The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, August 24, 2006
My friend the terrorist
I'm not sure who this fellow is, but he claims to tell the story of an "atheist, leftist gay activist" that he met in Canada and ended up as a Hizb'Allah terrorist recently wounded in southern Lebanon.
Whoever he is, let's hope CSIS knows who this "Dan" is so he doesn't come back to Canada.
The story starts here:
Israel calls my friend a terrorist. But he - his name is Dan (but now goes by another name) - is one of the most caring people I have met. I met him in Canada a few years ago, and eventually we both made our way to Lebanon;
And the story of his heroics against the Zionist entity is here:
I thought about what it was like for him being in the south, in the places that made it to the headlines, clashes erupting here and there between HezbAllah fighters and the IDF. I kept wondering how it was that he got injured, how he was helped, and actually how it was that he, of all people, had made his way into HezbAllah.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference My friend the terrorist:
What a buncha tools
Posted by: Bunker | 2006-08-24 10:53:28 PM
Yeah like that crowd would hang around with him for shits and giggles..
Hezbollah Commander: "So what do you do "Dan?"
Dan:"Ummm, I'm a sodomist, feminist, that doesn't believe allah exists ... oh I also dissapear for long periods of time and no one really knows me. Can I still hang?"
Commander: "f'n cool, dude. Grab a Kalashnikov and have a beer! We're watching Protocols Part 3 revenge of the Jewdi. Just watch your step."
Dan: "who's she."
Commader: "Oh don't sweat, it's just my cousin. We had to slap her around a bit.
Posted by: Stopthetrain | 2006-08-24 11:14:32 PM
Don't go too far... we have terrorists at home
Posted by: Winston | 2006-08-25 1:41:52 AM
There seems to be an uncanny throwing around of the term terrorist in reference to Hizbollah---a use of semantics that easily categorizes and simplifies a well organized resistence group, wether legitmate or not in its aims.
"Terrorist"--The word explodes in our consciousness with a visceral blow. Lurking right behind these nine letters are thoughts and images so vivid, so unbearable that our skin creeps. Terrorists: they who on 9/11 caused beautiful, precious human beings to leap to their deaths, they who buried bright young lives under a thundering avalanche of rubble, they who murdered innocent people, causing their flesh to become hot, unbearably hot, their clothes and hair to burn, their skin and lungs to singe. Then, screaming in agony, these innocents were roasted to death.
Who does not hate a terrorist?
The oddity: We hate them yet there is considerable confusion regarding who and what one is.
A common definition: The terrorist is an individual acting outside the norms of law. He or she acts violently. He or she sows terror. The terrorist kills innocent civilians in order to spread chaos and fear.
Look at individual cases and this neat definition quickly evaporates. The 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro and the cold-blooded murder of 69-year-old, wheel-chair bound, American tourist, Leon Klinghoffer was a despicable act. It was rightly condemned by then President Reagan and the US media as a ghastly deed perpetrated by terrorists.
Yet what American has heard of Jamal Fayid, another victim of terrorism? This paralyzed, 37-year-old man, who could not eat, speak or move without assistance, was buried under the rubble of a building bulldozed during the Israeli assault on Jenin in 2002. As the Israeli IDF revved up their bulldozers preparing to destroy the building in which Fayid was trapped, Fayid's mother, aunt and two sisters begged for the soldiers to give them time to get the paralyzed man out of the building. Their pleas were to no avail. Fayid was buried alive. Another despicable, terrorist act, yet this one, aside from a brief reference in a Human Rights Watch report went unnoticed by President Bush and most of the US press. (1)
Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds in Halabja in 1988 is widely seen as another act of terrorism. Indeed, it was a heinous crime, now broadly bruited about as justifying the Iraq War. But during Gulf War I the US sowed the Iraqi desert with approximately 315 tons of depleted uranium, a highly toxic, radioactive substance that has already caused devastating birth defects in the southern part of Iraq. (2) This poisonous material will continue to be toxic for centuries. It threatens the genetic integrity of generations of innocent Iraqis and yet its use is barely mentioned in the US press, much less classified as a terrorist act, at least by "our" side. (The amount of depleted uranium dispersed in Gulf War 11 is still unknown).
One thing is clear as the late Edward Said pointed out, " 'we' are never terrorists no matter what we may have done; 'they' always are and always will be." (3)
How do some human beings so readily fall within this hated category and others never, never do? Why do we so despise the 'other' terrorists and fail to see our own?
Part of this blindness is the steady, let's-distort- the-hearts-and-minds-of-Americans role of the President, his spokesmen, and the establishment media. The unrelenting din of we are Good and they are Evil takes its toll. The drumbeat of propaganda dims the ability of the neo-cortex to make distinctions.
As with Alzheimer's patients the dendrites in many an American brain is, apparently, shriveling up. How else can we explain the nonsense falling out of the mouths of various Congressmen and military brass at the September 23 House Armed Service Committee hearings on Bush's $87 billion budget request for Iraq?
There they all were glibly talking about how Iraqi children are happily waving at our troops or how the latest Gallup poll in Iraq (partially funded by the American Enterprise Institute, an institute well-known for its fair and objective surveys!) shows 70% support for the US or how, according to General Abizaid, the Central Command Commander, "It's not a quagmire. The troops know we are winning." And then J. Paul Bremer the 111's brilliant summary, "Saddam was a terrorist. We have to fight and defeat these terrorists somewhere." (4)
Over the last several decades the world has seen the terrible distortions the use and misuse of the word terrorist has produced in analysis and discussion of the Palestine/Israel war.
A Palestinian suicide bomber who blows up a bus is incontrovertibly a terrorist. Everybody (in the US) knows that. Case closed.
Yet an Israeli soldier, whose 60-ton, US-supplied tank has been hit by a stone thrown by a kid or kids, who then shoots several ten-year-olds dead and wounds scores of others, is not a terrorist. He is defending Israel.
To whisper, to gently ask, can it be that this person might be a terrorist? is to be beyond the pale, to be an anti-Semite.
Prima facie, an Israeli cannot be a terrorist, just as, prima facie, an American cannot be a terrorist.
Reasonable discourse on the Palestine/Israel War is almost impossible within the charges and counter-charges regarding terrorism. The same blindness has begun to distort perceptions of Iraq.
Read the New York Times accounts of each attack on the UK/US occupation troops and either an administration spokesmen, a general, or the journalist himself invariably says, 'we don't know who did it, but it's the responsibility of remnants of Saddam's army, the Baathist party, militant fanatics of Islam and terrorists.'
It's time to open the painful topic of who are the terrorists here, amongst us? What about the case of what Noam Chomsky has called state terrorism? How do we define the top brass and the foot soldiers when a state operates outside the norms of international law and conducts a war that a huge body of world opinion sees as illegal? (Though, of course, the initiating state always, categorically, denies such illegality.) When one sovereign nation invades another sovereign nation and when, in the course of an illegal, unjust, and aggressive war, innocent civilians die, who are the terrorists then?
Are the US troops in Iraq terrorists? Are the individual perpetrators of this illegal war terrorists? This question would be totally abhorrent to the average American, particularly those whose loved ones are serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Our soldiers sweating in the sweltering 130F degree desert are cruelly surprised by the violent and merciless cauldron into which they have been wantonly tossed. Doubtless, most of them would honestly prefer to be mowing the lawn or taking their sons to soccer practice. They don't deserve our opprobrium.
Nor can we fairly blame the clueless 18-year-old enlistee or 26-year-old reservist. Some poor dude in Alabama believed the Administration's lie that 9/11 and Saddam were linked and enlisted with enthusiasm. Another wanted a college education or a job. He has never heard of Amy Goodman, he has never read an independent newspaper and has not the knowledge or experience or confidence to question the lies that Fox news and the President of the United State routinely purveys. Do these men and women, once they show up in Iraq and starts blasting away at innocent civilians at a checkpoint, deserve the brand, terrorist? I don't think so.
But where do we draw the line? At what point should these men and women be held to a higher standard of responsibility? For how many more years must the war drag on, before we apply a different standard? Before we say, now there is enough information available, now, men and women of conscience must stand up and say, I won't go.
Certainly, Nuremberg made it clear: One of the findings of that court in its 1945 trial of 21 Nazi war criminals was that "to plan or instigate an aggressive war is a crime." (5) In subsequent trials, the additional principle was clearly stated: Ignorance is not a justification. "I didn't know" and "I was just following orders" didn't save SS officer Adolf Eichmann. He was still guilty.
What about the pilots? What is their guilt?
They are a step away - or 30,000 feet away - from the act of destruction. And they are married to a fearsome technology that itself propagates many a lie.
If the quick rush of missiles comes from inside the sleek, gleaming aluminum-and-titanium fuselage of a F-14 Tomcat, a plane shaped like a hornet, its insides packed with lasers, global positioning devices, and computers, it's under belly bulging with heat-seeking supersonic missiles, then this wonder of 21st century cannot be about death. It's about technology. It's beautiful, awesome and wondrously sterile. It's too beautiful to be about the ugliness of blood and gore. Skulls shattered into a thousand bits, wet pieces of brain smashed against walls, weeping mothers, and screaming babies are not in this equation.
That rush of brilliant orange flame pouring forth from a Tomahawk cruise missile is not terror. It's about efficiency and power. It's about a power seemingly so limitless, so devastating it could only be on the side of good. Otherwise how could this power have been vouchsafed to us?
The pilot or machine gunner inside the wondrous machine is almost irrelevant -- a minor punctuation mark to the glory of a plane that can scream through the air at Mach 2. Yes, the pilot has skills as one would expect from the approximately $2 million the US military invest in each pilot's training. He has the amazing skills, for example, of landing said plane on an aircraft carrier at 150 mph, the pilot on hair-trigger alert, ready to be jerked to a back-cracking standstill or to immediately take off again, if the cables stretched across the aircraft carrier deck don't grab the plane's tail hooks in time. Quite a feat! Yet, the functions of the pilot's brain are more and more being taken over by the wondrous array of computers, lasers, and radar, of, as military techies say, "digital reconnaissance capabilities" and "avionics suites."
The fabulous, extraordinarily precise, machines do the work, the human performs his ancillary functions as mechanically and anonymously as the machine performs its, the human little more than an innocent handmaiden. One military history book even boasts: "Previously, pilots were forced to rely on their brains to process the information obtained by their radars and eyes, and build a mental image of the evolving situation…now the Rafale's avionic suite has taken over the processing role." (6)
What would the Nuremberg principles say about this man who no longer has a "processing role"? (Hey, isn't that the thinking role?)
What if, by chance, the pilot's payload lands on a market place incinerating dozens of innocent, women and children? The US apologists say it was not the intent of the pilot to cause collateral damage and kill civilians. No, his aim was a clean, swift, surgical strike against a military target.
Is he spared the title of terrorist because he did not deliberately kill or target those innocents? Is he spared responsibility because it was the computer's fault? Or was it the person who fed data into the computer's fault? Or the fault of the person who read the satellite map from which the targets were selected?
Or is the plane itself that which embodies terror? Is the plane the terrorist?
A true patriot would say it cannot be. To attribute terror to these beautiful machines, these pinnacles of American technology, would be to doubt technology. To say that these fantastic, gleaming creations could make mistakes and kill innocent civilians is heresy because it undercuts the claim of precise, surgical warfare -- the linchpin of our integrity, our goodness.
It is this technology that has freed us from blood and gore - no matter what Al Jazeera or the left-wing academics say. No people die in America's surgical, clean, innocent wars.
That's one view. Another, from the ground: There are rivers of blood dripping into the desert and thousands grieve just the way the loved ones and family members of those killed in the World Trade Center attack grieve. Some 7300 to 9100 Iraqi civilians are dead because of Gulf War 11 and someone must be held accountable. (7)
Furthermore, the precision of these weapons is one of those myths still blinding the gullible American public, but, as countless human rights observers in Baghdad during the war have noted, residential areas, markets, mosques, apartment buildings and farmhouses were routinely bombed leaving behind screaming mothers and bloody children shredded by shrapnel. (8)
Is Bush, the Commander-in-Chief, who ordered the building of these deadly machines and launched this ghastly war in the Middle East a terrorist? What about Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Powell and the other architects and instigators of this illegal war of aggression? What about the Generals who follow their bidding?
It's painful, deeply painful - and frightening - to think that we are under the governance of a pack of terrorists. Besides, they do ordinary American stuff like eat pretzels and watch football and, presumably, love their families and dogs.
Initially, I flinch from saying that these men are the equivalent of those who most people in the West would, in an instant, say, these are terrorists, the true terrorists: The suicide-bombers.
When fire comes out of the flesh and blood of a human who has transformed himself into a suicide bomber and that human's body explodes splatting big, bloody chunks of flesh around, when hunks of that human body careen off to smear pavements, to leave behind brains, teeth, bones and guts, to collide with and blend into the chunks of the bodies of his victims, to join in an unholy, dreadful joining with other crushed and mangled and gore-drenched bodies, the perpetrator has done the unforgivable. He has made visceral the so carefully shrouded act of murder. He has bloodied our vision. We cannot escape his mayhem.
Perhaps worse yet, he or she has mocked technology. He says, See with a few chemicals, chemicals as simple as a mix of fertilizer, I, too, am powerful. I, too, can kill.
This is no longer beautiful. It is ugly. It has undone the perfection of technology. This human has said, Look how powerful I am and look how puny is your technology - it could not stop me. This human has dared to say your machines no longer matter. This human has dared to say all your brilliant scientists hunched over their desks at Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Sandia and other weapons labs were wasting their time. Their tube-launched, optically-stacked, wire-guided, infra-red-seekers and anti-tank missiles have morphed into the dreams of madmen. The glorious erection has shriveled.
Ultimate sin: this terrorist says, dares to say, With my body I do what your machines of death have been doing all along. The terrorist says for all to hear what the US has been so fiercely denying behind the camouflage of our beautiful, exquisite, precise machines: We are death. We are gunning down gorgeous, delicate, fabulously original humans, including children, including many, many children, children utterly innocent of any crime. This suicide-bomber terrorist says, We bring bloody corpses. We bring grief and sorrow. We are death, like you. Like you.
The suicide-bomber terrorists say human life is not sacred or precious, human flesh is worthless, a scrap of inconsequential matter blocking my path, a disposable unit of flesh in the headlights of an idea. Just what, in fact, the pilot inside the F-14 implicitly says each time his plane takes off from an aircraft carrier. Of course, in the case of the latter this unacceptable, horrifying message is sanitized with phrases like "collateral damage" and "war is messy" and "it was worth it" and "bringing democracy to Iraq."
The US government must name the pilot, the soldier, the machine gunner as patriot and the other, the suicide-bomber as terrorist. This alien, mad terrorist has ripped aside the veil of nice, comforting conventions about defense and offense. He has penetrated deep inside the belly of empty words. He catches in the headlights of his desperate, awful act words like patriotism, honor and freedom and shows them to be an accumulation of letters that no longer carry meaning. His 'jihad' is our 'patriotism.'
The suicide-bomber shows us the maggots of war. He stuffs those maggots up our nose and into our ears, our mouth, our hearts.
No wonder the US military establishment must destroy them.
In a certain sense the US President and his cronies in Washington are worse than the suicide bomber. Yes, worse -- because they sow terror, murder and mayhem from the comfort and safety of their wood paneled offices. They do not sacrifice their own lives. They are not protesting an occupation or defending a country - unless you believe the sordid, thoroughly discredited, lies regarding WMD's and the Al Qaeda links. These homegrown purveyors of death remain tucked comfortably into their lives of privilege. They are safe in their smug knowledge of their multimillion-dollar bank accounts. Still, still, they lust after monetary gain, oil, empire and power.
They destroy the innocent lives of US soldiers. They obliterate Iraqis (and Afghanis and Palestinians and Columbians, among scores of other nationalities). They murder and kill wantonly like vicious boys setting fire to dogs or castrating cats. Because of their access to the US's vast military might, the once-great US technology, they sow infinitely more terror and suffering than the suicide-bomber. They smash, needlessly, cruelly, thousands and thousands and thousands of precious lives.
It's tempting to say these, our so-called leaders, are the true terrorists.
Yes, we must condemn a Bush or a Wolfowitz. They are criminals who should be tried before the International Court of Justice or some specially constituted tribunal akin to the Nuremberg Council. Loathsome as these US death-makers are, to leave the argument here would be to buy into the comforting Hollywood-Bush fantasy of Good guys and Evil ones, except now the Evil ones would be Bush et al. Such an approach would involve an escape from the unpleasant complexities of moral ambiguity in the modern world.
Ultimately we must ask what about the rest of us? What about our docile deliverance of our tax dollars to the IRS and the hungry maw of the military machine? Is that a terrorist act?
What are we when we turn our heads aside and look not on the aircraft carriers pregnant with slaughter, when we ignore fire-breathing missiles, the maiming cluster bombs, the deadly depleted
Posted by: James | 2006-08-25 2:37:26 AM
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he has trouble understanding Canadians who feel ardently that their country's soldiers should not be involved in Afghanistan.
Toronto Globe and Mail
Afghanistan is not our war, Mr. Prime Minister.
We are not threatened by voices in the Middle East opposing American policy, unless you believe one reference in a recording of bin Laden mentioning Canada along with other countries. That recording, along with other post-invasion recordings, was almost certainly a CIA fraud, for Osama bin Laden had to be killed in the heavy bombing of his mountain redoubt.
Even if you do not believe that bin Laden is dead, what is beyond question is that American activities in Afghanistan and Iraq are building a vast reservoir of resentments and a training school for future terrorists. Tens of thousands of disaffected young Muslim men not only now have something to deeply resent but they have the operational conditions to perfect their arts of covert war. According to countless witnesses from Afghanistan and Iraq, America's brutal, thoughtless tactics have only inflamed tempers. Canada's good name should not be associated with this.
The previous government's making an under-the-table deal with Bush to place Canadian troops in Afghanistan surely does not make it our war. Your continuing, rather shrill, insistence still does not make it so. The deal was, of course, an effort to placate Bush for our not supporting his illegal invasion of Iraq. America is Canada's neighbor, but it is a fatuous and immoral argument that you help your neighbor in criminal activities just because he is your neighbor.
You and other voices from Western Canada have made much of reforming Canada's democratic institutions, and I agree that a number of them do need reforming. Yet no greater vice to democracy can exist than a government's committing the lives of young people and the whole nation's reputation to war without any consultation or debate. If you believe in democratic values, as you claim, you cannot support such behavior.
The argument is all the more powerful when war is the behavior of a minority government. Your government represents the will of less than forty percent of Canadians. How can you believe then that your views on the war should be the views of most Canadians? Through polls and every other indication of public opinion, the majority of the Canadian people have made it clear they do not support America's wars in the Middle East.
The Canadian general in charge of operations in Afghanistan has made public statements that are shameful to Canada's reputation in the world. Stuff about going over to do some killing. He sounds like an American wannabe raised on Rambo movies.
Canada did have a terrorist incident every bit as dreadful as 9/11. I refer to the bombing of the Air India flight years ago. Taking account of Canada's size, this event killed proportionately more Canadians than 9/11's American victims. While the outcome of that investigation has been disappointing, Canada never contemplated bombing Sikh communities because of it. America's logic in the war on terror is simply that ridiculous.
Posted by: Micheal | 2006-08-25 3:19:40 AM
No Canada didn't contemplate bombing Sikh communities, actually Canada pretended the air India terrorist attack didn't happen. It is the Canadian way. Canada, via the liberal government has always had a love affair with terrorist organizations. Even if Canada wanted to do something, they wouldn't have had the military capabilites to do anything. The left made sure the Canadian military was dismantled. If Morocco decided they wanted to take over Canada, they could do it with a handful of firecrackers, and a water pistol. We are very fortunate we have the USA defending our people. The terrorist attack on the world trade center was an attack on Canada also.
Anyone that practises islam could be considered a terrorist. The koran is just a big old hate literature manual for terrorist. A muslim is taught from birth, through their religion to be sneaky cowards, and it is a virture to hide behind their women and children to fight. They don't wear the uniform of a soldier to fight, that makes them cowardly terrorist. There is no talking to a people who have this ingrained in their culture. The only hope of defusing the terroist culture of islam, is to reach the children of muslims, in hopes of making them understand that islam is a death cult, and truly evil. It is going to be a tough job to eradicate islam, but it is the only chance for world peace.
Posted by: Honey Pot | 2006-08-25 4:59:16 AM
Hezbollahland; Equal Opportunity Rapists.
Then the Muslim rapists came for the left liberal/socialists; allies of the Muslim rapists, purveyors of lies, half-truths, anti-semitism. ...-
First They Came For the Jews: The Story of Yet Another World War
Dhimmiwatch ^ | 25 aug 06 | Fjordman
I have seen so many lies and half-truths by Western mainstream media exposed in the blogosphere, especially related to Islam, that I no
longer trust them for information. Leading bloggers such as Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs recently demonstrated this by showing how photos distributed by international news service Reuters from Lebanon had been grossly manipulated to make Israel look bad. Blogger Zombie argued, in a very convincing way, that the story about Israel deliberately targeting ambulances in Lebanon was full of holes, quite possibly a complete fabrication. It proves how easily, willingly, many Western journalists believe every piece of nonsense Muslims feed them, as long as it's directed against Israel, the United States or the West in general.
I do read traditional media still, and it would be a lie to say that I never get any useful information from them, but in general, I read them mainly to know what information they are feeding the general public, those who still haven't switched to the Internet to follow what's happening in the world. Here are some of my notes from Norwegian media during August 2006. I suspect many of the trends described here are pretty similar throughout Western Europe. The number one local issue of discussion in Norway this month has been the reactions to the editorial "God's chosen people," published in newspaper Aftenposten by famous author Jostein Gaarder in reaction to Israel's military actions in southern Lebanon, to protect itself against attacks by Iran and Syria through their puppet organization Hezbollah.
Gaarder became rich by writing the novel "Sophie's World," which doubles as a guide to the history of Western philosophy and has sold tens of millions of copies around the world. His editorial has been strongly denounced as anti-Semitic by some, but also received support from many. "I must admit that the reactions have been stronger than I expected," Mr. Gaarder said, and confirmed that he had been frightened by this. "I have said it countless times and I can repeat it again: I am a humanist, not an anti-Semite."
In the article, Gaarder argued that the State of Israel "will have no peace before it lays down its arms." "Israel is history. We no longer
recognize the State of Israel. There is no way back. The State of Israel has raped the world's recognition and will not receive peace before it lays down its weapons." "We don't believe in the concept of God's chosen people. We laugh at this people's fancies and weep over their misdeeds. To present themselves as God's chosen people is not just stupid and arrogant, but a crime against humanity. We call it racism." "There are limits to our patience, and there are limits to our tolerance..."
Culture journalist Mona Levin considered the editorial to be "the nastiest thing I have read since [Adolf Hitler's] "Mein Kampf." Gaarder makes it easy for himself, there is nothing that can not be said about Jews today. The same people who would not draw Mohammed out of respect for Muslims can safely say things like this about Jews and Israel without receiving death threats. "It is a shame that a presumably intelligent person calls the Ten Commandments "amusing stone tablets" and kicks away at what both the Christian and Jewish civilizations are built upon," Levin said.
Another much-debated topic in Norwegian media during the same period was an unprecedented rape wave in the capital city of Oslo. "We have seen a dramatic increase [in the number of rapes]," said Endre Sandvik, head of the emergency ward. The number of rapes in Oslo this summer was more than twice as high as it was last year. Brit Opjordsmoen from DIXI, support centre for rape victims, stated in a questions and answers session with Aftenposten's readers that they don't know what percentage of these rapes are committed by people with immigrant background, and that most of these speculations are just "prejudice."
With all due respect, I'm pretty sure that's incorrect, since I've been writing about and documenting this issue for so long that I'm almost getting tired of the subject. The situation is even worse in neighboring Sweden.
Aftenposten have conveniently enough forgotten an article they printed five years ago. In 2001, two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital were immigrants with a non-western background. Another Norwegian newspaper, Dagbladet, quoted Unni Wikan, a female professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo as saying that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. One reason for the high number of rapes by Muslims was that in their native countries "rape is scarcely punished," since Muslims "believe that it is women who are responsible for rape." The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but that "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."
The number of rapes, muggings and assaults committed by Muslim immigrants in Western countries is so extremely high that it is difficult to view this only as random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. ...-
Posted by: maz2 | 2006-08-25 6:56:36 AM
A couple of comments here are the perfect illustration of how to transform truth into lies, light into darkness. The basis of Islamofacism is murder and lies. Given this understanding of Islam, it is easy to undestand why those cowards hide behind women and children.
It is past time that we start building an organization in order to eradicate Islamofacism first in Canada and later all over the world. What choice do we have?
We must go back in 1936 when the Nazis were preparing their horrible acts of holocaust and destruction and explain how politicians were behaving in Europe. The very obvious common denominator with the actual Islamofacists was that hate was their main attitude. Hitler was spitting hate and creating delusion strategies. And the main goal was the destruction of Jews.
And what is the growing attitude of people in Europe now? As illustrated by the article in a Norway's newspaper, scorn at the history of Israel. Incidents in France: the murder of a young jewish boy. Etc.. etc... History repeats itself. We must study that period of history again and draw obvious parallels with the facist problem of today. It is called Islamofacism and it is more dangerous than it was in 1936 because of Nuclear weapons.
Many people look at facism and nazism as phenomenon of the past, good enough to make movies. Wake up people, facism is not dead. It is much more alive than it was in 1936 and it is scattered all over the world.
Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2006-08-25 9:00:53 AM
Is that you, Michael Moore?
The problems with Islamic jihadism are ... hang on, there's no problem with a group that's practised imperalism for 1400 years ... the problem cannot possibly be forceful conversion . It's gotta be Israel and the U.S.
Let's not even talk about the real threat to the world. Just Israel and the US ... Israel and the US ... Israel and the US.
Your eyes are getting heavy.
Right, Michael Moore?
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-25 9:11:59 AM
Back to the original topic ... when Napoleon invaded Africa, those troops lagging in the march were subject to being sodomized by the local Muslim population.
The remaining troops learned to walk faster.
So, this fudgepacker would feel right at home in the manly Muslim warrior practise.
It would be almost like heaven for him ... and a reward much like the 72 raisins homcide bombers will get when they blow themselves up.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-25 9:18:06 AM
Interestingly, James and Micheal (yes, he misspelled his own name) are the same person. Notice their same email address!
I think he's a Muslim using fake names.
Unfortunately, Canada has become a hotbed for terrorist because of the lax and corrupt immigration policies. We have to wake up to the Muslim threat and restrict their immigration before it's too late!
Posted by: fw | 2006-08-25 10:46:43 AM
In July 1942, Eichman joined Reinhard Heydrich, Heinrich Muller and Roland Friesler attended the Wannsee Conference where they discussed the issue of the large number of inmates in Germany's concentration camps. At the meeting it was decided to make the extermination of the Jews a systematically organized operation. Eichman was placed in charge of what became known as the Final Solution.
Eichmann didn't 'just follow orders' he helped formulate the policy of the 'Final Solution' itself. He was the Jewish expert who counted the Jews, gave the orders, and made sure they were executed.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-25 11:44:23 AM
Back to Dan the terrorist and his Trudeauian-love-relationship,
I believe that friends of Eichman, and his family, also thought of him well, and spoke with words of loving kindness.
Next, they, like Dan, will be describing their frolicks in the fields, as they dug their knives into the hearts of Jewish men, women and children, while dreaming of 72 virgins in heaven, while apologizing for killing Muslims and Arabs.
Who said it was a death-cult?
Well, they have also merged sex in there, so deeply, that you could call it the sexual-death-cult!
Recall the flick, "Saving Private Ryan"?
The scene where the German killed the Jewish American soldier?
I wonder whether islamofacists watch that, and get hot and bothered under the collar?
Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-25 1:26:20 PM
The Arabic word for virgin is identical to the Arabic word for raisin.
So, these krazy killer kids are thinking they're going to be getting virgins, but actually they'll be getting raisins.
Posted by: Set you free | 2006-08-25 1:35:30 PM
As strange as it seems, this could be a true story. Afterall Arafat is documented to have liked being sodomized by his body guards and he ended up dying of AIDS.
When I lived in France as a youth I remember a common expression about the Arabs. The French have had a long relationship with them, so there may have been a graine of truth in it. Translated it basically states that for sex the Arabs prefer in order of preference: men, camels and women. I always wondered how this saying originated.
Posted by: Alain | 2006-08-25 4:43:36 PM
James, I've taken the liberty of taking your liberties and having read your rant, signed you up to Hizblah, Hamass and the ?alestinians.
Posted by: wharold | 2006-08-25 5:46:39 PM
Lady and Set you free, the promise to Shahid's is properly translated VIRGIN not raisin.
Where the translation goes wrong is the 72 virgin(S) part.
The CORRECT translation from the Koran is that the Shahid will receive ONE 72 year old virgin.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-25 7:15:18 PM
So James, what you're saying here is that leaders of true terrorist organizations don't have paneling in their offices?
Posted by: Democrat | 2006-08-25 7:17:30 PM
Set You Free,
Please, tell me where on earth I may send them their 72 raisins! It would be my pleasure! Actually, it would be more pleasure for me, than it would be for them, but they can either eat it, take it! Or lump it!
The sexual-death-cult can smear themselves with raisins! And have their ceremony, with the 72 shrivelled and dessicated grapes! If they need more, well, I can spare a few prunes as well!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-25 7:39:57 PM
Given that today's sixty-year-old is like yesterday's forty-year-old, that means that today's seventy-two-year olds are more like One-hundred-and-two year olds!
And I am certain their middle names are all Randy!
One hundred and two year old shrivelled raisins for every shahid, regardless of their age or gender! T'is Canada, and we hate to discriminate!
Posted by: Lady | 2006-08-25 7:43:04 PM
And of course Eichmann wasn't a patch on the Jew Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich, responsible for the murderer of millions (Conquest suggests 11 million and that the Ukraine resembled a gigantic version of Bergen-Belsen)of Euro-gentiles in the famine of the Holodomor and the Great Terror.
Kaganovich lived to the age of 97, was never tried for war crimes, dying peacefully in his bed.
Posted by: DJ | 2006-08-25 9:04:35 PM
As much as I abhor communists, I am unaware of any war crimes committed by Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich.
Yes, he implemented plans which caused a famine in the Ukraine. That is why my wife's father's parents fled to northern Alberta. They were 'kulaks'. Many say that 9 million starved to death through the collectivization policies.
So, DJ, you think land collectivization leading to famine is the same as rounding people up, deporting them to camps, and gassing them?
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-25 9:27:03 PM
So you're saying that targeting Ukrainian nationalists for starvation is not Speller or are you just a holocaust denier?
Posted by: DJ | 2006-08-25 10:00:45 PM
Targeting? These were Communists implementing collective farming theory. The theory had never been tried before. Implementing it resulted in a famine which killed millions. Yes, some resisted the policy of collectivization and were arrested and sent to the Gulags.
You think that is the same as rounding people up with the INTENTION of systematically killing them, DJ?
Operation Barbarossa was the planned invasion and liquidation of the entire population of the USSR. The goal was too make more Lebensraum by killing 200+ million people.
It was the stated policy of the Nazis to kill, deport, or enslave the Russian and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic peoples. The entire urban population was to be exterminated by starvation, thus creating an agricultural surplus to feed Germany and allowing their replacement by a German upper class.
Now THAT'S targeting.
Posted by: Speller | 2006-08-26 12:25:26 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.