But: There are many Osamas out there. He was the perfect Muslim.
Archive for the ‘News’ Category
Posted by paulipoldie on May 2, 2011
Posted by paulipoldie on May 6, 2010
Islam-Experte bleibt wegen Gewaltandrohungen weg
Nach mehrmonatigen Vorbereitungen musste die für Donnerstag Abend, 6. Mai 2010, geplante Veranstaltung des Wiener Akademikerbundes und der deutschen „Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa“, in Zusammenarbeit mit der Gemeinschaft Orientalischer Christen, mit dem koptisch-orthodoxen Fr. Zakaria Botros kurzfristig abgesagt werden. Grund waren die zahlreichen nationalen und internationalen akuten Gewaltandrohungen gegen Fr. Zakarias von islamischer Seite.
In einer offenen Diskussion über „Vielfalt, Toleranz und Multikulti?“ wurde auch „Endlich die Wahrheit über den Islam“ angekündigt. Genau dies ist die Spezialität des, durch seinen eigenen TV-Sender und Internet-Plattformen berühmt gewordenen und zwangs-exilierten Missionars aus Ägypten, so die Veranstalter.
„Wir sind beim christenfeindlichen Terrorismus angelangt,“ sagte einer, des seit Monaten mit der Organisation befassten Teams von Sozialwissenschaftlern, Religionsphilosophen, Medienberatern und Technikern. Sowohl aus dem amerikanische Raum, wie auch aus Europa, wurden verschiedene Drohungen laut, welche Befürchtungen schlimmster Art auslösten.
Im Bewusstsein um die beispielhafte, moslemische Gesinnung des gerade noch verhinderten Massenmörders vom New Yorker Times Square, so viele Menschen wie möglich zu töten, um im erträumten Paradies einen Platz ganz nahe des Religionsgründers Mohammed zu bekommen, der seinen Anhängern befahl: „Tötet die Ungläubigen wo immer ihr sie trefft“ (Koran Sure 2,191), empfanden es die Veranstalter trotz großen Bedauerns als unverantwortlich, auch nur eine einzige Menschenseele zu riskieren.
„Wir sind nicht nur die Opfer einer immer brutaler agierenden, unsere demokratische Staatssicherheit gefährdenden Politik islamischer Machtinteressen im christlichen Europa, sondern auch einer sich ausbreitenden Furcht heimischer Politiker, offen und ehrlich über die großen Probleme vielseitiger, wirtschafts- gesellschafts- und kulturpolitischer Unvereinbarkeiten des Islam mit der gewachsenen europäischen Zivilisation zu reden,“ fand Christian Zeitz vom Wiener Akademikerbund.
Bis zum Tag vor der Veranstaltung hatten sich mehrere hundert Teilnehmer angemeldet. Im weltweiten Netz konnten bereits über 53.000 Einträge zum Thema „Father Zakaria Wien“ gegoogelt werden, was das internationale Interesse am Thema dieser Veranstaltung und dessen gesellschaftspolitisch unübersehbare Bedeutung unterstreicht.
Fr. Zakaria, der sein Leben den Moslems zwischen Mohammed und Christus gewidmet hat, leistet als anerkannter Islam-Experte seit Jahrzehnten effektive Aufklärungsarbeit über die wechselseitigen, theologischen Irrtümer. Mit seiner fachlich fundierten Überzeugungskraft, gekoppelt mit totaler Offenherzigkeit, liefert er brauchbare Antworten im interreligiösen Dialog und auf die großen Sinnfragen islamischen und christlichen Lebens.
Zusammenfassend bedauern die Veranstalter die Erkenntnis, wie unsicher und unmöglich es geworden zu sein scheint, über grundlegende komparative Fragen des Gottesbegriffes zwischen Morgen- und Abendland, im soeben angebrochenen postsäkularen Zeitalter ehrlich zu reden. Ende.
Posted by paulipoldie on February 26, 2010
by Baron Bodissey
LTC (ret.) Allen West gave one of the speeches at last Friday’s Freedom Defense Initiative event, and it was a real rouser. This was the first time I have ever heard a candidate for national office say such things — exactly the same things I would have said if I had been on the podium. He uttered the forbidden words: “We are against something that is a totalitarian theocratic political ideology, and it is called ‘Islam’.”
Voters of the 22nd District in Florida: elect this man to Congress!
|00:04.07||Thank you very much…|
|00:08.11||and Pamela thank you for that introduction and Robert, it’s great to…|
|00:12.12||be here with you all today, and I just want to tell you all one thing: if…|
|00:16.17||the truth has just become hate speech, well, you might as well lock me up,|
|00:20.20||‘cause I’m not shutting up.|
|00:28.32||One of the key conservative principles is national security.|
|00:32.34||And the fact that we are here, and we are now talking about this issue, this is…|
|00:36.38||one of the things the American people look to conservative principled….|
|00:40.41||leadership to do, which is to protect them. And if we do not stand up…|
|00:44.46||in this great convention that we’re having here right now, and profess who we are,|
|00:48.49||and that we understand this situation, this issue, the American people will turn away…|
|00:52.51||from us. You have to hold the conservative leaders that you see here…|
|00:56.57||this weekend accountable, to do the things to protect you.|
|01:00.59||Now, let me explain some things. ‘Cause I been sitting back here listening.|
|01:04.60||I’m sick and tired of people saying “war on terror”. There is no such thing as war…|
|01:08.64||on terror. In World War Two, how smart would it have been,|
|01:12.67||if the United States of America said they were at war with the Blitzkrieg.|
|01:16.69||Or if they were at war with the Kamikaze. A nation does not go…|
|01:20.72||to war against a tactic. Just the same way,|
|01:24.74||when you sit around and you see our strategic-level leaders here…|
|01:28.79||in Washington D.C. go on all these Sunday pundit shows and they talk about…|
|01:32.84||how great it is that we are directing ‘drone attacks’,|
|01:36.85||you think back to what happened in Vietnam,|
|01:40.89||when LBJ was doing bombing approval right here out of the…|
|01:44.92||White House, that’s not what the strategic level thinker…|
|01:48.93||is supposed to be doing. That’s not strategic perspective.|
|01:52.97||A nation goes to war against an ideology,|
|01:56.98||and that’s what we’ve been talking about here today.|
|02:01.02||We’ve been talking about the fact that we are against something that is a totalitarian…|
|02:05.05||theocratic political ideology and it…|
|02:09.06||is called ‘Islam’.|
|02:21.16||This is not about Muslims.|
|02:25.18||It is just the same as in Nazi Germany: not every…|
|02:29.20||German was a Nazi. Just the same as when I was in…|
|02:33.24||Iraq in 2003, not every Iraqi was a member of the…|
|02:37.26||Baath party. What I am talking about here|
|02:41.30||is an ideology that has existed since 622 AD,|
|02:45.33||since the 7th century, it got started with a thing called the ‘|
|02:49.34||Naklah Raid, which was after Mohammed made his Hijra leaving Mecca going out to…|
|02:53.38||Medina. It has been violent ever since. It has confronted Western Civilization,|
|02:57.41||and this is just another chapter in the long book…|
|03:01.42||that they are writing to conquer each and every one of us.|
|03:05.46||And now is our time, just as our forefathers had to stand, and turn these enemies back,|
|03:09.47||we must now stand and turn these enemies back, and today.|
|03:21.56||You have heard [retired military intelligence officer] Stephen [Coughlin] talk about ‘abrogation’. You need to understand things such…|
|03:25.66||as the treaty of Hudaibiyah, where they will sit and they will deceive you…|
|03:29.68||by holding off so that they can become strong, which is how back in about 627,|
|03:33.72||628, that is how Mohammed was able to then go in,|
|03:37.75||and overtake Mecca. The exact same thing that is happening right now.|
|03:41.75||You need to understand the traditions of Mohammed. When he wrote letters…|
|03:45.80||to Chosroes, the Persian emperor, when he wrote letters to Heraclius, the…|
|03:49.82||Byzantine emperor, that said, “You have three choices. You convert,|
|03:53.88||you subjugate, or we’re coming to get you. Well guess what?|
|03:57.92||Back in about 1992, Osama Bin Laden did the exact same thing.|
|04:01.94||He sent a letter to the United States of America. Later on in about…|
|04:05.98||2005 or 2006, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did the exact same thing.|
|04:10.01||He sent a letter to the American people and to President Bush. We are already…|
|04:14.02||in a declared war, and if we do not have the type of leadership that can understand that,|
|04:18.05||that can study this enemy, this adversary,|
|04:22.07||we are on the road to perdition right now in this great country.|
|04:26.12||We need to understand this. Everyone here has stood and told you…|
|04:30.14||sharia law is incompatible with who we are|
|04:34.16||in Western Civilization, and definitely who we are and stand for…|
|04:38.19||in the United States of America. It is not about freedom. It is not…|
|04:42.21||about liberty. It is not about protecting human rights or women’s rights….|
|04:46.26||It is about what Islam says: the word means ‘submission’.|
|04:50.29||And I don’t know about you all here. I’m not living…|
|04:54.30||as a dhimmi. I’m not living subject to any…|
|04:58.34||other type of ideology except for that which is written in…|
|05:02.35||the Constitution of these great United States of America.|
|05:22.57||We must understand…|
|05:26.58||that we have to regain the initiative in this fight.|
|05:30.63||Just the same as our young soldiers now are operating under these restrictive rules of…|
|05:34.66||engagement which prevent them from having the initiative against the enemy.|
|05:38.73||You just saw in Marjan in Helmand province, where the Taliban will come out and…|
|05:42.74||drop their weapons and walk out and taunt our soldiers and go away to fight again.|
|05:46.76||That would not happen under my command if I was commander and chief.|
|05:58.88||And just the same: we need to develop the right type of…|
|06:02.92||strategic level rules of engagement. Because our…|
|06:06.92||constitutional rights should not be afforded to illegal…|
|06:10.96||enemy combatants as stated in the Geneva convention.|
|06:19.00||We can no longer allow this enemy to…|
|06:23.05||come in and use this new tactic of ‘lawfare’ which most of the people…|
|06:27.07||standing here know, that is how they continue to try to get you…|
|06:31.12||to shut up. We should be going after them,…|
|06:35.14||not allowing them to use our legal system, and I’ll be damned,…|
|06:39.16||any lawyer that will stand up and prosecute a United States citizen to take…|
|06:43.17||away their freedom of speech, they are not my brother they are not my sister.|
|06:47.20||They need to pack up and leave this country.|
|06:59.33||If we continue on…|
|07:03.39||in this politically correct multiculturalism atmosphere…|
|07:07.43||that’s on steroids, we are…|
|07:11.44||paralyzing ourselves from taking the right and proper action.|
|07:15.47||We see what has happened in Sudan. We see what is happening in Austria.|
|07:19.53||We know about Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. We know what’s happening in Denmark.|
|07:23.57||Trend analysis is what we called it…|
|07:27.59||There’s nothing wrong with it. And for you all here…|
|07:31.61||in the media, stop calling it profiling. It’s about…|
|07:35.65||identifying the enemy, and what they are doing, and going after them.|
|07:39.67||When I was a commander in Iraq, I knew that young men on dirt bikes were coming out of the…|
|07:43.75||groves to lay out IEDs and attack us. I was not going to chase…|
|07:47.78||women in burkhas in the middle of the night, in their houses.|
|07:51.80||It’s trend analysis. Stop being politically correct, stop allowing them to come into our…|
|07:59.86||If you do not understand…|
|08:03.94||that the reality of your enemy…|
|08:07.98||must become your own, we can continue in this state…|
|08:12.01||of denial. When I read the Fort Hood attack based upon what Major…|
|08:16.07||Hasan did, I was absolutely appalled. When I stood there and watched…|
|08:20.10||the Sunday show, when General Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army said,|
|08:24.11||he was more so concerned about diversity being a casualty than the loss…|
|08:28.16||of the thirteen soldiers at Fort Hood Texas, we have problems…|
|08:32.19||in the leadership of these United States of America.|
|08:40.28||We must accept their reality.|
|08:44.30||And the way ahead is so simple. You’ve got to…|
|08:48.36||get the right type of leadership in this country. Because that’s what it’s about.|
|08:52.38||We’ve got to get the right type of leadership across Europe|
|08:56.39||We’ve got to get the right type of leadership that will not be afraid.|
|09:00.46||Members of the media: stop attacking Jews and Christians.|
|09:04.46||Stop being afraid of this enemy. Show the same type of…|
|09:08.52||vehemence that you want against your fellow Americans…|
|09:12.55||against them. Because let me tell you something: thirty to forty years from now,|
|09:16.56||if they’re successful, and they have control of this country…|
|09:20.60||there will be no free media. There will be no free speech. There will be no freedom of…|
|09:24.63||expression. And guess what? You, will have been complicit in this,…|
|09:28.70||because you are too much of a coward to take a stand.|
|09:44.84||now is the time for principled leadership in the United States of America,|
|09:48.85||Because, as the quote that Elisabeth has taken…|
|09:52.88||from me: when tolerance becomes a one way street,|
|09:56.91||it leads to cultural suicide.|
|10:00.95||When I am able to fly to Saudi Arabia with my Bible…|
|10:04.97||in hand, with my cross around my neck, to go to Mecca,|
|10:08.98||and go to a church, then guess what? We’re good to go.|
|10:13.03||But until that point,|
|10:17.05||we have to understand,|
|10:21.11||the objectives and the goals that Islam has set…|
|10:25.14||forward. We have to be proud of who we are.|
|10:29.15||We cannot have leadership that will go stand before the Turkish|
|10:33.22||general assembly, and say that America is not a Judeo-Christian nation.|
|10:37.24||We cannot have a leadership, that goes and stands, in front of…|
|10:41.26||a university in Cairo, Egypt, and apologizes for the United States…|
|10:45.30||of America. That is not about what American pride is.|
|10:49.31||We cannot have leadership that is…|
|10:53.36||asked, ‘How do you define victory?’, and they cannot.|
|10:57.39||Well let me tell you: this is how I define victory,…|
|11:01.40||just the same as Ronald Reagan did when he was asked about communism,|
|11:05.44||“We win, they lose”. God bless you all…|
Posted by paulipoldie on January 13, 2010
By Henrik R Clausen 13 January 2010
The Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, also known as EuroMed, has been pretty much under the radar for 15 years. When it caused some public discussion in 2008, it was renamed ”Union for the Mediterranean”, and quietly permitted to proceed. Not much was heard of it, but now
EuropeNews has the scoop: It is being established now – and we have a window of merely 14 days to protest it.
The news is tucked away in this discreet ANSAmed news item:
Ahmad Khalaf Masadeh, Jordanian ambassador to Brussels, has today been appointed as secretary general of the Mediterranean Union.
It is remarkable that an ambassador of a non-democratic nation has been appointed to head the Union. Now, it should not be assumed that the European Union, run by a non-elected Commission and having a non-elected President, should care too much about such details.
But since the 16 non-EU states of the Mediterranean Union does include decent democracies (Israel, Croatia) as well as more dubious ones (Albania, Bosnia, Turkey), it would seem appropriate to appoint a representative from a democratic country to head the Union.
There are more remarkable passages in that piece. Quote:
A statement will be circulated tomorrow amongst the 42 Foreign ministers of the countries which make up the Mediterranean Union, with any comments to be made within 15 days. With the exception of surprise opposition, today’s appointment will be definitively approved by a process of tacit consent.
There we have it – full stealth mode. Unless someone protests loudly, this will proceed. Now, in order to field a reasonable protest, one needs to know what goes on, and politicians in democracies need to know if they have public support for the protest or not. Since neither of these are the case, no protests can be expected, and the project will continue.
What is the project about?
From the EuroMed web site:
- Political and Security Dialogue, aimed at creating a common area of peace and stability underpinned by sustainable development, rule of law, democracy and human rights.
- Economic and Financial Partnership, including the gradual establishment of a free-trade area aimed at promoting shared economic opportunity through sustainable and balanced socio-economic development.
- Social, Cultural and Human Partnership, aimed at promoting understanding and intercultural dialogue between cultures, religions and people, and facilitating exchanges between civil society and ordinary citizens, particularly women and young people.
Sounds sweet, doesn’t it? But it also suffers from the kind of abstraction where you can tuck in just about anything. To figure out what goes on and what the perspectives are, one should perhaps consult the EuroMed University in Slovenia.
Or solicit the opinion of the Alliance of Civilizations.
The AoC home page currently features a photo of the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, recent recepient of the ”King Faisal International Prize”, explicitly given for ”his services to Islam”. Report at JihadWatch.
The participation of persons and governments like these, who also openly maintain warm relations to the brutal Iranian regime, is in itself sufficient reason to suspend EuroMed indefinitely.
All of this, apart from the King Faisal International Prize, is paid for by our tax money, yet far removed from public scrutiny and debate. We should not accept our leaders to engage in a project like this, developed behind closed doors, with lofty and unclear perspectives. A project left naïvely open to exploitation by non-democratic member states and religious fanatics alike.
What is the difference between EuroMed and the Union for the Mediterranean?
While maintaining the acquis of its predecessor, the Barcelona Process http://ec.europa.eu/external_relations/euromed/barcelona_en.htm offers more balanced governance, increased visibility to its citizens and a commitment to tangible, regional and trans-national projects.
In other words, nothing major.
The change of name hostensibly serves to increase visibility, but in reality this is mere window dressing to confuse the press and the public.
There was an implicit assumption that when French President Sarkozy launched his Union for the Mediterranean, Sarkozy’s proposal for Mediterranean bloc makes waves it was a different initiative, that the concerns about the original EuroMed had been taken seriously, causing it to be replaced by a less ambitious and less dangerous ‘Club Med’. This is documentably false.
The confusion, however, worked quite well. It became unclear to journalists and citizens alike what was the nature of Sarkozy’s project, what kind of progress would take place, and if this made sense at all. The last significant press reports assume that the project was now faltering Sarkozy’s Union of the Mediterranean falters, thus nothing to worry about. In reality his “Club Med” has served to cover the fact that EuroMed proceeds apace.
Thus, we have been subject to several acts of deception. This is not in itself illegal or punishable under the law, it is merely disrespect for the spirit of democracy. We should not be all too surprised, for Sarkozy performed a similar sleight of hand for the Constitutional Treaty, now renamed the Lisbon Treaty, after it had been rejected in French and Dutch referendums.
Sarkozy had originally promised the electorate that the Constitutional Treaty would be replaced by a ‘Mini-treaty’, a concept that lead journalists and citizens alike to assume that the concerns that led to the rejection by the people had been addresssed.
The new Treaty, however, turned out to be wordier than the rejected one. Sarkozy kept his promise with a simple trick: Setting the revised version with a smaller type, that it could be printed on fewer pages. Such behaviour from our most trusted politicians leave us lost for words, damaging democracy itself by means of contempt from our very own leaders. More on that (a very interesting subject unto itself) in From Constitution to Lisbon.
This practice of deception alone is sufficient reason for the citizens of Europe to reject EuroMed, now renamed Union for the Mediterranean. It is a project not subjected to public scrutiny, conceived before it was understood that Islamism is a threat to the free world, and based on blind and naïve assumptions on the goodwill of all involved parties. This is unworkable and dangerous in the current political situation.
Much more needs to be researched and discussed about EuroMed, its implications for Europe, for immigration and the development of Euroabia. The latter was for a long time considered almost a conspiracist theory created by historian Bat Ye’or. Yet, if one connects the dots and follows the news, its implementation is well underway, formally as well as informally. She was right from the very first day.
Right now we need to pull the brake on establishing the EuroMed institutions. You can help to do that, by writing to the newspapers or even going directly to the Foreign minister of your contry, requesting an immediate halt to this stealth project. The time is now. We have 14 days.
UPDATE – Bat Ye’or comments:
I commend you for warning Europeans about the political decisions taken by their leaders without consulting their public opinions on matters that would change totally their future, and not for their advantage. Europeans should request to be consulted on Foreign policy and immigration issues.They should not allow a small group of people to conduct their affairs behind their back, as it has been for the whole immigration and Mediterranean policy since 1973 as European, Arab, and American sources confirm it. The media should be open to debates and should not be controlled by networks subjected to the Organization of the Islamic Conference fatwas. This is going on now. More and more international policy is conducted through international networks linked to the UN bodies weakening democratic institutions.
Posted by paulipoldie on January 3, 2010
Der Angeklagte Geert Wilders braucht unsere Hilfe! Der Prozess von Geert Wilders steht kurz bevor (Termin: 20. Januar 2010). Dies ist die letzte Möglichkeit, ihn durch eine SITA-Kampagne zu unterstützen. (SITA = Französisch: „Sensibilisation à l’Islam Tous Azimuts“; Deutsch: „Stoppt die Islamisierung und terroristische Aktionen“).
Das internationale Establishment, unterwandert von einer Vielzahl islamischer Organisationen einschließlich der OIC (Organisation of Islamic Conference), wird ohne Zweifel einen beträchtlichen Druck auf das holländische Establishment ausüben, um sicherzustellen, dass Geert Wilders aufgrund der Beschuldigungen verurteilt wird, die böswillig gegen ihn erhoben wurden. Es ist wahrscheinlich, dass seine Partei die nächste Wahl gewinnt; dann könnte Wilders 2011 der nächste holländische Premierminister werden. Das weltweite Establishment möchte Wilders fraglos nicht in einer derart einflussreichen Stellung sehen, selbst wenn es dem Willen des niederländischen Volkes entspricht.
Ende Januar 2009 wurde eine internationale SITA-Kampagne zur Unterstützung von Geert Wilders ins Leben gerufen. Sie erzielte über 6000 Internet-Aufrufe und führte zu Hunderten von Briefen an holländische Entscheidungsträger, um sie zu informieren und aufzurütteln. Das niederländische Justizministerium besuchte unsere SITA-Webseiten.
Diese SITA-Kampagne wird nun erneut ins Leben gerufen, um die offensichtlich politisch motivierte Verfolgung von Geert Wilders anzuprangern. Wenn Geert Wilders „fällt“, dann ist Schluss mit der Meinungsfreiheit in Europa.
Sie haben drei Möglichkeiten, mitzumachen:
1.) Auf dem Postweg – zwei Texte auf Französisch oder Englisch stehen zur Wahl; der erste zieht eine Parallele zwischen Wilders und Winston Churchill und der zweite eine solche zwischen Wilders und Charlie Chaplin (welchen Text Sie ausdrucken und ins Kuvert stecken müssen und an wen der Brief adressiert werden muss, ist jeweils angegeben). Eine deutschsprachige Zusammenfassung beider Texte liefert Dr. Gudrun Eussner.
2.) Indem Sie Online-Kommentare zu Artikeln über den Prozess gegen Geert Wilders mit einem Aufruf verbinden. Den Aufruf (zum Teil inhaltsgleich mit diesem Text) finden Sie am Schluss dieser Webseite in vier Sprachen (FR, ENG, SP, D).
Um Geert Wilders und unsere hart erkämpften Freiheiten zu verteidigen, bitten wir Sie, an den beiden vorgeschlagenen Kampagnen teilzunehmen und diesen Aufruf an Freunde weiterzuleiten, die Blogs und Webseiten betreiben, damit sie ihn weiterverbreiten können.
3.) Durch eine Geldzuwendung. Hier können Sie spenden.
Posted by paulipoldie on December 29, 2009
Telegraph View: Jihadist Islamism is comparable to Nazism in many respects. The British public realises this; so do the intelligence services.
Friday’s attempt to blow up a transatlantic airliner by a British-educated Islamist was foiled by the bravery of its passengers and crew. We cannot assume that we will be lucky next time. And the indications are that there will be a next time. According to police sources, 25 British-born Muslims are currently in Yemen being trained in the art of bombing planes. But most of these terrorists did not acquire their crazed beliefs in the Islamic world: they were indoctrinated in Britain. Indeed, thousands of young British Muslims support the use of violence to further the Islamist cause – and this despite millions of pounds poured by the Government into projects designed to prevent Islamic extremism.
Is it time for a fundamental rethink of Britain’s attitude towards domestic Islamism? Consider this analogy. Suppose that, in several London universities, Right‑wing student societies were allowed to invite neo-Nazi speakers to address teenagers. Meanwhile, churches in poor white neighbourhoods handed over their pulpits to Jew-hating admirers of Adolf Hitler, called for the execution of homosexuals, preached the intellectual inferiority of women, and blessed the murder of civilians. What would the Government do? It would bring the full might of the criminal law against activists indoctrinating young Britons with an inhuman Nazi ideology – and the authorities that let them. Any public servants complicit in this evil would be hounded from their jobs.
Jihadist Islamism is also a murderous ideology, comparable to Nazism in many respects. The British public realises this; so do the intelligence services. Yet because it arises out of a worldwide religion – most of whose followers are peaceful – politicians and the public sector shrink from treating its ideologues as criminal supporters of violence. Instead, the Government throws vast sums of money at the Muslim community in order to ensure that what is effectively a civil war between extremists and moderates is won by the latter. This policy – supported by all the main political parties – does not seem to be working. The authorities, lacking specialist knowledge, sometimes turn for advice to “moderate” Muslims who have extreme sympathies; supporters of al-Qaeda are paid to disseminate their ideology to young people.
Radical Islamist leaders are not stupid: they know how to play this system. The indoctrination of students carries on under the noses of public servants who are terrified of being labelled Islamophobic or racist. Therefore they fail to do their duty, which is to protect Muslims and non-Muslims alike from a terrorist ideology. If providing that protection requires fewer “consultations” with “community leaders” and more arrests, then so be it.
Note: Please read the comments.
Posted by paulipoldie on December 28, 2009
By Phyllis Chesler
Look: I’m no military strategist or historian. I have spent no time in any standing army or paramilitary organization. But, as a citizen civilian I have some questions.
First, what next?
Are we all going to be subjected to underwear checks before boarding our flights? If so, Al-Qaeda will soon secrete explosives in body cavities. Will we all be searched there as well? Will the time it takes to travel coast to coast or continent to continent soon approximate medieval travel times?
Is there another, easier way to deal with global terrorism in airports, on trains, and on ships? Might that way involve “profiling?” If so, is it still more important in terms of western values and law that we continue to seriously inconvenience or endanger the majority in order not to collectively punish the presumably innocent-until-proven-guilty minority?
What minority? Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion in the world and currently comprises 1.2-1.3 billion people. I guess I’m talking about the Muslim minority in the West most of whom are not actively involved with terrorism or with known terrorist groups. Or are they? Does anybody really know?
C’mon: The minute I heard that someone had attempted to blow up a plane over Michigan on Christmas Day I did not think: “Oh, the Buddhists (or the neo-Nazi right-wingers) are at it again. We all knew that it was, without doubt, a Muslim terrorist.
So, here are some questions.
Why are we still allowing Muslims from non-western foreign countries to fly into Western countries? Please note: I am not talking about “race” but about a highly politicized “faith.” And, what shall we do about the West’s own homegrown Islamist terrorists? Ground them all? Why not?
Why are we trying Muslim Islamist terrorists who have been captured in battle against us as if they were American citizens, fully entitled to the protection of the American constitution? Why do we want the American taxpayer to fund the care and feeding, not to mention the expensive legal talent for all the obviously guilty Gitmo graduates?
Why does Israel imprison rather than execute Muslim Islamist terrorists who have serious blood on their hands? These men and women live more grandly in an Israeli prison than they do among their own—and then they are ultimately freed at the ratio of 1000:1 when an Israeli (like Gilad Shalit) has been captured and held for ransom. A hundred or a thousand terrorists are swapped for one Israeli soldier or civilian. Why does Israel give such terrorists this kind of incentive?
Why doesn’t the Church rescue or stand up for the Christians who are being persecuted by Muslims (who are not necessarily terrorists) all over the Islamic world? What kind of fear, apathy, defeatist diplomacy is going on here?
But how can the West economically and ideologically afford to take on an Islamist cult of death that is trans-national, which operates from caves and in shadow—and in the hearts and minds of one lone individual after another? It is important to note that many jihadic martyrs come from educated and wealthy families; they are not all the sexually repressed sons of poverty.
How can the West not afford to do so?
Why are the mullahs who rule Amadinejad still alive?
P.S. “Carl in Jerurusalem ” just wrote to tell me that earlier this morning he suggested doing body cavity searches on male Muslims between the ages of 18-50. He describes the kind of security that Israel has and recommends it to all. In his view, based on who has actually hijacked planes, this is the likely target group. He ends his blog by writing: “Discriminate or die.”
Article printed from Chesler Chronicles: http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler
URLs in this post:
 Carl in Jerurusalem: http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/12/still-chasing-yesterdays-terrorists.html
Posted by paulipoldie on November 16, 2009
The Leftist Politics of the Nobel Peace Prize, Part 1
Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday for what the Norwegian Nobel Committee called “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”; his “vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons”; and his efforts to create a “new climate” of “multilateral diplomacy” in international relations.
Mind you, all Nobel nominations must be submitted by February 1 of the year in which they are to be awarded, meaning that Obama, who took his oath of office as President on January 20, was nominated for the Prize within his first twelve days in office. Had Obama achieved anything of substance during those few days to merit such an award? No serious thinker could argue that he had. His nomination is but a testament to the fact that the Nobel Peace Prize has increasingly devolved into an honor awarded to recipients who reflect the Nobel Committee’s leftist politics and preferences. Consider some of the more notable winners of recent years.
In 2007 former Vice President Al Gore won the Prize for his success in spreading uninformed panic about man-made global warming, a controversial concept whose very existence is denied by tens of thousands of eminent scientists and climatologists. But then again, Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein may have unwittingly revealed what the real motivation between global-warming initiatives is – worldwide redistribution of wealth from the United States, to the Third World. Said Sunstein in 2007: “It is even possible that desirable redistribution is more likely to occur through climate change policy than otherwise, or to be accomplished more effectively through climate policy than through direct foreign aid.”
In 2005 the Nobel Peace Prize was presented to Mohamed ElBaradei, an Egyptian attorney who has served as Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since 1997. Under his leadership, the IAEA’s strategy of appeasement proved unsuccessful at dissuading North Korea from developing a nuclear weapons program in the late 1990s. Yet ElBaradei is employing the same approach today to address Iran’s well-documented pursuit of nuclear power. He has suggested in diplomatic circles that the best course of action may be to tolerate small-scale uranium enrichment in Iran, in exchange for Tehran’s pledge to eschew the production of nuclear armaments — a plan very similar to the failed bargain he struck with North Korea.
The 2004 Nobel Peace Prize went to Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan ecologist and environmental activist who founded the Green Belt Movement in Africa in 1977. An anti-white, anti-Western crusader for international socialism, Maathai alleges that “some sadistic [white] scientists” created the AIDS virus “to wipe out the black race.” She is also a member of the Commission on Global Governance, whose manifesto, titled Our Global Neighborhood, calls for a dramatic reordering of the world’s political power — and redistribution of the world’s wealth.
The 2002 Nobel Peace Prize recipient was Jimmy Carter, who strongly opposed America’s looming invasion of Iraq. When the former U.S. President was officially given his award, Nobel Committee Chairman Gunnar Berge told reporters that Carter’s honor “should be interpreted as a criticism of the line that the current [U.S.] administration has taken. It’s a kick in the leg to all that follow the same line as the United States.”
So much for the fanciful notion that the voting process for the Nobel Peace Prize is anything more than a politically motivated spitting contest.
Posted by paulipoldie on October 22, 2009
by Baron Bodissey
The translator includes this note:
This past weekend the Austrian newspaper Die Presse once again focused on Turkish migrants. It seems that the Turks must be the only migrant group in Austria. Certainly the Polish or the Germans — who according to a socialist member of government constitute the largest migrant groups in Austria — do not get the same sort of coverage. Now what might be the reason for that?
What is interesting about the articles below is their openness in addressing the problems. However, one comment from the online articles summed it up well:
“My God, dear Presse: Why bother writing the articles? Why not just write the following: It’s the Austrians’ fault. Always and forever.”
Immigration and the welfare state show us that the politically correct are crazy. People like Thilo Sarrazin are helping them to adjust their view of reality.
Thilo Sarrazin, a member of the board of Deutsche Bundesbank, has now lost responsibility for the bank’s cash flow, while still in charge of risk controlling. This was a pretty Austrian “punishment” for saying “evil things” in an interview with the magazine “Lettre International” about Berlin and its immigrants, especially about Turks and Arabs.
His malicious comments about the production of headscarved girls and vegetables have become popular. A short summary of the debate surrounding Sarrazin would look something like this: He is right about nearly everything, but you can’t say it like he did. Naturally, all those who are sick of political correctness are furious because it associates everything sounding remotely like plain speaking with racism. At the same time, political correctness goes too far for those who really want to be politically correct: They believe that all people, especially those with an immigrant background, are inherently good. These immigrants, living in — say — Berlin, Vienna, and London are suffering simply because they are not seen as the enrichment they think they are. They are saying: Sarrazin is wrong, and this is obvious from the way he chose to say it.
Well, they are wrong. Sarrazin is right not only with regards to content. He also said the way it needs to be said. Not only in terms of the immigration question, but also in the welfare state debate — which are in tandem with immigration within the welfare system — have the German-Austrian engineers of social welfare failed. The language vehicles belonging to the mechanics of welfare have crashed: these chauffeurs of political correctness — with their political swerving — have driven the pushcart of discussion against the wall. There is no longer anyone who believes them. This because there is hardly anyone left whose personal experiences in welfare matters correspond with politically correct doctrine. Which, in turn, can only mean the following: for someone who doesn’t consider himself crazy, it is the politically correct who are out of their minds.
Well, they are crazy: their struggle in favor of a concern that must not be denounced has moved their perception of reality. It is up to people without a political agenda, like Thilo Sarrazin, to move it back: Turkish students — if they had a halfway decent upbringing — use a similar language to that of Sarrazin when speaking about their Austrian (female) teachers. These Turkish students understand what Thilo Sarrazin is saying. If we stopped using clear language simply out of fear of antagonizing the addressees even more, Henryk Broder’s prophecy would come true:
“Hurray, we’re capitulating.”
And we should not do that. Not to those immigrants unwilling to integrate, not to the killer arguments of the politically correct and not to the former neo-Nazis.
“Unwilling to integrate” — this is the accusation more and often confronting the Turkish community. Many consider this an exaggeration. But some Turks themselves criticize the tendency towards parallel societies.
The buzzwords characterizing the latest integration debate have flown by Mehmet Yurtseven and Yusuf Can. Thilo Sarrazin? Parallel societies? Turks unwilling to integrate? They both have different worries.
The teenagers are standing in front of the bleak entrance area of the Public Employment Service Austria (AMS) for young adults. There is the Maturaschule Dr. Roland [a private school offering courses to make up high school certificates] on the left; on the right there is the door to AMS Young Adults. Mehmet and Yusuf choose the door on the right. They are seeking work. It is a few minutes before ten a.m., and in a few minutes they will meet their adviser. Mehmet, whose hair is hidden by a black woolen cap, dropped out of high school (specializing in technical professions) and wants to start an apprenticeship in December. Yusuf, taller than Mehmet and clad in a leather jacket, found studying at the polytechnic school “a bit hard”. “I had one of the strictest teachers of the entire school,” he defends himself. Soon he will attend a special course to help him choose the right career in order to start an apprenticeship. Perhaps.
Mehmet and Yusuf are typing on their cell phones; they are wearing jeans and hooded sweaters; and they live in the 10th district [a district in Vienna with a high rate of immigrants]. They missed out on their education, and they are only sixteen years old. Their vita so far is unspectacular, and so is their place is the negative tables of statistics: 12,000 young adults between the age of 15 and 20 are currently “seeking work”, more than 65% of which have a migration background; the rate of unemployment among young adults with Turkish background was 18.4% in 2007, among Austrian young adults, 7.4%. The latest OECD study reveals that of the 20- to 29-year-olds with a migration background, the proportion of those without a high school certificate or a completed professional education is three times as high as that of young adults without a migration background.
Is the case of the two guys, who are on course to a very precarious future, a failure of integration politics? Is it a lack of interest? Has integration failed? Mehmet Yurtseven sees this differently: “Is doesn’t matter is you’re Austrian or Turkish.” He doesn’t understand the problem. “I have no problem with them.” He is talking about the Austrians. Mehmet is an Austrian citizen.
Who is Thilo Sarrazin? Mehmet and Yusuf do not know Thilo Sarrazin, the former Bundesbank manager and former SPD senator from Berlin, who said in an interview that the majority of German Turks are “neither willing nor able to integrate.” It was Sarrazin who spoke of Turks taking over Germany and “producing more and more little hijab girls.”
It was Sarrazin who started the debate, which will not die down soon, even though Sarrazin apologized and said that not every word was “wisely chosen”. For some he — relatively unsuspicious as a member of SPD (unlike FPÖ-leader Heinz-Christian Strache) — finally articulated something that had long been simmering below the surface of peacefully living next to each other; for others his words were outright racism. For instance, for Maria Anna Six-Hohenbalken of the Akademie der Wissenschaften (Academy of Sciences): it is a historical phenomenon to consider Turkish immigrants “problematic”, according to the cultural anthropologist. “Since the 16th century, there has been an tendency to classify the Orientals in ‘good’ and ‘bad’.”
Unskilled laborers without any chances.
Six stories above the heads of Mehmet and Yusuf, in the AMS office, there are question marks on the faces of the AMS director, Gerda Challuper, and the diversity manager, Ali Ordubadi, regarding the tilt in numbers, and why it is the Turkish children and young adults at the end of the statistics. Their parents often lack education, are less qualified compared to other migrant groups, and these families are often uniformed about the school system and the labor market. “In the past, the parents always found work as unskilled laborers,” says Ali Ordubadi. “They are passing on these experiences. But the job market has changed. You can’t find a job as an unskilled laborer nowadays.”
On the other hand, there are half-baked ideas with regards to the education of the children. Ordubadi has often heard the following: “My child must become a doctor or lawyer.” But how the desired title is to be achieved leaves the parents clueless. “That is where they are helpless.” Ordubadi criticizes integration policies: “We have not identified the migrants’ need for a differentiated explanation.”
In nine months AMS will be able to speak the language of its target audience. A DVD in Turkish, among other languages, will then inform about the school system and job possibilities. This DVD will be shown in clubs and mosques, to the fathers who often still call the shots. It is actually just a harmless DVD. However, it does show the conflict about the right strategy of integration politics. Should institutions and social workers be respectful of cultures and languages of the migrants? People like Sarrazin probably think this is a waste of time.
Margit Wolf, managing director of Interface, a language institute offering German language courses like “Mama is learning German”, believes that “respect is very important”. When women apply for the German courses, their husbands usually accompany them. They are skeptical and want to know what is being taught. There would be no positive results if the culturally sensitive persuasion of the institute’s employees, argues Wolf. “We must give the men a feeling of security, that it is just a language course and that we are not mobilizing against them — the men.” She cannot comprehend the allegation of Turkish women not wanting to learn German. “Many of them come from a low education background. It is a big step for them to register for these courses.”
But still: taking stock of working women of migrant background, the situation is not a rosy one. The majority of Turkish women are at home, taking care of the household and rearing children on their own. While 40% of Turkish women work, it is more than two-thirds of Austrian women. At the same time these numbers are not surprising considering the fact that Turkish women give birth to more children than Austrian women: The latter 1.3 children, the former more than twice as many, 2.6. The family remains important for the entire lifespan. “Children are very important in our culture, “ says Ruhi Göler, who works at the Ankara Market in Brunnengasse (a district inhabited by a high number of Turks). But he is also concerned that many young men are growing up on the streets. “This is how they find bad friends,” Göler cites his fears. Sixteen-year-old Maki also prefers to meet his friends without his parents chaperoning, most often in the Millennium City (a shopping center in Vienna). He does not consider his friends a “gang” or even a “mob”. He says, “There is a lot going on there. My friends and I are simply hanging out.”
Turkish head to toe
Moving a few kilometers south, to the former workers’ district of Favoriten: It is not a district that is considered attractive to live in. But there are many Turkish shops in the vicinity of Quellenplatz and Reumannplatz. A butcher, a jeweler, a supermarket, and a furniture store: Even if one doesn’t speak good German, one can get around well in this area.
From this perspective it makes sense that the road to a German language course is a rocky one. “There are many women in my course who have lived in Austria for the last 20 or 30 years and who are attending a German language course for the first time,” reports one teacher who wants to remain anonymous. She teaches AMS-sponsored language courses in Favoriten. Three quarters of the women are Turkish and wear a headscarf. “They truly live in a parallel world: They are either at home or in the park, and shop only in Turkish shops,” the teacher tells us. The course is considered “a welcome diversion”; a job hunt, except as kitchen work or cleaning lady, is seldom successful.
Anthropologist Six-Hohenbalken does not want to use these words. She is afraid that talk of parallel societies will result in them arising. “This is how people are excluded from society and brought to seek contacts in only their surroundings.”
While local politics in Vienna seldom has anything to say about successful coexistence in Favoriten, the — Turkish — area surrounding the Brunnenmarkt in the district of Ottakring is considered a multicultural flagship project. The market is newly renovated, there is a cultural area, and rent prices have risen as a result of middle class Austrians moving into the area. City planners call this phenomenon “upgrading” or “gentrification”. The Austrians meet at Yppenplatz for their Saturday brunch in the city’s most famous Turkish restaurant and buy their groceries at the Brunnenmarkt (from Turkish shop owners). But still: even here is a parallel world between the Austrians and the Turks. A few words here or there during the shopping, nothing more. And there is hardly an Austrian who ventures to the Turkish cafes in the side streets.
Home country Austria.
Neydet Karasu is sitting at a table in the cafe Safak and is working on crossword from the newspaper Hürriyet. The television set is blasting Turkish news. Karasu is sixty years old, sometimes he has chest pains, perhaps because he had carry heavy loads during his job as deliveryman. He sees life in the district in a critical way. “If there are many Turks, everyone speaks only Turkish,” says he who wants to stay in Austria, his “second home country”. “One tends to forget German.”
Thirty-nine-year-old Dolunay Yerit moved to Brunnenmarkt only a short while ago. “Because of a large loft and the excellent infrastructure.” Sometimes the lawyer, who works for the Austrian Business Agency, wonders about her surroundings: “When I see women running around in harem pants, unable to speak a word of German, I think to myself ‘Something went wrong here’.” And why did it work out for her? Her upbringing was an open one, and although she spoke Turkish at home, her parents insisted on her learning German and getting a good education, as well as “consciously participating in society”. Yerit does not want to be seen as showcase Turk. She thinks that the lack of migrants in the public sphere or the media is a disadvantage. “There is a lack of role models.” Yerit’s own definition of integration: “Integration is a success if we no longer need to discuss it.”
Posted by paulipoldie on October 13, 2009
For Part 1 of this blog series, click here.
The Nobel Committee’s proclivity for using its Peace Prize ceremony as a forum for ridiculing American foreign policy was on display again in 2001, when the Prize was given to the United Nations and its Secretary General, Kofi Annan. When presenting the award to Mr. Annan, Nobel Committee leader Gunnar Berge argued that the establishment of peaceful change in the 21st Century would “be a task for the UN, if not in the form of a centralized world government then at least as the more efficient global instrument which the world so sorely needs.” Berge attacked the Bush administration specifically, saying that “the USA provides the clearest illustration” of a country “selective in their attitudes to the UN,” only favoring “an active UN when they need and see opportunities to obtain its support; but when the UN takes a different stance, they seek to limit its influence.” Soon thereafter the world would learn that Kofi Annan and the UN alike were up to their respective necks in scandal involving the Oil-For-Food program.
In 2000 the award went to South Korean President Kim Dae-jung, who, solely to bolster his chances of winning the Nobel Peace Prize, bribed North Korea’s government with $1.5 billion in exchange for the latter’s feigned good-faith participation in peace talks ostensibly aimed at ending Pyongyang’s nuclear program.
A year earlier the Nobel Peace Prize was given to Médecins Sans Frontières, a humanitarian aid organization that more than once has condemned Israel – in contradiction to its pledge to maintain political independence.
In 1994 the Nobel Peace Prize Committee drew a moral equivalence between statesmen and a terrorist when presenting its award jointly to Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and the Palestinian leader whose unwavering goal was the destruction of Israel and the mass murder of Jews, Yasser Arafat.
The 1992 Nobel Peace Prize recipient was Rigoberta Menchu, the leftist icon and communist agent who falsely claimed authorship of a 1982 autobiography which was later found to have been written by the French Marxist Elisabeth Burgos-Debray.
In 1987 the award went to Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sánchez, who, in order “to bring peace to the region,” reversed the policy of his predecessor who had allowed the Reagan administration to use northern Costa Rica as a base for its war efforts against the Marxist Sandinistas.
The 1985 Nobel Peace Prize was given to International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, (IPPNW), a group founded with the explicit involvement of the Soviet dictatorship. In fact, Yevgeny Chazov, Soviet Deputy Minister of Health, served as one of IPPNW’s three co-chairmen.
In 1984 Archbishop Desmond Tutu won the Prize for his work against South African apartheid. Tutu was a strong supporter of Winnie Mandela, who was prominent in the Soviet-sponsored African National Congress, closely aligned with the South African Communist Party. Today Tutu claims that U.S. injustices around the world provoked the attacks of 9/11; that America is an aggressive nation which spends too much on defense and too little on aid to the poor; and that “Israel is like Hitler and apartheid.”