviously deserves? Or will they bury it under a mass of propaganda and lies? Or, worse still, will they just try to ignore it? This is going to be a test of wills. The will of the American people versus the will of the media elite and the Internationalist, anti-Americanist Obama crowd.
This should be, must be the most important story in this election. If we are to stand a chance of keeping our great country free and American, we simply cannot allow this monumental scandal to be swept under the rug.
I accuse...the major television networks of either gross dereliction of duty, or willful obfuscation in the suppression of this outrageous scandal.
I accuse...the major print media of either gross dereliction of duty, or willful obfuscation in the suppression of this outrageous scandal.
I accuse...the Obama Campaign of willful obfuscation in the suppression of this outrageous scandal.
I accuse...the Democratic Party of willful obfuscation in the suppression of this outrageous scandal.
I accuse...the United States Congress of either gross dereliction of duty, or willful obfuscation in the suppression of this outrageous scandal.
Is this how it will happen? Is this how we will lose our country? Is this all it takes? Can we as a people be this easily manipulated ? Are we actually powerless to fight back? Are we going to just sit back and allow others to dictate what news stories will be covered and what news stories will be suppressed? Are we going to allow this cynical and heartless attempt to manipulate our brave military for the personal political gain of one ruthless politician to pass into oblivion without even a Congressional Inquiry? Has it really come to this? Because, if it has, if we as a people, as a country, can do nothing but meekly submit to the omnipotent will of one potential tyrant, then our great democratic experiment is finished, and we will justly deserve our awful fate. - rg
Update: For Amir Tehari's response at National Review
RC here's more junk, knowledgeable people can move on.
My firsthand lesson.
By Amir Taheri
On Monday, in an opinion piece published in the New York Post, I suggested that Senator Barack Obama had urged Iraqi leaders to postpone making an agreement with the United States until there was a new administration in Washington.
I said this because Obama himself had said it.
In an interview broadcast by NBC on June 16, 2008, Obama said that he had told Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari that “the Congress should be involved in any negotiations regarding the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq” and “suggested it may be better to wait until the next administration to negotiate such an agreement.”
I said it because Iraqi foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari said it.
In an interview published by the pan-Arab daily Asharq Alawast on September 11, 2008, Zebari raised the issue at length. This is part of what he said: “Obama asked me why, in view of a change of administration, we were hurrying the signing of this special agreement, and why we did not wait until the coming of a new administration next year to agree on some issues and matters.”
I said it because my Iraqi sources, who asked not to be identified because they do not wish to pick a quarrel with someone who could be the President of the United States next year, said it.
A day after my op-ed was published, Obama’s campaign issued a statement, in effect confirming what I had said.
It said, in part, “Senator Obama has consistently said that any security arrangements that outlast this administration should have the backing of the US Congress — especially given the fact that the Iraqi parliament will have the opportunity to vote on it.”
On Wednesday, the senator issued another statement — also in response to my op-ed — denying that he had ever opposed “a redeployment and responsible drawdown” of U.S. forces in Iraq. But I never said he did. I also never said that he opposed motherhood and apple pie; In any case, no one would oppose “redeployment and responsible drawdown,” something that is happening all the time. Redeployment means moving some units from one location to another. Drawdown means reducing the size of the expeditionary force in accordance with the task at hand. Right now troops are being redeployed from Anbar province to Salahuddin. There is also drawdown: The number of U.S. troops has been drawn down to 136,000, the lowest since a peak of 170,000 in 2003.
What Obama hopes his more radical followers will not notice is that he is no longer speaking of “withdrawal.”
He also hopes to hide the fact that by telling the Iraqi leaders that a putative Obama administration might scrap agreements reached with the Bush team, he might have delayed the start of a process that should lead to a withdrawal of U.S. forces within a mutually agreed timeframe. The later you start the negotiating process, the later you get an agreement. And the later you have an agreement, the later you can withdraw your troops based on the agreed necessary security arrangements to ensure their safe departure.
By trying to second-guess the present administration in its negotiations with Iraq, Obama ignored a golden rule of American politics. I first learned about that rule from Senator Edward Kennedy more than 30 years ago. During a visit to Tehran, Kennedy received a few Iranian reporters for a poolside chat. The big question at the time was negotiations between Washington and Tehran about massive arms contracts. When we asked Kennedy what he thought of those negotiations, his answer was simple: He would not comment on negotiations between his government and a foreign power, especially when abroad. That, he said, was one of the golden rules of American politics.
A few years later, I spent a day with Ronald Reagan during his visit to Iran. I asked what he thought of the strategic arms limitation talks between the U.S. and the USSR. He echoed Kennedy’s golden rule: He would not comment on his government’s negotiations with a foreign power, especially when abroad.
A couple of years ago, I ran into that golden rule again. At a meeting with Senator Hillary Clinton in Washington, I asked what she thought of the Bush administration’s negotiations with the Iraqis concerning security cooperation. She said she would not second-guess the president and would wait for the outcome of the negotiations. In a statesmanlike manner, Senator Clinton reminded me of the golden rule—one that is common to all mature democracies where the opposition is loyal and constitutional.
Today, Senator Obama is the leader of a loyal opposition in the United States, not the chief of an insurrection or a revolutionary uprising. What we are witnessing in the U.S. is an election, not an insurrection or a coronation, even less a regime change.
Obama should not have discussed the government-to-government negotiations with the Iraqis. That he did, surprised the Iraqis no end. Raising the issue with them, especially the way he did, meant that he was telling them that he did not trust his own government. The Iraqis could not be blamed for wondering why they should trust a government that is not trusted by the leader of its own loyal opposition. (There was also no point in raising the matter, because Obama did not know the content of the negotiations.)
An opposition leader’s foreign trips are useful as fact-finding missions. This means that the opposition leader listens to the locals, asks questions, and tries to get the political feel of the place. He is not there to lecture the natives or bad-mouth his own government back home.
Obama might have attended a session of the new Iraqi parliament and congratulated the people of Iraq for defying death to go through one referendum and two general elections to build a new democracy.
He might have visited some of the good work done by over 1.2 million Americans, both military and civilian, who have heroically served in Iraq since its liberation.
He might have visited some of the wounded victims of terrorism, both U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians, to comfort them, and assure them of continued U.S. determination to fight the forces of evil.
He did none of those things during his eight-hour photo-op visit.
In the American system, the administration can conclude agreements with foreign powers on a range of issues backed by an executive order from the president. I am no expert, but the U.S. has signed scores, maybe hundreds of such agreements with many countries across the globe. To be sure, the U.S. legislature always has the power to seek the abrogation of any of these agreements. When it comes to treaties, however, they cannot come into effect without full Senate approval.
However, Iraq and the U.S. are not negotiating a treaty, and, if they were, Obama could have waited until the draft text was submitted to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by his vice-presidential running mate Joseph Biden.
In any case, every agreement and every treaty contains mechanisms for its suspension or abrogation. Therefore, even supposing Bush was negotiating an absolutely terrible agreement with the Iraqis in which he would be selling the family silver, Obama should have waited until he saw the text, and then demanded the cancellation of the accord through the constitutional channels.
One key feature of all mature powers, at least since the Congress of Vienna, is the reliability of their international commitments. Even putschists who seize power in a military coup make sure that their first pronunciamento includes this key sentence: We shall honor all of our country’s international obligations and commitments. Even regime change does not absolve states from their international obligations. The new Iraqi government, for example, has not rejected the estimated $100 billion in foreign debt left by Saddam Hussein.
Instances of a state reneging on all its obligations as a result of change are rare in history. One instance came in 1918 when Trotsky, appointed Commissar for Foreign Affairs by Lenin, announced that he had abrogated all of Tsarist Russia’s treaties with foreign nations and ordered the texts burned to heat the rooms of an empty foreign ministry.
What Obama was attempting, however, was more original. It amounted to preemptive diplomacy used against one’s own government: opposing an agreement not yet negotiated and of the content of which he knew nothing. A neophyte in matters of politics and diplomacy, the young senator is certainly not wanting for originality.
Since I do not wish to become involved in an Alphonse-and-Gaston number with Obama, I suggest that we focus our attention on the fact that the nominee is left without anything resembling a policy on Iraq. So, rather than coming out with another denial of something I never said that he had done, the esteemed senator should ponder these questions:
Does he still believe that toppling Saddam Hussein was illegal and “the biggest strategic blunder in U.S. history”? If yes, we might wonder why he is prepared to deal with the new Iraqi leaders who, by definition, have usurped Hussein’s power in Baghdad with American support.
Does he still want to withdraw from Iraq or does he want to stay, doing a bit of “drawdown” and “redeployment” every now and then? And, if he wants to stay, on what basis, for what purpose, and for how long?
Is Senator Biden’s plan to carve Iraq into three separate states still a live option or has it been thrown into the dustbin where it should have been from the start?
Would Obama now support the conclusion of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and a Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) through negotiations between the Bush administration and the Iraqi administration of Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, also a “lame duck,” as it faces elections early next year?
— Amir Taheri’s new book, The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution, is due for publication in November.
Further reading for RC http://redblueamerica.com/blog/2008-07-25/obama-criminal-obama-who-committed-a-felony-4043
A H-T to Bill Amore for the following.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
ps: RC is not the only uninformed Liberal that I know; they're all uninformed!
A H/T to Ben Powell for the following information.
US Concealing Iran’s Role in 9/11?
(IsraelNN.com) The United States government is concealing Iran's role in the 9/11 attack, says Kenneth Timmerman, world-renown investigative journalist and contributing editor of Newsmax.
Timmerman published an expose on unknown Al Qaeda head terrorist Osama Bin Laden for the Reader's Digest in 1998. Less than a decade later, in 2006, he was nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize by former Swedish deputy Prime Minister Perk Ahlmark for his expose on the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Speaking on Israel National Radio's Tovia Singer Show, Timmerman stated that the Iranian government was "deeply, directly and materially involved" in the preparation, the planning, the execution "and the aftermath of the attack in helping Al Qaeda". He said that the American public is in general unaware of this connection.
Click here to download the entire interview (right-click and choose "save target as" or "save link as")
Timmerman quoted the 9/11 Commission Report, issued on July 2004 as saying: "We now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi "muscle" operatives traveled in or out of Iran between October 2000 and Feb 2001."
There's strong evidence that Iran allowed transit of Al Qaeda members before 9/11
The “muscle” operatives were the 9/11 hijackers who overpowered airline crew members, slit their throats, and terrorized passengers so the Al Qaeda pilots could seize control of the airliners and fly them into their targets.
The commission concluded that there was “strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of Al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.”
The commission also concluded that the hijackers "were accompanied by a senior Hizbullah operative." Timmerman, in his book “Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran”, identified the operative as Imad Faize Mughniyeh, Hizbullah's second-in-command who was assassinated last February in Damascus.
Although the commission noticed that "either this was a direct material evidence of Iran's involvement in the hijackings or it was just a remarkable coincidence", says Timmerman, "they didn't come down either way... they wouldn't say which". In explanation of this resignation he said: "I can assure you they (the commission) were under tremendous, tremendous pressure from the US intelligence community not to say anything about this."
Rabbi Tovia Singer is the founder and director of Outreach Judaism, an anti-missionary organization. Rabbi Singer addresses more than 200 audiences a year. He is the author of the book and accompanying audio CD series entitled Let's Get Biblical and Singer holds a bachelor's degree in social work. He has hosted the Tovia Singer Show since 2002. Tovia's fast-paced, biting commentary on Israeli current events makes for exciting and sometimes confrontational talk radio. Your live phone calls and instant messages are a big part of the show. Tovia interviews Israeli and American politicians, newsmakers, terror victims, authors and more giving you the inside scoop on what's really going on in Israel and the Middle East. The program airs live every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday from 10:00 p.m. to 12 midnight New York time on Israel National Radio.
Why any red-blooded American would consider Obama is beyond comprehension. Obama would change our Judeo-Christian heritage for a Marxist-Muslim government dominated by Sharia law. - Norman E. Hooben
The following was cross-posted from Family Security Matters http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.1155/pub_detail.asp
September 12, 2008
Exclusive: Obama and Palin – Side by Side
How do they stack up?
Other public jobs/positions
Governor for two years; mayor for 10 years
Foreign relations experience
Governor of a state that borders two foreign nations (Canada and Russia)
Chair of Senate subcommittee on Europe but never called it into session; took a trip to the Middle East and Europe during the campaign and made a speech in Germany; took a trip to Pakistan while in college; multicultural background: living in Indonesia for four years as a child; absentee father from Kenya
Military affairs experience
Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard
Private sector experience
Sportscaster; worked in her husband’s family’s commercial fishing business
Most liberal member of the Senate in 2007, according to National Journal
History of dealing with corruption
Exposed legal violations and conflicts of interest of Alaska Republican leaders; campaigned against corrupt GOP Representative; ran against and defeated corrupt incumbent governor in GOP primary
Launched political career in home of unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers (and still refers to him as a part of “mainstream Democratic Chicago”); purchased home with help of convicted felon Tony Rezko
Lifetime member of NRA and avid hunter
Worked to pass legislation in Illinois that would prevent all law-abiding citizens from owning firearms
Opposed “Bridge to Nowhere” project; said Alaska should avoid relying on federal money for projects; campaigned against porker Don Young (R-AK) in 2008 primary
Pro-life; gave birth to fifth child knowing that he would have Down’s syndrome
Pro-choice; while Illinois state senator voted against the Born Alive Infant’s Protection Act, which required medical care to be given to live infants who survived abortions (and lied about the reason for his vote)
Believes energy independence is a matter of national security; for drilling in ANWR, which is in her state; brokered a multi-billion dollar pipeline deal with a Canadian company
Says Americans should “get tune-ups” and “check tire pressure”; says “we can’t expect the world to be okay with” our use of heating and air conditioning; believes Americans would have gotten used to a “gradual adjustment”
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Cross posted from http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/domestic?bbPostId=Cz8neME9DYOr5Cz34JXBtDpWXH9JEpmYRqOPCzEuXuUZkYhv1
Well, here is a credible source. And his short essay on the history of the Islamic jihad against the West is both succinct and profound. Even if you think you already know what you need to know about this subject, please read it anyway, and you will most certainly be rewarded. Somehow, someway we must begin to recognize the sheer enormity of the threat we face from Islam. A threat which grows more serious every day.- rg
In 1683 the armies of Islam besieged Vienna for the second time. The first occasion had been a century and a half earlier. The great Islamic Empire of the time, the Ottoman Empire under the long reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, was then at its zenith. It had extended its border on the Danube far to the west of Budapest and would reach the gates of Vienna, which stood between its armies and Western Europe. Suleiman regarded himself at that time as the ruler of the world and treated the great kings of Europe as his subjects. The actual subjugation of the rest of Europe, as far as he was concerned, was only a matter of time.
Fortunately for the world of Christianity, when the Muslim armies attempted to besiege Vienna for the second time, some 117 years after Suleiman’s death, the Ottoman Empire was already on the decline, its expansion westwards had been checked, and the bastions of European Christianity could begin to threaten the Muslim Empire rather than being threatened by it.
Yet for the Ottomans, the Christian countries of Europe remained Dar al-Harb—“the Land of War”—the term used by the Muslims for all territories not yet under Islamic rule. The term is both legal and political and is charged with religious belief and emotional fervor.
Legally speaking, it defines the relations between the lands of Islam and the lands of the infidels. Infidels—in Arabic Kuffar (singular: kafir)—are all those who are not Muslims, mainly Jews and Christians. They are regarded as, both theoretically and effectively, in a state of war with Muslims. This war does not have to be declared, since from the Muslim viewpoint, it is the only possible state of affairs between the two parties. Moreover, it is part of the divine plan. For after Allah sent Mohammed “with the guidance and the religion of truth” there was no other way but that “he may uplift it above every religion.” (Koran, surah 9 verse 33) In other words, Allah made it incumbent on the Muslims, the Community of the Faithful, to subjugate the whole world and bring it under the rule of Allah.
The fire of Jihad, Holy War, must burn in the heart of every Muslim. It is a collective and personal duty; and every Muslim leader, particularly the head of the Muslim Empire, is obliged to pursue this duty ceaselessly Legally therefore, the appellation of “The Land of War” to Europe is understandable. Every Christian coming from the Land of War—dar al harb—has the status of harbi. This is different from being a dhimmi, the status imposed on Christians and Jews tolerated to live under Islamic rule as third-class subjects. The harbi is simply an alien, an enemy of Islam, even when no acts of war are in progress between the two sides.
This legal outlook reflects the religious obligation to keep the Jihad, the Holy War, always alive. Since no one can abolish this duty that is enshrined in the words of God in the Koran, it remains an open-ended condition. Similarly the Land of War cannot change its status until it is conquered by Muslims and becomes part of the Land of Islam.
The emotional aspect of this religious obligation is an integral part of the way by which the relations between Muslims and kafirs were defined. The Koran and Islamic tradition taught the Muslims that their Community of the Faithful is “the best nation ever brought forth to men” (Koran, surah 3, verse 110) and that the truth of their religion is the only perfect truth, that they, as believers, are always on the right side, and the infidels are always wrong.
Europe, more than any other part of the world, personified the land of war. It was the natural place against which Jihad was to be waged. It was, after all, the major enemy of Islam from its inception.
But Europe proved to be a difficult enemy. It was an enemy that fought back successfully. In the Middle Ages the Crusades brought the Europeans into the heart of Islamic lands, but Islam somehow recovered from this success of the infidels, which placed the Muslims for the first time in a defensive position, and tormented them with doubts about Allah’s support.
Islam did not recover from the loss of Spain (“the Jewel in the Islamic Crown”). Once Islam conquered Spain, it became an Islamic land. Its reconquest by the infidels seemed to be a reverse of history for it negated the rule which says that once an Islamic land, always an Islamic land. To this day Spain, which the Arabs insist on calling Andalus, is regarded as lost Islamic territory, the recovery of which is a religious and political objective and duty.
The offensive of the Ottomans against Europe in the 16th century, after they had destroyed the last symbol of Roman Christianity in the east with the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, was the natural course of the Islamic Jihadi idea. However, the Ottoman Empire failed, retreated, deteriorated, and was finally destroyed in the Great War in 1918. Moreover, Christian civilization and the modern way of life of Europe were victorious in other ways. The national regime in 20th century Turkey dramatically changed the nature of the state and society by importing from Europe everything that Western civilization could offer, from script to technology and from a system of government to fashion, with the declared aim of building a modern secular Turkey and expelling Islam from the life of state and society.
Another political development that was viewed as a major setback to Islam was the establishment of the State of Israel. More than the loss in the 15th century of the Islamic land of Spain, the establishment of Israel on Islamic land is regarded as a double reverse of history because not only does it involve the loss of land but it also constitutes an unacceptable situation where Jews, who are dhimmis, rule over Muslims. This defies the divine law itself. It cannot be tolerated and must be changed.
Another setback was that Europe ceased to be the only land of the infidels. America joined this category and America has proved an even tougher opponent than Europe, both militarily and ideologically.
However, after World War II, Muslim activists detected that Europe had begun to show signs of old age, frailty and weakness and the mighty West in general was surprisingly vulnerable. Islam emerged as a strong power waiting to be engaged. This notion was summed up by the Malaysian premier Dr. Mahatir Muhammad at the opening of the Islamic summit on October 16, 2003. The 1.3 billion strong Muslims possess both natural sources of wealth and human resources and it was inconceivable that they should not be able to achieve their goals or be defeated by a few million Jews. Nonetheless the availability of resources that could be converted into weapons proved to be less effective than Mahatir and those who thought like him believed.
It should be noted again that Islam is a warring religion and a fighting civilization. The Muslims left their mark on world history first and foremost in a military capacity. They can do the same in this age, changing their strategy and tactics, but remaining on the same course. The revivalist Muslim movements—the Iranian revolutionaries, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, to mention only a few, have discovered the weak links in the West’s defense. On the one hand they have proved that terror, similar to that practiced by the Muslim assassins in the Middle Ages, can be much more devastating than the actual physical damage and bloodshed that it causes. In one act of terror they succeeded in changing the government in Spain. On the other hand, like the Soviets they soon discovered the ease with which they can exploit Europe’s democratic system, liberal ideologies, leftist intellectuals, the media and even governments, to achieve their objectives.
The Muslim Jihad for the conquest of Europe began a few decades ago and the Europeans are taking part in it as full collaborators on the side of Islam. The European Union has done away with national borders, obliterated defined national entities, weakened national feelings, ancient values and the sense of national pride and national defense. On the other hand it has created a wonderful infrastructure for the infiltration of Islam into Western Europe by millions of Muslims who maintain their Muslim identity, hold on to their Muslim values and regard the whole of Europe as their own land. Bin Laden, Qaradawi, the Ayatollahs of Iran, and many other teachers of Islam tell them that they are coming to Europe as masters and not as immigrants. These Muslims, using European laws and exploiting leftist intellectuals, the “useful fools” (to use Lenin’s immortal definition) actually behave like masters in the host countries, rather than as guests. Thousands of mosques have been established in every country, from Finland to France. The Muslim way of life is even imposed on economic institutions and the Islamic version of history and thought is creeping into all echelons of political and intellectual life, affecting the educational system at every level.
Official Europe convened the Hamburg Symposium in 1983 to acknowledge meekly the importance of the Islamic contribution to the creation of European civilization and to encourage the study of Arabic and Islamic civilization in Europe free from the (sound and scientific) “orientalist method” of research, namely in accordance with Muslim traditional methods, concurrently encouraging departure from the Judeo-Christian heritage and minimizing its contribution to Western civilization.
This attempt to drive modern Europe away from its true moral, cultural and historical sources, in which Judaism occupies a central place, also has a political aspect. This constitutes yet another success of Islam, a natural by-product of the infiltration of its version of modern history into European society and institutions. Muslim propaganda has succeeded in presenting the establishment of the State of Israel as a sin committed by the Europeans against the world of Islam. In other words, the State of Israel is nothing but an easy way by which post-war Europe has atoned for the crimes of the Nazis and their helpers at the expense of the poor Arabs.
This idea has taken root not only in the minds of the “useful fools” of the European left but has also found its way into the business and political community. Nowadays, more than ever, one can hear in these circles and in the media (covered in euphemisms) that the establishment of Israel was a “moral and political mistake.” In short, Europe would be happy to see a major Arab pogrom, to which it would quietly contribute its part, in order to rid her of the guilt of this “moral and political sin.” Much of European policy in the Middle East, and particularly the official enmity to Israel and pro-Arab nature of its policy, is directed and formed by these sentiments. And we have not mentioned the ingrained anti-Semitism which was covered up for a while, but from which Europe has never recovered.
Instead of paying attention to its steady conquest by Islam and the loss of its Western character, Europe has once again found the usual, ancient solution to all its problems—the Jews, and now also, conveniently, their state. There is a strong possibility that Europe will become Islamic in less than half a century, and it will be of its own doing.
*Moshe Sharon is professor emeritus of Islamic history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
For more on this issue see: Understanding the New Left
*and in case you missed it, this means you; every single American! For Allah sent Obama!
...and if you need another reminder watch this: (it's coming to America)