|  |
 Obama gave his speech and discover what being on the other side of the media bias line looks. Suddenly articles ominously mentioned his "controversial" speech, because of course a controversial speech is one that the media disagrees with. Stories before the speech ran touting the soldiers who don't want to serve or deploy. And Obama's speech was a failure on both sides, providing a temporary limited surge along the lines of the same policy Gorbachev enacted right before the end. Liberals who wanted Afghanistan to be Vietnam right now, and wanted to see US helicopters taking off and US interpreters being slaughtered discovered that they will have to wait another 18 months. Meanwhile anyone who takes the War on Terror seriously realizes that all Obama offers is a face saving gesture for his own political career. Peter Roff at US News and World Report pointed out that Obama's Speech on Afghanistan Said nothing At All In a more narrow sense, however, the speech was wanting because it displayed, in a most disquieting way, the idea that, to Obama, it seemed more important for the United States to be able to get out of Afghanistan than it was to win or, for that matter, to achieve a meaningful, measurable objective as the result of sending additional troops into the region... Der Spiegel was equally devastating One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech would be well-received. Liberal responses have meanwhile ranged from angry to disappointed to conspiracy mongering hysteria. In particular a piece at CBS News by Tom Engelhardt claimed that the entire speech had been the product of a military coup against Obama. No seriously. The piece is a hysterical full run on rant that could have been authored by a younger Bill Ayers and demonstrates the level of denial permeating some of Obama's liberal media backers. Apparently though despite this supposed coup, Obama was able to successfully banish an F-22 from the vicinity of his speech, so that the Prince of Chicago's would not be tainted by any military association. But some things are best summed up by late night jokes "President Obama ordered 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban, but on an 18-month timetable. In a related story, the Taliban announced they are on a 19-month timetable." -Jay Leno Meanwhile the Climategate fallout continues with a UN Panel set to begin its investigation. It is interesting so far that the two most serious blows to the left's political hegemony came from two young people with a video camera, and an anonymous hacker. Obama meanwhile is busy making the case for healthcare by slurring the Roma. He really is a European politician. And April Ryan or the American Urban Radio Networks has made the news twice. First when Chris Matthews declared that "Homeland" was a Communist Neo-Con word. MATTHEWS: It sounds so vaguely, it sounds like Russia. It sounds like- because it`s one of those neo-con words I despise. Defending the United States. You don't have to defend the homeland, the off-land islands, like we're Japan. We have some other space we defend. That's what got us into trouble in the first place... Okay next time. By the way, when we stop term, using terms, start using terms like the motherland and the fatherland, that's when we are getting imperial. I don't think anyone's surprised that Chris Matthews doesn't like the homeland. Then April Ryan told off Gibbs when he once again felt the needs to compare reporters asking questions he didn't like to little children. Look for the usual liberal and feminist blogs who would have lost their minds had Rumsfeld talked to a black female reporter this way to remain completely silent. Meanwhile for those who can make it there will be a protest against Obama and Holder's plan to hold civilian trials for Al Queda terrorists in New York. ***CALL TO ACTION*** Meanwhile at the Jerusalem Post, there's an interesting article from a former Islamic terrorist who worked together with Zawahari defending the Swiss decision to ban the Minaret. The Swiss people who rejected building minarets may be sending a message that their tolerance did not change the Muslim world and is not reciprocated. For several decades Muslims have been allowed to build mosques in Europe, wear their traditional symbols such as the hijab, and preach Islam to non-Muslims. Despite such high levels of tolerance in the West, non-Muslims are not permitted to practice similar rights in several parts of the Islamic world. Preaching Christianity is criminalized in a number of Muslim countries. Furthermore, non-Muslims are not permitted to have their holy books or to build their religious temples in many Shari'a-controlled areas. This lack of reciprocity of Western tolerance will naturally make many Westerners feel that showing tolerance to Muslims is not effective. The entire thing is worth reading. In the aftermath of my article this week on Wafa Sultan, I have noticed someone very aggressively circulating a hit piece targeting her from In Focus, a paper as the largest Muslim newspaper in California. The piece relies mostly on claims from some anonymous Syrian informant who supposedly knew the Sultans. Let's take a look at what In Focus is. Asma Ahmad, a Pakistani Canadian citizen who grew up in Saudi Arabia attending American-run schools and formerly edited the national newsletter of the Muslim Students Association, is the paper's managing editor and only full-timer staffer The Muslim Students Association is a project of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is behind the creation of Hamas and Al Queda. We're talking about hard core Islamist propaganda funded by the Saudis. And what sort of things does In Focus and Asma Ahmad print... Asma Ahmad is the managing editor of CAIR-California’s monthly tabloid, In Focus. Under her leadership, in October of 2006, In Focus published an article lauding Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah. The piece read, “[I]t was undoubtedly the epic heroism of the resistance fighters that dealt the humiliating defeat to the Anglo-American-backed Zionist forces, but such heroism would not have been possible without the larger-than-life leader to inspire, direct and focus it. Nasrallah’s leadership in war and later has made him into an emblematic figure of long-cherished hope not only to a majority of the Lebanese people but also to the Arab nation as a whole and indeed to the Muslim world.” This isn't even Islamism. This is open support for terrorism. And that's the source of the hit piece targeting Wafa Sultan. For more on this topic, please see my previous article today, Rebutting the Smears Against Wafa Sultan Some in the blogsphere have noticed Charles Johnson of LGF's official statement about breaking with the right. A statement that is redundant since the break seems to have actually come at least a year ago. It's tantamount to David Horowitz suddenly writing an article to state that he is no longer a liberal. File this one under things everyone already knew. By way of personal disclosure, LGF used to be my home away from on the internet. Long before I began blogging myself, it was the blog I loaded first every day and throughout the day. For a while it epitomized the best of the counter-Jihad blogsphere. That LGF is long gone and I miss it a lot. I haven't mentioned LGF in a while because there is nothing to say about it anymore. The new LGF is obsessed with waging war on Creationists, anyone who doesn't believe in Global Warming and pretty much everyone to the right of Johnson. The War on Terror has gone by the wayside, folded in between 20 other stories about how Palin will destroy America, mainly I suspect to make the original readers feel less uncomfortable about being at a site that has become virtually indistinguishable from DailyKos except by its color scheme. But this isn't about the "Right". It's possible to be pro-evolution, gay marriage and global warming-- and write against Islamic terrorism. It's possible to be an atheist who's 100 percent for secularism and blog against Islamic terrorism. Talk of breaking with the right is nonsense. Charles Johnson was always a liberal, but he used to be anti-Jihadist liberal. Johnson was not the only one who woke up after 9/11, only to go back to sleep again. He just took longer than most to do it. And it is a shame because for a while LGF was a great resource, a roundup and a snapshot of what terrorists were up to around the world, combined with rebuttals for the anti-war movement. But much as Johnson may protest, this isn't about Beck or Lew Rockwell or Robert Stacy McCain or the BNP. If it really was, then LGF would still be covering the War on Terror as the major focus. This is because Charles Johnson with the passage of time discovered something worse than 9/11, Creationism. Just as Andrew Sullivan discovered something worse than 9/11, Opposition to Gay Marriage. And claiming anything else is simply dishonest. Johnson may or may not wake up again. Probably not. But the War on Terror goes on regardless of him or any other individual or any infighting in the blogsphere. By dropping out of the fight, Johnson has not ended it, only made himself irrelevant to the true great struggle of our time. Others will see the struggle and come in his place. At Love of the Land, a piece by Dr. Aaron Lerner noting the impact of Obama's demanded settlement freeze on Israel. Israeli property owners, possessing all the necessary permits to build their homes, will now face the costs of having the completion of their homes delayed by ten months. Mystical Paths further points to the devastating impact on the same Palestinian Arabs that Obama claims to want to help Palestinian Authority statistics from 2007 state that 13% of "Palestinian" men in the West Bank work in construction in the settlements and Israel (including Jerusalem and other supposed "occupied" areas). In AFSI's Mideast Outpost meanwhile Rael Jean Isaac and Ruth King look at the Axis of Anti-Semitism. In Germany the left has put the Jewish community in a double bind. Historian Suzanne Urban reports that groups on the left embrace Jews as valued allies against neo-Nazi Holocaust denial, even as these same groups defame Israel and her supporters. As German Jewish journalist Henryk Broder observed in a hearing by the Interior Committee of the Bundesrepublik: “The modern anti-Semite condemns ordinary anti-Semitism, but he names himself without hesitation anti-Zionist. He is grateful for having his chance to show his resentments in a politically correct way. The anti-Zionist has the same attitude toward Israel as anti-Semites carry toward Jews.” Making the situation of Jews even more uncomfortable, the left demands that as victims of the Holocaust, they publicly identify with Moslems, their chief tormentors. Writes Urban: “The former victims should be alert and help the actual victims—it is seen as their duty to warn against anti-Islamic attitudes.” And Yoram Ettinger reports that as usual the Israeli public, outside the voting booth, seems to be more right than their leaders. At Israpundit A Jew with a View asks people to turn out at the Stop Islamization rally on the 13th Climate Realists has a video discussing whether Al Gore's Oscar should be revoked in the wake of Climategate. Of course if falsehood revokes an Oscar, Michael Moore would have to give his back too. But then again we already know that falsehood and even covering up for mass murder won't revoke even a Pulitzer Price. Victor the Contractor at Director Blue charges that Obama represents Dictatorship, not Communism. Lemon Lime Moon describes Obama's speech as his defining moment. And finally to close off the roundup, IED Dog Cena, an easygoing two-and-a-half-year-old black Labrador retriever, is the unit's IDD: IED Detection Dog. He's trained to sniff out the homemade bombs — the military calls them improvised explosive devices — that insurgents have planted all over the roads, fields and paths where the Marines patrol on foot.              |
With the release of Wafa Sultan's book, A God Who Hates, the various Saudi front organizations have sprung into action doing their best to smear her reputation. It is of course completely unsurprising that the agents of a kingdom that despises women and treats them like cattle would be furious at criticism of Islam coming from... a woman. Ever since Wafa Sultan first came to the public's attention by defiantly challenging a male cleric and demanding her right to speak, she has been the target of repeated death threats and slander. So it is also completely unsurprising that those same Saudi front groups would then use transparent lies and smears to attack her now. But their smear campaign reveals more about them than it does about Wafa Sultan. First up is the claim that Wafa Sultan lied about ever being a Muslim, because she was an Alawi Muslim. This is a bizarre claim that only fanatical Sunni Wahhabi groups could make with a straight face. To argue that Sultan did not grow up as a Muslim because she grew up as an Alawi Muslim, is akin to a Catholic arguing that a Protestant is not a Christian and vice versa. The other half of this claim is the argument that since she does not currently believe in Islam and the Koran, she is somehow unqualified to talk about what is wrong with Islam. A position that would disqualify every Scientology critic on the planet and every dissident who escapes from an oppressive regime. Wafa Sultan's qualifications to talk about what is wrong with Islam come from growing and living as a Muslim under Islam. As well as her study of what is wrong with Islam from a cultural, religious and psychological standpoint. A corollary to this is the claim that Syria was secular and therefore Wafa Sultan did not grow up living in an Islamic society. While Syria under Assad was more secular than say Saudi Arabia, it was still a Muslim country, in the same way that the similarly Baathist Iraq was Muslim. Aside from small minorities, virtually every Syrian is Muslim and mosque attendance is normative. The state funds mosques and Islamic education is part of the regular curriculum. Islamic norms are thoroughly integrated within the national culture. For a snapshot of that, here's an excerpt from an academic paper on Syria's educational system Islamic education in Syrian schools is traditional, rigid, and Sunni. The Ministry of Education makes no attempt to inculcate notions of tolerance or respect for religious traditions other than Sunni Islam. Christianity is the one exception to this rule. Indeed, all religious groups other than Christians are seen to be enemies of Islam, who must be converted or fought against. The Syrian government teaches school children that over half of the world’s six billion inhabitants will go to hell and must be actively fought by Muslims... There's your "secular" Syria right there. That's the "secular" Syria that Wafa Sultan grew up in. Secondly, there's the claim that Wafa Sultan is a "turncoat" who has deliberately sought fame in order to get rich. As In Focus, a CAIR front magazine writes; "As for the Sultans’ financial troubles, Halabi told InFocus that ever since Dr. Sultan gained notoriety those troubles are a thing of the past. "She bought a house for herself and bought another for her son," ... When asked about the source of her material well-being, Halabi was unsure. The "mysterious source" of their material well-being is that Wafa Sultan was able to become a practicing doctor in the United States. Doctors in the United States tend to have not particularly mysterious sources of material well-being. And whatever money she has made from her speaking fees is hardly anything compared to the security costs of regularly dealing with death threats from Muslim. Thirdly, let's discuss the In Focus magazine hit piece, Wafa Sultan Reformist or opportunist? that is the source of many of the smears aimed at Wafa Sultan. In Focus bills itself as the largest Muslim magazine in California. Unsurprisingly the whole thing is attached to the usual Islamist groups. Who runs In Focus? "Asma Ahmad, a Pakistani Canadian citizen who grew up in Saudi Arabia attending American-run schools and formerly edited the national newsletter of the Muslim Students Association, is the paper's managing editor and only full-timer staffer" What is the Muslim Students Association? The Muslim Students Association is a project of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is behind the creation of Hamas and Al Queda. Does In Focus support Islamic terrorism? Does a bear use the men's room in Yellowstone National Park? "Asma Ahmad is the managing editor of CAIR-California’s monthly tabloid, In Focus. Under her leadership, in October of 2006, In Focus published an article lauding Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah. The piece read, “[I]t was undoubtedly the epic heroism of the resistance fighters that dealt the humiliating defeat to the Anglo-American-backed Zionist forces, but such heroism would not have been possible without the larger-than-life leader to inspire, direct and focus it. Nasrallah’s leadership in war and later has made him into an emblematic figure of long-cherished hope not only to a majority of the Lebanese people but also to the Arab nation as a whole and indeed to the Muslim world.” Absolutely shocking that a pro-terrorist Islamist publication would have issues with Wafa Sultan. The In Focus magazine hit piece on Wafa Sultan, "Wafa Sultan: Reformist or opportunist?" primarily relies on a long chain of bizarre stories by some supposed anonymous figure who claims to have known and still be friends with Wafa Sultan. The odds are good that "Halabi" is just a tag that allows In Focus to assemble whatever smears or stories they collected about Wafa Sultan under one name, while playing the FUD game by trying to make her think that one of her friends is slandering her to In Focus. And his claims that Wafa Sultan is really a Mexican migrant worker and is just doing this for the money are too silly to even be worth paying attention to, right up there with the Zionist arachnid bubble gum of lust. Fourthly, is the claim being circulated by Muslim "activists" that Wafa Sultan called for "nuking the Muslim world". Naturally this relies on circulating an out of context and off the cuff remark in which Wafa Sultan agreed that it might end up taking the same measures to stop Islamofascism that it did to stop Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. However she had already stated and would state in her speech that Islam could be reformed without violence if sufficient pressure was placed on the Saudi royal family. Naturally Islamist front groups which are often Saudi front groups are not interested in citing that part of her remarks, only her agreement that it might indeed take the use of nuclear weapons if the Clash of Civilizations continues escalating. This is an entirely reasonable statement when you consider that Iran and Saudi Arabia are both going nuclear, and if such weapons fall into the hands of Islamists, the result is likely to be a nuclear exchange. The best way to prevent a situation where anyone is getting nuked, is for those same Muslims who are busy smearing Wafa Sultan, to actually begin listening to her and try to reform Islam away from violence and terrorism. Naturally they aren't doing that. It's always been easier in the Muslim world to shoot the messenger, than to actually listen to her. Particularly if it's a "her". This essentially sums up the list of smears currently being circulated aimed at Wafa Sultan. More of course will arise as her tour continues. If you do see such smears being circulated, feel free to link to this article for a rebuttal and provide any updates in the comments.       |
| Email delivery powered by Google | |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment