Monthly Archives: July 2007

Newsweek: if Muslims in USA will not be happy we all pay the price

I do not read Newsweek . I but thanks do DR Bulldog and his article I paid attention of this piece . Please read my note blow understanding that my notes addressed not against Muslims but against Newsweek and its interpretation of problems of Muslims in America.

“After the attacks “our responsibilities changed,” says Mohiuddin, who emigrated from India when he was 17. “It forced people to say, ‘Where do I stand? Either I walk away from the faith or I become more involved in defending the faith, which [is] under assault’.”

defending the faith, which [is] under assault?????

Wait a second, it was us who were attacked. And, correct me if I am wrong, all those who attacked us were Muslims!! I am not saying that Muslims attacked us, but I am stating the simple fact that those who attacked us were Muslims.

“The Council on American Islamic Relations, an advocacy group, counted nearly 2,500 civil-rights complaints by Muslim Americans in 2006, a dramatic increase over the previous year.

It may mean that there is more of violations but it may be mean that there are more complains ( including these which were inspired by propaganda of Newsweek)

“These are the kinds of stories that make news—women who sue for the right to wear the hijab in their driver’s license photo”

Wait a second: what kind of civil rights violations we are talking about??? The right to have a driver license without showing a face on the license ??? Why Muslim have to have more rights than me? Nobody would allow me to have a license without my face on it .

Are Muslims, according to author, better than me. More special??

“The six imams who were pulled off a US Airways flight last fall after praying openly at a Minneapolis airport gate have sued the airline and the airport commission for civil-rights violations.”

Nobody argues that Muslims have no right to pray. It does not mean however that have special right to pray anywhere, anytime with disregard of others. If I would start praying for example on sidewalk of a highway a trooper would be interested in me in the very same moment. You want to pray? Go to mosque! End of story

“I think the poll miscaptures what’s being said,” he says. “There is such a thing as legitimate resistance to oppression, and there is terrorism on both sides. It’s wrong, but there’s also the right to resist.”

 

Who said that ? Operative of Hamas ? Leader of Hezbollah? None of the above. Those are words of executive director of the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services in Detroit.

I am not going into whole Israeli -Arab question for right now but the message of Mr. director of the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services in Detroit is until Israeli issue will be not resolved ( and we all know what that means) USA cannot rely on its own Muslims. Is that a message? Give us Israel to pacify us?

“The poll numbers, in his view, don’t point to a threat of homegrown suicide bombers, but to a passionate defense of a resistance movement—the way, 30 years ago, an Irish-American teenager would have supported the IRA.”

IRA did not present the global religion which is in state of holy war with my country.

Did I miss something or we still talking about religion which is under flag of Jihad calling to kill Americans everywhere? You want a fair comparison ? <b>The fair comparison with IRA would be adequate if IRA would declare a holy war on all non Catholics and start killing them around the world for that being non Catholics, That would be case . But it is not.

“For him, the bombing of Afghanistan that followed was much more tragic and painful.”

Just one question was similarly painful to him bombing of Belgrade? When Americas were bombing Serbs protecting Muslims in Yugoslavia?? Or this particular bombing was OK?

If indeed “the Lackawanna Six were vulnerable boys seduced by a charismatic radical.”

First of all the executive director of the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services in Detroit who is saying that violence against Israel is “There is such a thing as legitimate resistance to oppression” is excellent inspiration for them as well.

Second of all: if charismatic radical is to be blamed , then why instead of condemning “charismatic radical” ( sounds like a honorable title in this context) they are running stories about alleged anti-Arab racism like an excuse for terrorism? If you so understanding to your “vulnerable boys” have some understanding to other “vulnerable boys” who may be “ frustrated” with 9/11 and with Jihad declared against t their country , anti-cartoon paranoia and beheading of infidels.

May our “vulnerable boys “ are as “vulnerable boys” as yours ?/ Did you ever had this thought??

Article ended with a statement which in this context sounds like a chilling threat :

“Losing Jamil Ahmed and Autri Sajedeen would be the worst thing in the world—not just for them, but for all of us.”

Meaning if Muslims in USA will not be happy we all pay the price

Advertisements

34 Comments

Filed under 2008 vote, 2008 voter, 9/11, Afghanistan, Al-qaida, Analysis, anti-Semitism, Arab, Arabs, Balkans, Belgrade, Council on American Islamic Relations, Hamas, IRA, Islam, Islamo fascism, Israel, Jihad, middle east, Muslim American, Muslim terrorism, Muslims, Newsweek, racism, religion, Yugoslavia

Are Democrats palying like Bolsheviks ?

Democrats are calling for withdraw of troops. Democrats are OK with defeat in Iraq because the military defeat of the USA in Iraq means a political defeat of Bush, and, by proxy, defeat of GOP. So, military defeat of USA in Iraq will be a political victory for Democrats. Democrats have capitalized on anti-war sentiment in 2006, and they are going to bet on anti-war mood and general apathy of public during 2008 campaign. I do not blame Democrats for using anti-war demagoguery as a main tool in 2008 elections. After all, they have nothing else what separates them from GOP. They are similarly corrupted. And similarly incapable to achieve anything in Congress. So Democrats   rely solemnly on ending the war and on winning political power by ending the war. It is exactly what Lenin and Bolsheviks did during WWI: he used the national tragedy as an instrument of grabbing the power.

 

2 Comments

Filed under Analysis, anti-war, Bolsheviks, Bush, GOP, Iraq, Lenin, Leninism, middle east, politic, Republicans, USA, war, withdrawal

Anti-war versus anti-violence

I do not trust anti-war people. I am sure that their goal is political demagoguery.

If they are real anti-violence dedicated citizens, why nobody demonstrates against mass killings by terrorists ?

Can anybody refer me to at least one recent anti-terrorist demonstration? Does anybody know about at least one action by anti-war crowd, pacifists and other “anti-violence” talkers against suicide bombing and car bombing maniacs?

I challenge those who are calling us to stop “violence in Iraq” to explain why it is OK to ignore deliberate mass killings by terrorists and in the same time use casualties and violence as a “moral” excuse for accepting a defeat by withdrawal?

If they are anti-violence, why do they not think about those Iraqis who will be killed for sure if/when we leave? According to all experts there will be more casualties if we leave! So, if they really care about Iraqis, you should be for us staying there. Anyway, it cannot be both ways: crying for Iraqi casualties from suicide bombs and in the same time by damning them to even worse casualties.

These “anti-war” people are not “anti-violence” in general, they are “anti-violence by USA.”

This leads to at least three conclusions:

  1. they are essentially anti-American because they are focusing exclusively and solely only against violence created by Americans
  2. they are encouraging terrorism and violence against Americans because by ignoring terrorist violence they are creating a moral alibi for terrorists. And it is all terrorists need.
  3. Being for withdrawal essentially means to be for escalation of violence. Being anti-war today means mean being pro-violence not against it.

 

 

So if we will withdraw for the sake of stopping violence it will be anti-American, pro-terrorist action encouraging further violence.

Prove me wrong

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis, anti-war, Iraq, middle east, politic, United States, USA, violence, war, withdrawal

anti-war or anti-victory?

There is no sense to talk today about anti-war movement. When in 2003 we were debating whether to start the war or not, then, yes, it had sense. You were either pro-war or against it (I was against), but since war has started this does not make sense anymore : everybody is  anti-war because nobody thinks about war in perpetuity. Everybody wants to end it. Does anybody love war? So, how you can be anti-something if nobody is pro-this very something?  Everybody wants to end the War in Iraq – that is not an issue. The issue is how to end it. There two possible endings. One is winning the war, and another is losing the war. So, there are no “pro-war” and “anti-war” voices anymore , there are “pro-victory” and “pro-defeat”/“anti-victory” people. And you have to choose.

4 Comments

Filed under Iraq, United States, USA, voter, war

Levinism as the new Leninism

This is how the  future of democratic party looks

There is new political doctrine around. Its called Levinism after senator Levin!

As similarly sounding and ideologically related Leninism of Russia, Levinism is looking for the defeat of its own country in a war in order to gain a political advantages for own party .

Levin Urges Republicans to Back His Troop Withdrawal Plan. He said :”If those Republicans who say they want a change in course in Iraq will vote for one, we can start bringing our troops home and force the Iraqi political leaders to take responsibility for their own country,” (source)The question is what then??? According to the doctrine of levinism it will be peace and all of the USA will live happily ever after !!!

Let us for the sake of argument presume that Iraq invasion was a mistake. Can Dems due to their anti republican paranoia not see that withdrawal , as they see, it will be even bigger mistake? Granted, war is not going well. So what ? The normal thinking would be how to change the situation and to win. But they even do not want to think about winning. Why? Because winning in Iraq will make republicans stronger.

It is surreal to me but the fact: Pelosi cannot meet Petraeus but she found time to visit Bashar Al-ASSAD!

This is the real face of democratic party today . Party which has same demands as our enemy. In fact all those demands by Democrats to “ stop the war” are identical to demands of Taliban , Al-qaida, Iran and others.

 

The problem is that with no leadership from white house (and Bush provides none) they got a huge opening to exercise virtually unchallenged demagoguery . Liberal press is spinning everything in vacuum left by Bush’s inability to articulate a position of the USA in this global war.

We are facing the new Revolutionary Defeatism coming form the left

Levin said :

 

“It would require the President to begin reducing U.S. forces in Iraq within 120 days”

I bet al-quaida and Iran second this motion . Any doubts??

    • “It would limit the mission of our remaining troops to protecting our service-members and diplomats; training Iraqi security forces; and conducting operations against al-Qaeda; with the transition to those missions to be completed by next April”

Limit mission of troops by self protection? How about to limit mission of police on the dangerous neighborhoods by self-protection? Conducting operations against al-Qaeda? Like what ? How? What are priorities? Self-protection of troops or conducting operations?

    • “It would require a comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic effort to help create and sustain stability in the region.”

This is hilarious! Any examples of “comprehensive diplomatic, political and economic effort to help create and sustain stability in the region”? Oslo? Oil for food program? Levin sounds sometimes like Lenin, sometimes like Chamberlain. Very odd combination.

Situation is that: We are fighting a new type of war. War without rules with enemy with no face. It is difficult to figure out how to fight this war and therefore we are loosing precious lives of our troops. Leadership is bad or rather there is no leadership at all.

Solution how democrats see it: run away .They suggest us to forget everything and pretend it never happened. Let us pretend that USA was not attacked on 9/11and let us hope that the world will love us again after we retreat. Sounds silly? May be if you would remember that defeat in Iraq is inevitably a political defeat of Bush and by proxy defeat of GOP it is not that silly for Democrats . They see their gains on anti war sentiment in 2006 . After all they have nothing else what separates them from GOP. They are similarly corrupted. And similarly incapable to achieve anything in congress. So they rely solemnly on ending the war and by ending the war winning political power. It is exactly what Lenin did during WW1: he used the national tragedy as an instrument of grabbing the power.

May be Bush must be impeached but not for starting the war, but for not fighting the war he started. He must be impeached for not winning the war and wasting precious lives of our troops, not by not letting them fight. But Levin definitely must be called for what he is , traitor and defeatist-demagogue .

He calls for accepting a defeat and then negotiating a victory!!!

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Al-qaida, Analysis, Bashar Al-ASSAD, Bush, GOP, impeachment, Iran, Iraq, Lenin, Leninism, Levin, middle east, Pelosi, politic, Republicans, Taliban, Uncategorized, United States, USA, war

Why we attacked Iraq? Why we attacked Nazi Germany? pacifism as aggressive wishful thinking

Why we attacked Iraq? Why we attacked Nazi Germany?

It never attacked the USA. Japan did , not Germany ! Why after Perl Harbor we invaded … Normandy??? Following the logic of today’s antiwar people we had to go after Japan , even not after Japan but after admiral Yamamoto ,personally . We supposed to find him and sue him.

Should war be a last resort? Why? To save lies? Does really refusal to go to war saving lives? If Hitler would be attacked in 1938 it would be an aggression, but it would save millions of lives . Pacifism historically killed more people than militarism because pacifism is inviting violence by ignoring first signs of violence. Our main problem is not on the battlefield but at home with those who want to be safe but who want to do nothing in order to be safe .

Pacifism is not an ideology of kindness it is essentially ideology of indifference and laziness . French in 1939 believed that it is better occupation than a war . They did survive nicely WW2 . Why? Because their refusal to fight for themselves was compensated by Englishmen , Russians and Americans who rescued them paying bloody price .They, not French did a dirty job bombing and killing , why ? in part to rescue French. But guess what , nobody going to rescue the USA if it will need help. It is already more than obvious . So if even we would like to hang around as French did in WW2 it is not an option for us . Who will rescue us ? French? Russians? Nobody going to help to the USA as USA did help others during WW2

The war is in trouble, there is no doubt about that

But we are in big trouble on the battle field not because we are fighting war but because we are trying to fight POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR.

Bush has no guts to do what he should do, to let our army fight it . Instead he tried to be a diplomatic with moronic pretences for war (WMD) and with stupid talk about spread of democracy as our goal. Our goal is to be safe and preventive actions against states like Iraq were needed. It is like to tell police you cannot stop violence on the street with violence, you have to treat criminals like people ( and they are people) and try to persuade them to change their behavior, to win hearts and minds of criminals. Our main problem is mind set of people in the USA who are anti-war because they want everything to be nice and everybody to be nice and they are very upset when it is not happening. I would call that aggressive wishful thinking

6 Comments

Filed under Bush, France, Germany, Iraq, Japan, Nazi, Nazi Germany, Pacifism, Perl Harbor, Russia, United States, USA, war, WW2

“inconvenient truth” versus “convenient untruth”: the myth about the ” scientific consensus” on global warming.

The global warming movement became a cult with its ideologically driven disregard for real science and focused only on Gore-style convenient untruths

This is understandable because the main apocalyptic idea of global warming cult is that global warming is our apocalyptic punishment for not electing Gore in 2000 and our only redemption is if we will elect him again, otherwise we all will perish because of global warming. If it is not a politic of fear ,then what is it?

Since I posted my note on Global warming cult event, I got a few comments on other blogs that global warming is a scientific concept and that my not accepting the postulates of global warming theory means I am ignoring the science.

Nothing can be a bigger lie or ,misunderstanding than that. The scientific ignorance of global warming cult followers is is a political blessing for cult leaders.

Below is the list of recommended reading and recommended movie to all who are going to enjoy themselves on voodoo style celebration dedicated to the global warming cult:

Could you please educate yourself before enjoying the “anti global warming show”, singing dancing, smoking and drinking????

This move is a must see for all who are opening their mouths about the global warming. You will never see it on PBS

I bet none of those who are going to celebrate own political and scientific ignorance with a mega concert dedicated to Gore and Global warming saw this movie, because it is not Moore.

suggested reading :

1. global warming commentary in London Sunday Telegraph

2. Lubos Motl assistant professor, Cambridge, USA called global warming theory an hysteria. he wrote that ” This hysteria clearly doesn’t depend on science in any substantial way. If you look at these 16,800 articles, most of them are nothing else than pure crap. They offer ever crazier catastrophic predictions and ever more insane ideas how to fight with the alleged “problem” to ever less educated and ever more manipulable readers who are exerting ever more irrational pressure on the politicians. ”

3. according to Richard Lindzen of MIT said on the record all this global warming hysteria:

“Well, I think my read on it is that there is a certain climate of fear, to quote Mike Creighton. You know, for instance, Nye was talking about fresh water perhaps shutting down the Gulf Stream. But that isn’t what physical oceanographers think.

First of all, you know, we’ve measured the heat transport from the tropics to high latitudes. It’s almost all in the atmosphere. The Gulf Stream is mostly driven by wind. To shut it down, you’d have to stop the rotation of the Earth or shut off the wind.

And there’s a lot of confusion in this and, you know, at the heart of it, we’re talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios — of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.

I think it’s mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.”

4. Thanks to Professor R.M. Carter Hon. FRSNZ (Marine Geophysical Laboratory (Node C) Sporing Road South, James Cook University Townsville, Qld. 4811, AUSTRALIA ) who listed LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS nobody can tell now that scientific communality did not warn you about scientific flaws of all global warming “theory”

in summary, as Alex Beam, The Globe Columnist on Boston.com put it there is a myth about the “scientific consensus” on global warming : ” Gore inveighed, more than once. Again, the same message: If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them. They are simply untrue.

I ask you: Are these convincing arguments? And directed at journalists, who are natural questioners and skeptics, of all people? What happens when you are told not to eat the apple, not to read that book, not to date that girl? Your interest is piqued, of course. What am I not supposed to know?

Here’s the kind of information the “scientific consensus” types don’t want you to read. MIT’s Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the “shrill alarmism” of Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming — but they also might not.”

But cult members are not listening to those who go against the cult. Cult members are irrationally ( like in any cult ) are following direction of cult leader. They are ignoring everything what is not suited to their mythology . Do not break the party do not give them other science than what they like . After all they will drink, dance, smoke and sing for the sake of some global cause in any way

11 Comments

Filed under Al Gore, Global warming, Richard Lindzen, voter