Thursday, December 4, 2008
Ajmal Amir Kasab, the sole surviving member of the 10-man team of Pakistani gunmen that left hundreds dead or wounded after a bloody three day rampage in Mumbai, today blamed the mayhem on an "email mixup" that left him and his colleagues unaware that Barack Obama had won election as President of the United States.
"Boy, talk about having egg on the face," said a visibly embarrassed Kasab. "If we knew Bush was on his way out, obviously we would have called off the crazy random baby-shootings and martyrdom stuff, and signed on with the Peace Corps or Habitat for Humanity. At this point I guess all I can say is 'my bad.'"
Again, nobody is making light of the tragedy, but look carefully and see the point. It's not about Kashmir, or Palestine, or George W Bush, or US foreign policy. US foreign policy does not make a human being capable of smashing a four year old girl's head against a rock until her skull cracks open. GW Bush's "invasion" of Iraq in 2003 does not make a person tear apart babies in Lebanon in the 1980's.
No. We have not "radicalised" anybody. This is about Jihad, it's been going for 1300 years. And it starts with Jews. The full Iowahawk satire is here. (Warning, some coarse language).
Monday, November 24, 2008
A spokesmoonbat from Strange Phenomenon Investigations said of the phenomenon (six now)
"Some experts believe it could be linked to global warming and craft from outer space are appearing because they are concerned about what man is doing to this planet."
O........kay. "Some experts". But should a quasi-scientific thinktank really be consulting Leonard Nimoy, Steven Spielberg and David Duchovny?
Now I'm going to attempt to sound balanced, un-dogmatic, humble and apolitical. Here goes. Even if it's true that human activities are causing catastrophic weather pattern changes (WHICH IT'S NOT) and that destroying capitalism and evil human achievements will stop it (WHICH IT WON'T even if it was true, WHICH IT'S NOT) I am officially incapable of ever believing it. Ever. That's just what happens when truth gets turned into religion. Or when remotely plausible theories are used to embellish theories which are completely insane.
Now if this Strange Phenomenon Investigations group want to make themselves really useful perhaps they can investigate phenomena which is truly baffling and challenging to the human race. Like why do photocopiers break down at the moment of highest urgency. Or why at work, after two hours of absolute quiet, two dozen customers suddenly and simultaneously pile drive their way into my warehouse, elbowing their way through the door all at the same moment, all claiming the same problem. Or why people still believe what they see on MSNBC or CBS and laugh at David Letterman's jokes.
Still, the SPI theories do help to explain one thing, and that is why we keep calling them "little green men". Now, if these, um, experts, are so sure that aliens are concerned about mankind's inhumanity to the planet then we are assume that those impressive flying vehicles of theirs, which by the way are currently cluttering up the amotsphere above Britain, do not emit greenhouse gases. Otherwise that would make them little green hypocrites.
And we have more than enough of those down here.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
It does not bode well. Salon.com's Camille Paglia words it more eloquently than I could, and realise this is from a far-left website who hardly have a respectable thing to say about any conservative:
Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology -- contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.
I could not agree more. The sheer will of the mainstream to veil anything detrimental to the Democrat ticket meant all bets were off, all rulebooks thrown away (if indeed there were any). The lows to which they sunk to sink Palin are now going to be normal. That is frightening.
And then there's this survey, a further insight into the sheer power of the mass media over people's everyday perceptions. This is not intended as a slight on Obama supporters. I will be more than happy to stand corrected should BHO do a sterling job as POTUS. But that's not the point. The point is that this jealously guarded power of the main media cannot keep on like this without doing some serious social harm.
Before we dismiss this as an insignificant or biased snapshot of Obama voters, there was this Zogby poll:
512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
71.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).
Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes
Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey, a "comedian" Palin impersonator who said that!!
Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.
Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)
I repeat: this is not to question the intelligence of Obama supporters. What this survey does is literally track the path of media indoctrination.
Get informed- turn off your TV.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Bearing in mind that Netanyahu is considered right-wing and hawkish, yet most economists in the Arab league believe his experience and strength will bring much needed stability because "a stable Israel means a stable region".
Here's the most telling comment, from business owners in Southern Lebanon: "When the wolves smell weakness they attack ... Sadly, when this happens it is Lebanon's economy that pays the heavy price". And this, of the center-left Tzipi Livni: "Livni is weak and inexperienced, and this is too much for our wolves to resist. Netanyahu is not nice, but he is strong, not a pushover. I believe that he is our best chance for quiet."
Read the full article here. Very interesting stuff, that there are moderates in the Arab world who recognise that "tough" and "not nice" can actually bring peace. I wonder if the West will pay any attention.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Except this young lady, writing to her grandparents in the US, lives in Sderot, a little town in southern Israel, close to the border of Gaza. Since Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, in return for peace, Sderot and the town of Ashkelon have been peppered with Kassam rockets. Over 4,000 fell in one year. They live like this every day. The fear and stress is massive, as well as the economic impact.
This is an innocent, simple little snapshot of living in the valley of the shadow of death.
Hat tip to Israellycool
and The Israel Project for the photos
Dear Granny and Grandpa
I wanted to thank you so much for the beautiful card you sent me for my 18th birthday. I love getting birthday cards from you, they’re always so unique.
I’m really excited this year, I finally feel a little grown up, living in an apartment in Sderot with 7 other girls. I live in a very nice neighborhood with both religious and secular families and a lot of cute kids. (It’s great to earn some extra money babysitting).
As you probably know already, I’m teaching about Judaism to secular kids in kindergartens, elementry schools, junior highs, and in nearby kibbutzim. The job is tiring. We work about 11 hours a day. In the mornings we’re teaching and in the afternoons and nights preparing for our next classes. We’re only four girls in this program, so it’s really hard work, but very enjoyable and satisfying. The girls I’m working with are all fun and very dedicated. Even though it’s only been a couple of months, we’ve been through so much together that it seems like we’ve always known one another. They’re really nice girls (one girl, I discovered, was with me in kindergarden- it was very funny).
We all pitch in to keep the apartment at least a little clean and try hard to eat proper meals, though it’s really hard. For one thing, food is so expensive and we get paid so little. We mostly eat bread and pasta. A lot of pasta. Pasta, past, pasta…
In Sderot itself, we’re all together twenty four girls doing national service. Some girls are counselors in high schools, some are the heads of the youth group that I used to be in, called “B’nei Akiva”. Some are tour guides, some work in soup kitchens. I recently decided to spend some of the little free-time we have, volunteering as a counselor in a youth group for girls called “Ariel”. I’m in charge of about twenty-five screeching little munchkins. It’s weird being a counselor again (remember when I was a counselor in Beer Sheva two years ago for two years, for boys and girls around the same age as these munchkins), but I love kids! and these girls are so sweet!
Sderot is a very special city, not only because it gets bombed so often, but because so many of the people who live there are so amazing. For one thing, they’re always inviting us over for meals, and despite everything they’re going through, the fear for their houses and constant worry for their children – when they’re at school and when they’re at home, the lack of customers at their stores & restaurants, they smile and talk to you on the street. People in Sderot are happy to share what they have. They have this special warmth in them, which helps you have courage.
About the “kassamim”. Technically, there is a cease fire, and before last week only once in a while they still shot a rocket or two just to remind us that they don’t mean it… Last year there were days when sixty rockets would fall. This week the IDF found a tunnel that the terrorists had dug next to the border in order to kidnap and kill more soldiers. When our soldiers went in to destroy the tunnel, there was a battle and they killed six of the terrorists. As revenge, they fired forty rockets towards the settlements around Gaza, including Sderot.
I’ve been in Sderot when a “kassam” fell, but the experience I had the other day was a little different. At four-thirty in the morning the siren that gives us 17 seconds to find shelter went off: A voice on a loudspeaker blaring “tzeva adome” “tzeva adome” (”color red, color red”), telling us that a rocket had just been fired. My friends and I jumped out of our beds and ran to our protective room and shut the door. A second later we realized we had forgotten to wake two of the girls. Somehow they didn’t hear the siren and were still sleeping. We felt so bad that we didn’t wake them, but we all went back to bed thanking G-d that no one was injured from that rocket and that we were all safe.
The next day, at school, we asked the kids how they felt. One little boy answered that he was tired, because like all of us (well, most of us) he woke up in the midle of the night from the siren and couldn’t fall back to sleep. This is how people have been living for the last 7 years! I hope we won’t need to experience anymore of this running and hiding, it’s pretty annoying I can tell you. Unfortunately, everyone knows it is far from over.
I’m so glad I finally found time to write to you. I love you so much and so want to hear about how you’re doing. So, are you happy about Obama’s win?
I miss you. Do you know when you’re coming yet? I can’t wait to see you guys.
Write when you get a chance.
Have a great Shabbat, I love you guys so much!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt points out:
John McCain is beaten, and this is what I haven’t yet seen or heard:
Screams that the vote was rigged.
Lawyers taking the result to court.
The loser blaming anyone but himself.
Angry celebrities vowing to move overseas.
Stickers claiming the winner stole the election.
Furious reporters denouncing ads by the losers’ critics.
Furious reporters blaming the winner’s evil genius.
The bitter losers warning the country “is more divided than ever”
No riots either, despite the democrat campaigners' fearmongering and the myth of "republican rage".
Well, okay, give them time. If a republican speaks out of school, I'm sure the mainstream media will have it splashed all over the universe in a nanosecond. Here's how I think most republicans are reacting.
Even more to the point was The Australian's Greg Sheridan, who reckons that maybe instead of idolising Obama, we should also be congratulating America. We know Michelle Obama will, since she was never proud of her country until they nominated her husband as the Democrat Candidate. This election victory marks the point at which Michelle Obama is proud of America for the second time in her life! (Applause).
Anyhow, Greg Sheridan writes:
In a nation supposedly enthralled by fundamentalist religion, the presidential ticket with two mainstream, Protestant, capital-C Christians lost to the ticket with a vice-president of Catholic background who favours abortion on demand, and a presidential candidate who drifted into religion when he drifted into politics and who has one of the most pro-abortion records of any legislator.
The left liberal caricature of America was always nonsense. The militarism of American society is vastly overstated, just as its profound willingness to make sacrifices for other people's freedom is under-appreciated.
Emphasis mine, and it isn't emphatic enough.
There's still political points to score, of course; the Bush Derangement Syndrome will continue. There will still be the hysterical opposition to his conflicts, despite the fact that no US civilian target has suffered a terrorist attack in the last 7 years. The Wall Street Journal have an interesting take on that.
But the real test for Obama will be whether he ceases playing the race and class victim card going forward. I hope he does. Cease, that is.
That leaves only one other problem. If the cultural elite do stop their whingeing about how evil America is...whatever will they do with their time?
UPDATE: Get busy, BHO: Russia have just promised to park offensive missiles right along the border with their western-friendly neighbours, not hours after the election result. When you're all quite finished agreeing with Russia about how it's all Bush's fault, what's the solution?
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Believe it or not, racism and class distinction haven't been major issues in the US in recent times. By that I mean there have been no major racial incidents, and no sudden increase in the gap between the lower and middle classes. And yet, these two things have been in the headlines more than ever before during the US Elections. Why?
Because the Obama campaign couldn't exist without it. They stirred it up, brought it up, and rode the wave. Divide and conquer. Agitate the toiling masses with a "them and us" mantra. It's the Alinsky method. The consistency between Obama's past and his 2008 campaign methods form a kind of poetry.
From his days as a "community organiser" with vote fraud enterprise ACORN, relationships with a host of marxist radicals (including convicted murderers), to his election speeches denying those very associations, to his campaign office's boycott and bullying of any groups or individuals daring to mention them, to the messiah-like status adorned on him by an adoring media and pop culture elite, to the $600 million campaign expenditure (dwarfing McCain's $85m)- it all flows together like a perfect plan, straight out of the Alinsky socialist handbook Rules For Radicals.
It's actually quite impressive, almost as if Obama's life has been scripted and coordinated by some hidden power. I'm sure many Christians would agree with me there. The question of "which power?" is where we might differ. Sure, no world leader is placed where they are without God's permission. However that is not to be taken as an endorsement...
Speaking of endorsements, interesting enough was the Obama campaign's last effort to put voters off his opponent McCain. It was a fairly standard "guilt by association" ad, big-noting that McCain was endorsed by the incredibly unpopular Dick Cheney (who also once got into a spot of bother when he accidentally shot a friend in the face. Oops!). Fair enough, worth a try.
I doubt this piece of "guilt by association" had much bearing on the election result. I sincerely hope not. Otherwise, now that Obama is victorious, and working on the naive assumption that his bureaucracy will allow freedom of speech, Americans may yet learn more about who endorses Obama:
US Communist Party
North Korea, rogue state who recently threatened to turn South Korea into "debris"
Columbian Terrorist and Marxist Militia FARC
Terrorist group Hamas, whose foundational charter is the destruction of Israel
The Parliament of Iran, who refer to Israel as "cancer" and constantly call for their destruction
Terrorism sponsor and Libyan Leader Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi
Syrian President and terrorist sponsor Bashar Assad
Al-Qaeda, an indirect endorsement (they will always hate whoever is in charge of the US!)
The Black Panthers, some of whom attended polling booths to intimidate republican voters
The charming race-baiting, Jew-hating Jeremiah Wright, Obama's only pastor for 20 years
The mainstream media continued to savage and smear Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin, portraying her as stupid. They failed to notice that the Obama campaign ordered their VP Joe Biden to keep his mouth shut, lest he say something, well, stupid, as he continually seems to do. So, no media appearances for Joe, while Palin pounded the pavement with press conferences galore, feeding the liberal media savages and their entertainment pals plenty of material for their cheap, depraved mockery.
But before Biden was told to zip it, here was his last gaffe. Gird your loins, he said, for a major international crisis which would "test" the brilliant Obama. He's going to need your support, Biden says, even if it appears as though he's wrong. Just do as we say. Got it. That's sobering.
Now, let's just say this crisis involves one of the groups listed above. The question is, will anyone care? Did the Obama campaign exploit the "victim industry" so successfully that we are all compelled to feel guilty? Are we to accept that the above list of murderers and haters are genuinely and morally permitted to hate us? There is no "guilt by association" on Obama's part, because the guilt is all ours?
Joe Biden wasn't really being stupid (not this time, anyway), just honest. He knows they endorse Obama because Obama has exactly what they want- the promise to acquiesce. They're not stupid, either. If this "international crisis" comes to pass, evil will be coddled, negotiated with, bargained with, empowered, and it will grow. That's not just an opinion. It's history.
By the new President's own admission then, we're in for some interesting times ahead.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Followed shortly by this. And of course this.
HUGE BREAKING MASSIVE INSIDE SCOOP POLITICAL STORY By a political correspondent somewhere gunning for the Man Booker Literature Award.
It was 10.40pm on a mild, temperate evening. The harbour water sparkled with reflections of Sydney's capitalism. Kevin Rudd was entertaining guests at Kirribilli House. It was just like any other social gathering. The chink of wine glasses. Polite, erudite conversation. Occasional bursts of civilised laughter. Cate Blanchett would smile that illuminating smile as Rudd regaled them with stories of the gloriously successful 2020 summit only months earlier. Kevin would blush at her solictitude. It was just like any other gathering.
Only at this one, their quaffing was to be interrupted by an event which would shake Australian politics forever to their core.
Rudd's aide approached hesitantly, almost furtively, with the news. There was a phone call. It was George. The guests tried not to fuss, but the sudden hush gave away their tension. Kevin stood, erect. Purposeful. It was George. That George. "Excuse me" he said, with a knowing nod in the direction of Hugh Jackman. "I need to take this call". With a swift tug to uncrease his rented suit, he strode off in the direction of his study.
The most powerful man in the world was lost in the messages on hold. Kevin picked up, hit the speakerphone and fired a firm but polite instruction to his aide: "Take notes". He caught the POTUS halfway through humming the jingle.
Very, very informed sources very close to the real sources, smuggled out of Kirribilli against the wishes of a humble Rudd who clearly seeks no attention for himself, have confirmed it. This was the conversation which took place:
"Gud-day" said GWB, attempting the traditional Aussie greeting. Kevin winced. "I just rang to talk about this economic summit we got..."
"Damn it George" Kevin blasted, politely but firmly. "You know how I feel. G7 just won't cut it..."
"Don't 'but Kevin' me, George. You know damn well we need China. I love Europe as much as anyone, who doesn't. But they don't have the stones to deal with Asia Pacific financial matters. For starters, everything in Europe is really close together, so transport is cheaper than here. I know. I've been there. I was there last week".
He was right. He had. And the month before that. And the month before that, twice in July, and once in June with a stopover in Dubai where he met the Maktoums. He repeated. "We need China, and you know it." He was firm, but polite.
"Damn it George. We're in a dangerous new phase and all you want to do is pander to your Euro friends. We need China. We need South America, and the Middle East. Hell, if you don't want to talk to China, I will. I speak Mandarin, you know..." He was right. He did. GWB wouldn't hint at it, but Kevin knew he was impressed.
"...but Kevin..." again, and again the Prime Minister stood tall. "You know we have to go G20 George, it's the only way." He waited. The pause grew longer. Kevin, and his aides, could hear GWB's breathing labour on the other end of the phone. Slowly, Kevin was flooded by a shocking realisation, his countenance changed as it does when his polls drop.
"George....?" Kevin said politely but firmly. "George? Don't tell me...you don't even know what the G20 is, do you?" The response was silence. "Good God" said Kevin, glancing at his aides and shaking his head discreetly. There was fire in his eyes now.
There was a muffled response. Another realisation, almost as shocking. "George..." said Kevin, firmly but politely, as a parent counselling a guilty child "George...are you holding the phone the wrong way up?"
Shuffling and scratching sounds at the other end. "Of course not, Kevin. I know how to hold a dang phone". The Texan accent was beginning to irk Kevin. "Fool" he said under his breath so that only his aides could hear. He didn't care if Washington heard it too. He was past worrying. There was a worldwide economy to centralise and plan. The puppy love cravings of an outgoing American president were the least of his problems.
"I've spoken to them all, George. Get with it. Taro, Bambang, Ange. They all agree with me. What about you George? What's it gonna be?".
As one aide told me later "He was like a bull terrier- polite, but firm. He stood up to the most powerful man in the world, made him look deep inside himself and question his manhood. Kevin exposed this supposed world power broker for the bumbling, uneducated buffoon that he is and in doing so became a real, credible, world political player himself. It was inspirational. It was damn near sensual..."
It's history now that within two days GWB had caved, defeated, deflated, and called a G20 summit for Washington, just as Kevin had urged, politely but firmly.
But for now, it was all about K. Rudd. To the rapturous applause of his assembled aides, some in tears, Kevin Rudd, erect, proud, strode back to his guests on Kirribilli's slightly browning lawns. They too stood and applauded, barely able to quantify the realisation of being in the presence of sheer political will. Kevin smiled, raised his hand. "The Flirtinis are on me."
This time, it was Cate Blanchett who blushed.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
In brief, Alinsky's mantra was one of rise-against-the-establishment, and get what you want using whatever means possible (including physical violence and intimidation). Agitate others to get alonside you. No, you are NOT happy with your lot! You are oppressed! And disadvantaged! And you are angry! And it's the government's fault, and big business's fault!
To give you further insight, Alinsky positively acknowledged "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom". To whom was this professed atheist referring? That's right- Satan.
Well, that was in the first edition of Rules For Radicals. The Democrats eventually realised that praising Satan might lose them one or two Christian votes, so they had it removed. Who says Democrats know nothing about the Bible?
But I really want to know if fear-mongering and stigmatizing your opponent's supporters is one of Alinsky's radical rules.
The claim amongst Democrat boffins recently of "Republican Rage" (how adept they are at giving their alleged hate crimes special names) was so well coordinated it made it onto Australian primetime news. Democrat advisors were interviewed, with their ashen faces and morbid narratives of "we're really worried about the anger and incitement from the republican crowds...in some cases people calling to 'Kill Obama'. What will they do if he gets elected?". At this point I was surprised they didn't break down in mock tears, only to be comforted by their adoring media friends.
Please. Firstly, the "kill him" allegation has been investigated by the Secret Service and found to be false. The journalist for the Pennsylvanian newspaper who broke the dramatic story seemed to be the only one out of several thousand who actually heard the offensive remark. The newspaper never retracted it, naturally.
In fact, the only known case of this kind of thing is that of an assault charge against a Democrat supporter who attacked a Republican demonstrator in NYC. It's actually real. But I never saw that on the news here. So, only the fantasy stuff makes it onto the mainstream media.
It gets worse. American News Project, a leading freelance journalism portal, is convinced that they can find more evidence of this hate crime phenomena which doesn't actually exist, by offering to pay people to get it. Here is a snippet from an open email from ANP's chief editor to all registered freelance journalists:
ANP is working on a series between now and Nov. 4 analyzing the phenomenon of rage among McCain-Palin supporters which has surfaced in the past few weeks...
...we need your help. Between now and Nov. 4, we want to document this rising rage nationwide at GOP rallies or anywhere else. If you have any evidence of rage, bigotry or deliberate misinformation among McCain supporters, whether at an official rally or elsewhere (local GOP groups, etc.), we need your help to video these events.
...If we use your footage in our series, whether it is 5 seconds or 5 minutes, we will pay a fee of $500 and give you producers credit.
In the email, they enclose a YouTube piece giving their example of "Republican Rage" to demonstrate what they are looking for. In the video, an elderly man uses the word "nigger", and a very inarticulate woman worries that the country will be run by black people. That's it. The rest of the comments are typified thus:
"I believe (Obama) is a wolf in sheep's clothing. But I think Sarah Palin is full of the Holy Spirit and she will bring honesty and integrity to the White House".
Well, they can't possibly think using a well-known cliche involving animals is hate speech, that would make Obama's "pig and lipstick" reference to Sarah Palin a little awkward. Perhaps the references to the Holy Spirit was the problem?
"He is friends with terrorists of this country". Correct. His ties to William Ayers are provably deeper than Obama claimed at the last debate. Surely telling the truth, anecdotal or otherwise, is not hate speech.
"I am concerned that Obama and his wife might be anti-white". Fair concern. Being under the wing of Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't good for you if you're trying to avoid racism. And references to "white greed" in some of Obama's speeches whilst a state senator would be called racist under any other circumstances.
All other comments were equally innocuous. So, the filmmakers then wave Obama/Biden signs to passing Republican supporters to see what horrible hate crimes and violence they can provoke. The only audible reference made is a republican supporter calling out "baby killers...you can call it what you want but that's what it is".
I presume they were referring to Obama's attempts as a senator to block the born alive infant protection act in 2000. Or perhaps they were referring to his promise that he would enact the Federal Freedom Of Choice Bill if elected, effectively removing all state restrictions on abortions and opening up federal funding of abortions. At least, this was what he told the Planned Parenthood movement in 2007. He denied it when talking to a Christian group in 2008, as well as denying his attempts to block the infant protection act in 2000. But you can read all about that here.
The point is, the filmmakers then cried persecution and feigned fear of attacks from these crazed republicans. It was the most incredible display of conniving, sabre-rattling and brilliant acting I have ever seen.
But the most morbidly laughable thing about this "evidence of republican rage" movie to illustrate ANP's point- it was provided by Al-Jazeera.
Al-Jazeera! The mouthpiece of terrorist dogma!
Okay, so even if these were legitimate examples of gun-toting, raging, frothing-at-the-mouth republicans threatening to kill everyone who even thinks about voting Obama, here's the problem; ANP want to pay people to produce similar "evidence". In any legal forum, where evidence is required to prove a crime, evidence paid for is tainted and inadmissable... for reasons which should be painfully obvious.
I'd love to think Democrat supporters are above dressing up in republican garb, spewing racist, violent rhetoric while their mate films them, and sending it to ANP to cash in. But watching that YouTube footage again, quite clearly, and sadly, it is totally possible.
UPDATED 24th Oct: Here's what makes the mainstream news: This assault on a McCain supporter was proven to be "false". So, let me get this straight:
- the MSM give airtime to democrats decrying "Republican Rage" without the slightest piece of tangible evidence (a bit like giving them free campaign time)
- an actual case of a democrat supporter assaulting a republican is nowhere to be seen on the MSM, however
- the discovery that a republican claim of democrat rage was falsified gets prime time.
No media bias? Please....
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Nobody can help be exposed to coverage on the US elections, but I feel almost envious of anyone who is trying to avoid it.
Like most, I have my leanings, best summarised here. But forget that for a second, and examine the massive weight of media bias and that of the cultural elite, Hollywood and the arts. It is so abundantly clear where their affections lie. From the cheap, nasty, personal and at times sexually depraved savagery of Sarah Palin, to the cynical vilification of John McCain's young wife, the coverage of dirt has been heavily weighted to one side. The underhanded way journalists from the Treason Times (sometimes known as the New York Times) approached McCain's daughter on facebook to dig for material on her mum was an exercise in shamelessness.
Some of the detective-like tasks given to journalists by their respective media bosses to uncover (any) dirt on Palin was enough to even make some of the journalists ashamed. Now that is something! Journalists developing a moral value. Pity they didn't stand by it.
The ideology war over the hearts and minds of the public is fought less by the nominees themselves and more by the media. And it's a one-sided battle.
Which is what makes the Alfred E Smith memorial dinner such a delight, and it makes you wonder whether all the muck-shovelling is really the result of genuine political beliefs and passions, or just a game.
Certainly there are speech writers involved, but some people can just pull it off well. Senator Obama's speech was beautifully delivered, wickedly funny and done with relish. Senator McCain's was a little less eloquent, but still incisively funny, barely touching on unwanted political issues and even so, with light hearted apolitical humour. His quips on the absent Bill Clinton had Hillary in stitches.
Notably absent from Obama's speech however, and I don't say that to be provocative, was magnanimity of the kind which came from McCain, delivered with obvious, genuine sincerity;
I don’t want it getting out of this room, but my opponent is an impressive fellow in many ways. Political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in eachother, but I’ve had a few glimpses of this man at his best, and I admire his great skill, energy and determination. It’s not for nothing, that he’s inspired so many folks in his own party, and beyond. Senator Obama talks about making history, and he’s made quite a bit of it already. There was a time when a mere invitation of an African American to dine at the White House, was taken as an outrage and an insult in many quarters. Today is a world away from the cruel and prideful bigotry of that time, and good riddance. I can’t wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well.
How nice it would be if such good spirit prevailed in the respective parties, and more importantly, amongst their supporters. But it won't. Because the media will not allow it. They will continue to give maximum prime time to anything, regardless of it's relevance, which shows the Republican ticket in bad light. They will continue to ignore Obama's extreme socialist history, no matter how relevant it is to the shaping of Obama's political present and future.
This means, the only people who can highlight these alarming priors- are McCain and Palin. But if they do that, it's "smearing". No wonder it all looks so dirty.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Now, I know I shouldn't cherry-pick things out of context, and should give credit to the Anglos where it's due. But shouldn't a Christian leader, given an opportunity to communicate via mass-media, use it for a message which a) people really need and b) people haven't already heard a gazillion times in the mass media?
Besides, it's my blog and I'll sling if I want to. Bish's words in italics, and my rantings in bold:
It is ironic that as we are preparing to mark World Environment Day on Thursday the world is in a panic about the rising cost of petrol, food and other essentials. We were preparing to mark World Environment Day?
... And yet, as some thoughtful commentators have argued, sky-rocketing fuel costs may be exactly what we need to force us to find ways of living that are not so dependent on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. Erm, I presume you mean "CO2", Phil. Carbon is that hard black stuff coal is made of, but okay, we'll presume it's a socially acceptable abbreviation. By the way, breathing emits "carbon". Can we find ways of living that are not so dependent on breathing?
We have become almost entirely reliant on the private car, and now we are learning to our cost just how unsustainable that is, and not just because of the price factor. As a planet, we would actually be in grave danger if petrol supplies were both infinite and cheap. Yes, because everyone would be able to afford a Lamborghini and they’d die from speed-related…oh you meant the planet would be in danger. You weren’t talking about people…
Petrol is not the only culprit where global warming and environmental degradation is concerned. Coal-burning power stations, over-use of insecticides and other chemicals, thoughtless water use and short-term irrigation practices… No mention of Nuclear power? Some friend of the earth you are…
For years now, scientists have been warning us about the danger, but most of us either chose to ignore them or were confused by those who insisted they were wrong. I see. If you preach warming catastrophe, you're a “Scientist” …if you don't, you're just “those”. And they're confusing. You poor man. I hope you never meet “those” 31,000 (scientists) who signed that paper debunking man-made global warming.
Now the evidence is clear: we have no choice but to try to mend our ways if we want planet earth to survive as a habitable environment. No the evidence is not. But you’ll be really popular for saying it is. And being popular says more than any evidence ever will.
This is a key moral issue of our time. That’s right! Just ask that woman who aborted her baby because she couldn’t bear to bring another carbon footprint into the world. Just as we have had to say sorry to Indigenous people for the way we treated them in the past, you mean when we rescued them from violence and sexual abuse? and to the victims of child sexual abuse, whoa, you’re all over the place there… we must also repent of our self-centred abuse of creation. Am I apologising for anything in particular or do you just want me to be guilty for the sake of it?
Increasingly, we are coming to realise that this abuse is damaging not just the earth, but also ourselves as spiritual beings…For religious bodies, the responsibility of caring for the environment … is now being taken much more seriously than in the past. Probably because we’ve just realised how badly we suck at our responsibilities toward humanity.
Unfortunately, some earlier generations of Christians applied the account of the creation of the earth in Genesis, the first book of the Bible, (thanks for clearing that up) to give human beings the authority to exploit and dominate the earth for their own benefit, regardless of the consequences. They saw the earth and everything in it as there for the sake of human beings only, who could treat it just as they pleased. Really ! Care to name these misguided people? Reformists? Church of the Industrial Revolution? The Amish?
This understanding - not entirely restricted to Christians -has had tragic consequences. Sure did. Unfortunately God forgot the Environmental Impact Study before He let loose all that sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah. And then there's the billions of tonnes of carbon from volcanic eruptions. I hope God reads The Age, He really needs to change His Ways.
As our awareness of the danger our planet now faces has grown, theologians have reminded us that in the Genesis account, God gave humans the responsibility of caring for all living things, including the earth itself. Humans were to live in harmony with other creatures, and with the land. They were to respect and value the entire physical environment. He also told them to sacrifice perfect little Lambs to illustrate how shocking our sin is to Him. I wonder which message was more important?
If only we had! We would not now be in such real danger. Yes! We’d never had needed Jesus! It is all very well to talk about theological principles. We need to act on them…Great idea! From now on all Anglican farmers must leave their land fallow every seven years.
The Anglican Church and other faith communities are now struggling to get up to speed in terms of our actions. ..Increasingly parishes, like all responsible households, are conducting energy audits, changing their light bulbs and heating methods, recycling their rubbish, installing rain water tanks, and altering their housekeeping and gardening practices. Forget your lost friend who is going to spend an eternity separated from God. Preach grey water instead, brother! Salvation by works! Hallelujah!
But it is even more important that we all focus on the spiritual dimension of our relationship to the environment, to ensure that as a society we respond from the heart. Yes, not from the head. Remember what we said about evidence…
I invite people of all faiths, … to celebrate creation, say sorry for our misuse of the earth, take a step in caring for the earth, and to pray for the future of the earth. Who do I make my non-specific apology out to…God or Gaia?
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
-and-people-died-and-JohnHoward-knew-and-did-nothing-about-it story. It was almost painful listening to ABC Newsradio's Jennifer Byrne trying to harangue the ADF's Neil James into admitting that defence funding cuts were directly responsible for the deaths of these young soldiers. He wouldn't, but did mention that lack of resources prevailed during the 80's and 90's. Labor years. Oops.
Some salient points from the report included factors like "personnel... took higher risks during operations...had a 'can-do' attitude.... were not adequately supervised..."
Higher risks? Can-do attitude? Working unsupervised? Egads! We cannot have that in our defence forces! And let me get this straight; military personnel tried different, often risky, maneuvers to land helicopters, as part of their training??
Yes, this IS shocking. After all, when they are called to extract wounded soldiers from the Afghani-Pakistan border under heavy Taliban rocket fire, they should take it slow and easy. Relax! The Taliban are fully respectful of Australian Occ Health and Safety procedures. Don't fire on the chopper, Aziz, he's obviously a learner. The last thing we want is the worksafe inspector spoiling our jihad, with his high-viz jacket and clipboard an' all that. That would be really bad.
In more news, those madcap and zany mullahs in Iran have been test-firing rockets as a show of strength. They even sent one happy snap for western photo albums. Naturally, Reuters and AP jumped on it:
The Revolutionary Guards released this photo to the world to demonstrate it's unflinching readiness to defensively respond to the Israeli threat of responding to the Iranian threat to wipe out Israel. Problem is, some farsi-speaking genius in the Iranian agitprop department discovered how to use photoshop and one of those missiles isn't actually real. Here is the real, un-altered photo:
Well, okay, not entirely un-altered. The camera was way to far off to hear the clicking noise. But you get the point. Personally, if I was an Iranian Revolutionary guard, I'd be quite happy with three out of four Sahabs getting off the ground. After all, they were purchased at a Russian garage sale. So why the need to digitally alter a photo- to enhance the appearance of military might or computer geekness?
Of course, environmental groups were delighted. If you must insist on exterminating 6-7 million Jews, photoshopping the appearance of firing a fourth missile instead of actually firing it, reduces your carbon emissions by 25%!
Which got me thinking- why stop there? Surely Ahmadinejad can simply photoshop a picture of him standing atop the Temple Mount, above miles of decimated Israeli population, so the Iranians will have the impression of a conclusive victory over the Zionist cancer. Reuters wouldn't even find out unless someone tells them. It would keep everyone happy and nobody has to die.
Anyhow, the major news agencies were advised about the deception. Not only were the photos pulled but in some cases the "farsi-cal" event made it's own story. Which is unusual, since normally the media stops caring once they've sold their quota.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard, however, were not swayed by the whistle blowing. They then released what they claimed was the REAL photo.
Friday, July 11, 2008
It's bad enough that C02 emission trading schemes are being thrust upon already crippled societies to solve a problem which doesn't exist. It's bad enough that green religious zealots are screaming "unclean!!" at those who would dare deny that humans are ruining the planet and must pay. Even worse that these green zealots are in our parliament and our media, shutting down all debate by saying it's over when it hasn't even begun.
I stumbled upon this post on Andrew Bolt's blog by an unidentified poster. If what he's saying is true, and it certainly appears credible, the implications (whilst a little subtle) should be shouted from the rooftops with the same hysteria as that practised by AGW disciples.
I've edited some of the heavier scientific concepts and added some emphases:
As a retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist in the geoscience - sedimentary rock discipline, I strongly support the view that there is substantial real hard empirical science that refutes the notion that carbon dioxide is driving climate change, which is a natural continuum. Further, evidence (not assumptive modelling) suggests man-made carbon dioxide seems to be a trivial component in the full scope of climate variation.
The highly beneficial ... effects of carbon dioxide are largely ignored; ... recent modelling from Cornell University (Mahowald) shows a reversal in desertification is possible. If reversing the time-direction in climate prediction models cannot emulate known past climates, why should we believe their forward modelling?
This full science appears to be actively suppressed by much of our media. Let’s have a Royal Commission now, and sort this out for ourselves publicly. A close inspection of the real data from sedimentary layers in the ocean floor, lake floors, in ice-cores, stalactites, coral accumulations etc show a clear record of past climate, temperatures and carbon dioxide levels. Understanding and integrating all the disparate data ...is required.
On the bright side, there is some real hope contained in existing technologies to *re-cycle* CO2 as nature does with photosysthesis. I have provided pointers to this information and a proposed solution to recycle carbon dioxide into food and fuel - directly to all political parties by emails, and at the Science in Parliament Day in Queenland in 2003, and to colleagues in CSIRO. This technology was viewed at the time as highly disruptive, as it undercut research funding into (uselessly) burying CO2, and what increasingly seems like a fraud that underpins the calls for Emissions Trading.
Technology has existed for over 25 years to convert CO2 into algal protein and microbial oil using solar digestors, algae like Chlorella and Spirulina, and bacteria like Arthrobacter and yeasts like Candida. We require coal-fired base-load power stations to be oxygen fired, and then pipe the concentrated CO2 stream to solar farms for a closed-system recycling into food and fuel. Laboratory trials in Toronto in the early 80s suggested amazing yields of up to 50,000 barrels of oil equivalent per hectare per year, as I recollect. At this rate all of Australia’s annual fuel requirements could be produced by 1600 hectares.
Worth a few dollars to investigate I would think, but it has not been funded appropriately if at all. Why?
I'd like to think the WCC are more than just a genteel collection of men in purple frocks and newly-ordained women fresh out of seminary. I'd like to think the WCC have stood tall and effectively for some noble issues. If their attitude to Israel is any guide, sadly it appears to be just another champion of social gospel crying for modern relevance.
Yep, we should all want peace. John Lennon wrote songs about it. It's the right thing to fight for. Sorry, did I say fight? Shame on me. The problem with peace, is that not everybody wants it. And if one side doesn't, it's pointless to pressure the side who does. Those who do may momentarily feel as though they have made a difference, but it's just the line of least resistance.
Orthodox traditional Christianity has always had an incessant desire to belong. Now they join the rest of a secular humanist society to push for a peace which cannot exist, and it's not for the first time. The WCC's Global week of International Church Action for Peace in Palestine and Israel reads like a how-to guide on coddling Islamic terrorism and Jew-hatred.
It says "me too!" to the growing number of those who are pressuring a shrinking Israel, to give whatever battered limbs they still have to a people who seek their total destruction .
Why is it that everyone, from Islamic radicals thinly disguised as moderates, to self-loathing Jews, to former Prime Ministers, current MP's and religious leaders, puts the maximum pressure on Israel? Answer: Because they can.
They can send a bunch of purple frocks to walk along the Israeli defensive wall in Judea frowning and talking about the Berlin Wall and apartheid. They can send them to be "educated" by the top five pro-palestinian groups and self-loathing Jews, and claim to have heard "all" sides of the conflict.
They can say "these groups risk public censure and their personal safety" for "speaking the simple truth about the occupation", and so on. The irony of that. If it really was true, they wouldn't be there, with their tour groups and concerned, compassionate faces, making a true difference in the world. Try pulling those stunts in Zimbabwe, Sudan, North Korea...in fact just name any Islamic state.
It's not effective advocacy. It's actually quite cowardly. The parties most deserving of pressure are the most violent. Going after them is difficult. It's the line of most resistance. Neville Chamberlain wrote the book on it. Instead of standing up to Chancellor Adolf Hitler in 1938 he handed over half of Czechoslovakia. And boy, didn't that work a treat.
It's so much easier going after the ones who don't kill you for your trouble. In layman's terms, it's called "meddling". In Christian terms, this is called "salvation by works"- atoning for one's sins by attempting something which only God is capable of doing. Pointless.
Let's look at what the Australian chapter of the WCC are asking for, and what they're not asking for;
"...persistent advocacy for a freely and peacefully negotiated solution …whether in the form of two states or one"
A two state solution has been offered. It's been refused. There was never any nationalistic ambition from Palestinian Arabs, only a desire to inflict a "war of extermination and a momentous massacre" on Jews, to quote Arab League secretary General Azzam Pasha. And they lost, each time.
A “One State” solution already exists. Israel is free for people of all ethnicities and faiths - indeed the only country in the Middle East to be so. The Palestinian Authority makes clear in its constitution that it is an Arab Muslim country, with Sharia law as the only law.
"greater recognition of the plight of Palestinians after 41 years of military occupation;"
What a perfect way to empower terrorism with the sense of victimhood. The "plight of the Palestinians" enjoys massive western media coverage, because sensationalism sells. The cultural elite build an entire industry on the "plight of the Palestinians", in doing so giving social legitimacy to savagery, murder and terrorism. The lines between good and evil have been so muddied it's hard to tell whether or not these cultural elites, WCC included, care one tiny bit for the Palestinians rather than their image.
The term “occupation” is a fashion statement. It's popular, it evokes outrage, and makes for a soundbyte heavily critical of Israel. There's only one problem with it: it's entirely incorrect and shows a flawed reading of international standards.
Firstly, in order for there to be an "occupation", there needs to be a nation to occupy. France, Czechoslovakia and Poland were occupied in 1939. Tibet is occupied. Palestine is not occupied. It was never a nation.
There are numerous other reasons why "occupation" is just plain incorrect. At best, it can be argued by international lawyers ad nauseum. At worst, it is an outright lie. The WCC fashionably and uncritically use it as a given.
"a quadrupling of Australia’s aid contribution to the social and economic development of Palestine;"
Good grief. This is either terrifyingly naive or deliberately malicious.
Already, Palestinian territories contain the highest welfare-dependant population per capita on Earth and yet have substandard hospitals and schools, major human rights abuses by the controlling Palestinian powers, increased terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens, education and media hell-bent on indoctrinating children to Jew-hatred and violence, and persecution of Christians. Now the gatekeepers of Christian compassion insist we must reward this terrorism?
Talk about empowerment- supplying them with even more money to spend on arming themselves to the teeth, while their rank-and-file starve. No wonder they think we're stupid infidels.
So those were some of the calls of Australia's church leaders. Here's some snippets from the WCC's worldwide statements, beginning with their poetic, heart-wrenching and culturally elitist message “It’s time for Palestine” ;
"It's time for people who have been refugees for 60 years to regain their rights and a permanent home".
Are they referring to the Palestinian refugee problem created by the Arab states who marched in and called for the Arabs to flee while they annihilate Israel, beginning in 1948? Or are they referring to the 800,000 Jewish refugees driven from their homes in now-Arab lands (including Iraq, Jordan, Yemen, Egypt et al), whose property was confiscated and never returned, all of whom were successfully absorbed by Israel?
Shouldn't the Arab refugees be given a permanent home in the countries who belligerently attacked Israel, who promised them annihilation of Jews and more land...but failed? You live by the sword...
"It's time to assist settlers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories to make their home in Israel".
Isn't that nice! We need to "help" the Israeli settlers leave their own sovereign land because the Palestinians refuse to live with them (did I mention the 1.5 million Arabs who live prosperously in Israel?). Yes, we "helped" them leave Gaza in 2005 in return for peace. What Israel got instead was a massive increase in rocket attacks from Gaza.
It's time for Muslim, Jewish and Christian communities to be free to visit their holy sites.
The point is...? They currently are, at least in Israeli controlled areas where people of all faiths are free to visit their proclaimed holy sites. On the other hand, Muslim Waqf controlled areas such as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, have highly restricted access for Jews. Remember, Palestine and it's Islamic sponsors don't believe there is anything holy to Jews here at all, and insist there never has been, despite the masses of historically verifiable documents, texts, records and archaeological finds to the contrary. Perhaps this is why they continue their total destruction of Hebrew archaeological finds on the Mount.
When the town of Nablus was under Palestinian control, the tomb of Joseph was totally destroyed. Access is not really the most serious issue here.
Here is more from the WCC's website which clarify their thin attempt to appear neutral:
"This year (2008) is 60 years since the partition of Palestine hardened into a permanent nightmare for Palestinians. It is also 41 years since the occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza overwhelmed the peaceful vision of one land, two peoples".
Such lamentations! But have these Christian leaders read Proverbs? They would find a thing or two in there about the destructive power of words.
The “partition” planned prior to 1948 was to give the Palestinian Arabs a state, the very goal they claim to have today, to hide the real goal of annihilating any Jewish presence. They failed to achieve that goal then, and have failed repeatedly since, and their welfare has degenerated as a result.
The WCC is implying that the “nightmare” for the Palestinians was their failure to wipe out Jews. What, exactly, are we supposed to be lamenting here?
And let's get something straight. There was never, at any time, a “peaceful vision of one land, two peoples”. The UN’s 1947 partition plan was for two lands, two peoples. Accepted by Israel, rejected by Arabs. Their intent was for one land, one people. One without Jews.
The WCC should know this. Their own book says they are "without excuse".
"In 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza, causing further waves of refugees. There are now some 4 million Palestinian refugees scattered throughout the Middle East and Palestine, many living in permanent refugee camps".
Ah yes, 1967. No mention of how Israel fought for it's survival against 5 nations and armies 50 times their size, who lined their borders with weapons and troops while their radio crackled with the commands to "drive them into the sea". No, the impression is that Israel just walked in and put down stumps.
But that's not even the main problem with the statement. There are not 4 million Palestinian refugees. There are some 750,000 refugees who had children and grandchildren. The UN definition of refugees clearly defines refugee status as not extending to children born in exile. Only in regards to the Arab-Israel conflict is an exception to this definition made. Why?
"Palestinians have the right of self-determination; their duly elected governmental authorities must be recognised, including the current leaders"
They MUST be recognised? Unconditionally? Because Hamas was "duly elected"? No mention that Hamas are a terrorist organisation who openly advocate and practise the destruction of Israel and the spilling of Jewish blood? Israel is, quite correctly, boycotting Hamas until it recognises Israel's right to exist and renounces violence. That the WCC demand one without the other is starting to look like more than simple ignorance.
"Settlements are illegal, as is their expansion; they are prohibited by the Fourth Geneva Convention and incompatible with peace. Israeli soldiers and settlers must be withdrawn".
"The Fourth Geneva Convention"- words almost as popular as "occupation" and equally as abused.
It is precisely the often-quoted fourth Geneva Convention which defines all Israeli settlements as totally legal. The Fourth Geneva Convention pertains to territory conquered in an offensive attack. Israel was not the aggressor. It also refers to situations where the conquering force expel the conquered population. Israel never expelled Arab population from 1967 to 1994. In fact, the Arab population increased by over 1 million during this time.
Israel removed it’s settlements from Gaza in 2005, and were “rewarded” with a massive increase in attacks. There is no mention of this on the WCC website.
"The Separation Barrier is illegal. It is a grave breach of international law and humanitarian law, and must be removed from occupied territory".
I presume the WCC mean the West Bank security fence built to protect Israeli citizens from constant rocket attacks, snipers and homicide bombers. The mainstream press use "quotation marks" to de-legitimize it. After all, if Israel says it, it must be suspicious. Of course, if you were an Israeli citizen being peppered by rockets, or whose children are sniped by gunfire, you wouldn't question the term security fence.
Well, at least the WCC don't use quotation marks. Instead they give it a name which associates it with apartheid. So they've read Jimmy Carter's book. And they're just as wrong. The security fence’s illegality has never been established. It's another fashion statement.
It's not a separation barrier, an apartheid fence, the Berlin Wall, a Palestinian misery wall, a Pink Floyd wall, or any such like. It's a security fence. No quotation marks. It works. It has successfully reduced the number of fatal terrorist acts against Israelis by 90%.
However, in order for this to be relevant, you would need to first acknowledge that these attacks actually take place, and then you'd have to care about them. To the WCC, are the lives of Israelis of lesser importance than the convenience of Palestinians?
"Certain economic measures are legitimate forms of pressure for peace. The WCC encourages member churches to avoid investments or other economic links to illegal activities on occupied territory, and to boycott settlement products".
It's disturbing how much the WCC resort to obfuscated wording to give the illusion of impartiality, when in fact they are pointing the finger in only one direction.
They mean a boycott of Israel. The WCC base their policies and advocacy on the popular non-truths of “illegal occupation and settlements”, among many other misconceptions. Given this, the WCC is encouraging church congregations to unjustly prejudice Israel, a nation which is in desperate need of our support.
In fact, couldn't that be called a form of "collective punishment"? Doesn't the WCC themselves say “It's time to name the shame of collective punishment and to end it in all its forms”?
There's only one pattern forming here. The same old, tired calls for action based on perceptions which are without truth, aiming for a goal of peace without a partner, and with only one common thread of consistency; Israel is always to blame. The same types of people; some who hold to a faith, some who don't, but all trying to atone for their sins and gain salvation by works- the works of uncritically accepting the claims of a minority and "bravely" opposing their alleged enemy- namely those who will never harm you for criticising them.
Forget salvation by works, and try compassion. Compassion is more than philanthropy. Compassion is empowering people to be free from the influences which cause them hopelessness- drugs, prostitution, hatred or terrorism. It may entail pressuring them to renounce something. Compassion is advocating for moral clarity, not blithely apportioning blame based on the political claims of the oppressed. That's only the line of least resistance.
In the case of these poor, wretched Palestinian Arabs whose welfare and grief has been shamelessly exploited to make the world hate Jews even more, compassion does not mean political support and empowerment. Only the opposite will actually help.
So, World Council Of Churches...what's really your point?
"When peace comes, we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons."
-- Golda Meir, Israel's prime minister from 1969 to 1974
12-year-old Palestinian 'martyr' likely killed by his own people
Twelve-year-old Mohammed al-Dura and his father Jamal were on their way home in Gaza when, at the remote Netzarim junction, they were caught up in a firefight between Palestinian snipers and the Israel Defense Force.
Crouching in terror behind his father, who struggled in vain to protect his son from the gunfire, Mohammed was shot. He died there, cradled in his father's arms, after both father and son frantically pleaded for help. Since that day, Mohammed al-Dura has become the poster child, rallying cry and virtual symbol of the 2000 Al Aqsa intifada.
The dramatic footage of al-Dura's Sept. 30 death has been broadcast the world over. Palestinian television has created an edited version wherein pictures of an Israeli soldier shooting have been spliced into the original footage. Heart-wrenching photographs of the father and son have been posted alongside roads throughout the West Bank. And Egyptian authorities are reportedly naming the street on which the Israeli embassy is located after Mohammed al-Dura.
The Israeli military was quick to apologize for the deaths -- some say too quick.
The theory, backed by considerable evidence, has now emerged that the unthinkable actually occurred -- that a Palestinian shot the boy in cold blood to create a needed martyr -- on film -- to advance the Palestinian nationalist cause.
'The martyr is lucky'
Most Palestinians believe the establishment of the state of Israel was a terrible mistake, an injustice involving the forcible relocation of many of their forebears. Indeed, Israel's very existence has never been accepted by many in the Arab world.
As a result of this perceived injustice, many Palestinians teach their children, from the very earliest ages, unbridled hatred toward Israelis.
But to free the children to act on that hatred, a second teaching is deeply inculcated throughout their childhood. The Palestinians teach explicitly, as do many Arab nations, that to die in the "jihad" -- holy war -- against Israel purchases the "martyr" instant acceptance into heaven. And it is a very red-blooded and lusty male heaven they are promised, characterized first and foremost by endless sex with a multitude of virgins.
Recently, the mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine, Sheik Ikrima Sabri -- the highest religious authority in the region -- was interviewed by the Egyptian weekly, Al-Ahram Al-Arabi about his admiration for child "martyrs." Dozens of Palestinian youths reportedly have died since late September in violent clashes with Israelis after the meltdown of the doomed Clinton-brokered "peace process."
"I feel the martyr is lucky because the angels usher him to his wedding in heaven," said the mufti, appointed by Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat. "There is no doubt that a child [martyr] suggests that the new generation will carry on the mission with determination. The younger the martyr, the greater and the more I respect him."
Lavishing praise specifically on the sacrifice of Palestinian children to the cause, Sabri reflected: "One [child martyr] wrote his name on a note before he died. He wrote: 'the martyr so and so.' In every martyr's pocket we find a note with his name on it. He sentences himself to martyrdom even before he becomes a martyr."
The interviewer then asked an incredible question: "Is this why the mothers cry with joy when they hear about their sons' death?"
"They willingly sacrifice their offspring for the sake of freedom," answered the mufti. "It is a great display of the power of belief. The mother is participating in the great reward of the Jihad to liberate Al-Aqsa."
In an apparent reference to the widely held belief that martyrs who die killing an infidel will be given 50 virgins in heaven, Sabri added: "I talked to a young man ... [who] said: '... I want to marry the black-eyed [beautiful] women of heaven.' The next day he became a martyr. I am sure his mother was filled with joy about his heavenly marriage. Such a son must have such a mother."
The Jerusalem Post's Oct. 27 edition revealed the shocking aftermath of the violent deaths of some Palestinian children.
"Interviewed by journalists after [recent] tragedies, some of the parents of these young victims refer to their children as shahids (martyrs), whose lives were given willingly and proudly to the Palestinian cause in fighting the hated Zionist enemy," wrote Post writer Gerald M. Steinberg.
"In an unbelievably shocking scene, one mother boasted that she bore her son precisely for this purpose, and the father proudly claimed credit for providing the training. The parents will also receive a sizeable financial 'reward' from the Palestinian Authority," he added.
The preparation for martyrdom begins early.
In a Palestinian television program called the "Children's Club," young children are shown singing songs about wanting to become "suicide warriors" and to take up "a machine gun" to direct "violence, anger, anger, anger" against Israelis.
During the show, which features children aged 4-10, one young boy sings, "When I wander into Jerusalem ... I will become a suicide bomber." Afterward, other children stand to call for "Jihad! Holy war to the end against the Zionist enemy." In another segment, a boy who appears to be no more than 8 or 9 years old chants: "My patience has run out. ... All Arab existence cries for revenge" against the Jews in Israel.
Media biased against Israel?
The Associated Press photo published in the New York Times and other newspapers in late September said it all: A club-wielding, screaming Israeli soldier stood above a blood-drenched Palestinian on the Temple Mount. Further proof of Israeli brutality against the Palestinians.
Except the "Palestinian" in the photo was not Palestinian at all, but a 20-year-old Jewish student from Chicago, named Tuvia Grossman, who was studying at a yeshiva in Jerusalem. He had just been savagely beaten by a mob of Palestinians, and was, as the photo was taken, being protected by an Israeli policeman against his Palestinian assailants.
The New York Times, long criticized as biased against Israel, has plenty of company.
On Oct. 1, shortly after the outbreak of Palestinian rioting, National Public Radio's Jennifer Ludden reported: "Today is a repeat of the last three days ... You've got this Goliath of an Israeli army with guns. In some places yesterday they used armored tanks. There were battle helicopters buzzing overhead. At one point in the Gaza strip yesterday, Israeli soldiers fired an anti-tank missile. All this directed at young kids with stones."
But according to the pro-Israel group CAMERA (the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), this is just another example of extreme and long-standing anti-Israel bias on NPR's part.
"None of the Israeli weaponry cited has been 'directed at young kids with stones,'" according to CAMERA. "At that point, the tanks had not fired one shot at anyone, but were positioned as a deterrent. The helicopters had been brought in to help rescue an Israeli shot by Palestinians who was trapped and bleeding to death in defense of Joseph's Tomb in Nablus. The anti-tank missile was used against Palestinian snipers firing at Israelis from high-rise buildings at the Netzarim junction in Gaza."
In the aftermath of the Al-Dura shooting, the international media glibly reported that "a French photographer" or "a French television crew" had filmed the tragedy. In reality, although the news organization was French, the photojournalist who actually filmed the shooting was a Palestinian named Talal Abu Rahma, who lives in Gaza. Rabbi Avi Shafran weighed in on anti-Israel media bias in the Oct. 13 edition of the Providence Journal-Bulletin. "When baseless biases are openly voiced, they are seen for what they are: ugly, evil, human faults," he wrote. "When subtly layered, though, into journalistic products' choices of photographs, captions, turns of phrase, stories' spins, they often slip by unnoticed, and proceed to infect and deform countless hearts and minds."
While National Public Radio correspondents routinely portray Israeli soldiers as jack-booted thugs, some in the international news media are even more openly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than the major American press:
Riccardo Cristiano, Mideast representative for the official state-owned Italian television station, RAI, placed an ad in the Oct. 16 edition of the main Palestinian Authority newspaper, Al Hayat al Jedida, promising he would never think of giving any bad publicity to the Palestinians or their cause.
"My dear friends in Palestine," the ad began. "We congratulate you and think that it is our duty to put you in the picture (of the events) of what happened on October 12 in Ramallah."
He was referring to the brutal beating and murder by a Palestinian mob of two non-combatant drivers in the Israel Defense Force, at a Palestinian Authority police station in Ramallah.
Apologizing for a rival, private Italian television station's filming of the brutal lynchings, he assured readers that it was not the official Italian news media that did so.
"Israeli television broadcast the pictures," Cristiano bemoaned, "as taken from one of the Italian stations, and thus the public impression was created as if we (RAI) took these pictures. We emphasize to all of you that the events did not happen this way," the ad continued, "because we always respect (will continue to respect) the journalistic procedures with the Palestinian Authority for (journalistic) work in Palestine. ..."
Cristiano added, "We thank you for your trust, and you can be sure that this is not our way of acting. We do not (will not) do such at thing. Please accept our dear blessings."
'Only one possible solution'
Palestinian leaders, realizing the profound influence world opinion will likely have on the ultimate outcome of the Middle East crisis -- particularly on the effort to "internationalize" Jerusalem and install U.N. "peacekeeping forces" in the region -- are very public relations-conscious. In fact, they are notorious for playing to the overly sympathetic and often one-sided international media's camera.
USA Today ran a story showing how the Palestinian news media have invented "atrocity" stories by reporting supposed Israeli soldier attacks on different Palestinian towns, which upon verification have turned out to be complete fabrications. There have also been reported instances of Palestinian ambulances sent out to pick up fake wounded -- for the sake of eager Western cameras.
Although there are moderate Palestinian voices, the leadership holds to a long-held, ambitious and somewhat secret (to the West, at least) ultimate objective -- to take over all of Israel. Indeed, the Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be understood unless it is recognized that the complete "liberation" of Palestine (which to the Palestinians includes all of Israel) is, and always has been, the endgame of the Arab leadership toward Israel.
Based on an enmity many trace back to Abraham, most Arab leaders -- as distinct from courageous souls like the late Anwar el-Sadat as well as many moderate Arabs both in the Middle East and throughout the world who have risen beyond this cultural and spiritual hatred -- still cling to the "jihad," the struggle to "reclaim Palestine," as a holy mission. Current Mideast leaders like Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat continually fan the ancient fires of hatred toward Israel that first burst into flame against the modern Jewish state one day after its establishment in 1948:
"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." -- Arab League Secretary General Azzam Pasha, May 15, 1948, the day five Arab armies invaded the new state of Israel, one day after the nation declared its independence
"The Arab nations should sacrifice up to 10 million of their 50 million people, if necessary, to wipe out Israel ... Israel to the Arab world is like a cancer to the human body, and the only way of remedy is to uproot it, just like a cancer." -- Saud ibn Abdul Aziz, King of Saudi Arabia, Associated Press, Jan. 9, 1954
"I announce from here, on behalf of the United Arab Republic people, that this time we will exterminate Israel." -- President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, speech in Alexandria, July 26, 1959
"We shall never call for nor accept peace. We shall only accept war. We have resolved to drench this land with your [Israel's] blood, to oust you as aggressor, to throw you into the sea." -- Hafez Assad, then-Syrian Defense Minister, May 24, 1966, who later became Syria's president
"The battle with Israel must be such that, after it, Israel will cease to exist." -- Libyan President Mohammar Qadaffi, al-Usbu al-Arrabi (Beirut) quoted by Algiers Radio, Nov. 12, 1973
"There has been no change whatsoever in the fundamental strategy of the PLO, which is based on the total liberation of Palestine and the destruction of the occupying country ... On no accounts will the Palestinians accept part of Palestine and call it the Palestinian state, while forfeiting the remaining areas which are called the State of Israel." --Rafiq Najshah, PLO representative in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabian News Agency, June 9, 1980
"The struggle with the Zionist enemy is not a struggle about Israel's borders, but about Israel's existence. We will never agree to anything less than the return of all our land and the establishment of the independent state." --Bassam Abu Sharif, a top Arafat aide and PLO spokesman, quoted by the Kuwait News Agency, May 31, 1986
"The establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip does not contradict our ultimate strategic aim, which is the establishment of a democratic state in the entire territory of Palestine, but rather is a step in that direction."
--Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad) interview with Al-Safir, Lebanon, Jan. 25, 1988
"We will enter Jerusalem victoriously and raise our flag on its walls ... We will fight you [the Israelis] with stones, rifles, and 'El-Abed' [the Iraqi missile]..."
--Yasser Arafat, reported by the Associated Press, March 29, 1990, at the start of the Gulf War
"The hands of the U.S. are fully stained with the blood of the Palestinians. There is only one possible solution to unrest in the Middle East, namely, the annihilation and destruction of the Zionist state."
-- Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a "prayer sermon" at Tehran University addressing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, Dec. 31, 1999