Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Maher Arar & Afghanistan: The Globe's Colin Freeze Reports | Main | Bobby Jindal: The Next Governor of Louisiana »

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Extremist Iran=Fascism

Finally someone said it. To bad Tony Blair waited till he was out of office to do it.

Tony Blair: Iran extremism like rise of 1930s fascism

“I said straight after the attack of September 2001 that this was not an attack on America but on all of us. That Britain’s duty was to be shoulder to shoulder with you in confronting it. I meant it then and I mean it now.”

Posted by Leah Dowe on October 20, 2007 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Extremist Iran=Fascism:


I just wonder why he sent his foreign minister to Iran every year or so when he was the UK prime minister.

Sorry Mr. Blair, I don't trust you when it comes to Iran. You kept sending your ministers to talk to the fascist mullahs of Iran for chit-chats over a cup of tea and it wasn't good. It's not gonna look good on your record either.

Posted by: winston | 2007-10-20 2:30:54 PM

“Out of this region the Middle East has been exported a deadly ideology based on a perversion of the proper faith of Islam..."

How exactly do you export an ideology? Oh right...thru mass unfettered third world immigration to the West which Master Bliar did nothing to discourage during his tenure. He's nothing but a sanctimonious mendacious bastard.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-20 3:28:31 PM

Take the believability test:

Is Tony Blair a politician?

YES? or NO?

If NO, might be credible

If YES, don't believe a word he says

Posted by: John | 2007-10-20 4:49:51 PM


Paul, or whatever your name is (I prefer to think of you as scumbag)--you may be against islamics, but you are not against facism--especially if it came from your favorite hero--what's his name, dead 88.

Blair may be the penultimate when it comes to figuring out that the islamofacists are a carbon copy of Hitler's facism, in every way shape and form--except for race and colour, but he is not the last--therefore there is still breath and life in his body, mind, spirit and soul.

(Come to think of it, he may well be the only labour leader I have ever had any respect for).

Thing is, and I have said it before and I will say it again, and I will probably say it again and again, the Arabs sided with Hitler before and during WWII. They were promised the realestate of the lands of Israel, as payment for assisting Hitler with intelligence--and whatever else they may need to win the war. Which is why Hitler promised to kill all the Jews, and which is why this remains their aim. It is not new--it is the same old same old as ever before.

Thing is, Hitler died--and they did not get what they wanted--like a woman scorned. They were pissed, and therefore kept on doing what they already had come to believe in prior to WWII.

This is why Hitler's books are the number one sellers, second only to the other rotten fakes, the Protocols--that were proven to be fakes in the last Century.

The Islamofacists have decided that Jews are the enemy--but they have not stopped there. They have decided that they are superior people, and that their religion and their ways are to be impossed onto the rest of the world. And by this I do not mean all Arabs, as clearly that is not what ALL believe--just the islamofacist ones.

Clearly the Jewish Arabs, and the Arabs who have transcended the modern era, are no fools--including the modern Persians--who also do not believe in the islamofacist dangerous ideology.

This is why--to this day--and evident in the recent historical record, that the Aryans who are the backers--the contemporary Nazis--are in league with the islamofacists. They still have the same goal--except the Nazis are the ones picking off the crumbs from the floor--whereas before and during WWII it was the other way around.

If history repeats itself, then we know we are in for it again--it is a matter of time--not if; but when. So, it behooves us to prepare, so that we are not in the position that GB found itself at the beginning of WWII, with its pants down.

And for this reason, and not just this reason alone, Iran must not be permitted to have nuclear weapons. Because, although history repeats itself, it is quite evident that whenever it repeats itself, the horrors are more massive than before, and the weapons even greater than before.

Whereas prior to WWII, there was no such thing as proliferation of nuclear weapons--whatsoever--today--although there is a treaty on this, it is not like the intellect is limited.

And there are some resemblances of Germany pre WWII and Iran pre the coming war--those Germans (Jews included) who became aware of what was going on, and who came upon the violence that was being projected by the facists, left Germany, when they could--like the Persians who have come to the West to escape the Islamofacists. Such as our friend Winston. What this has also done is create a situation where there is a conscentration of those who are like minded. There is a total loss of separation or diversity of thinking--to the point where they have all convinced themselves--in Iran--that what they are and what they are doing is right. Everyone and anyone who disagrees with them--flees, and they who do not--stay. What this amounts to is a gross lack of ability of the people to function with any mechanisms to keep them from going over the egde.

There is no doubt in my mind, that the baffoon they have in their position of power, is there to appease the west, as well as get people numb to the danger that islamofacism posses, until it is too late.

My feelings of late, it that it is getting to be more and more imminent than it was before. Before, you could see the signs--now--they are much more invisible. The enemy is getting more silent. This means they are building their weapons, and we will not know about it, until the next strike comes.

It is like if you see a rocket going through the air. You know you will not be hit--it you can hear it. If you cannot hear it, you are in grave danger.

And what you cannot hear--will hurt you--at least that is what my mother taught me--Gd bless her.

So, to honour all those who died to ensure we have safety, democracy, freedom and liberty, we must do the right thing, and get ready--in every way we can--because the silence--well--it is defening.

And DJ, your pre-occupation with race in inflamation is a mental illness--you should do something about that.

Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-20 5:09:36 PM

Lady ~

Great post.

However I would have simply used only two words in addressing the racist DJ. :)

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-20 5:45:04 PM

Lady, OBC,

What the hell did DJ say to get you both so down on him? He simply stated the open door immigration policy in the West from the third world has brought us the devil into our own house. How is that untrue?

I didn't read anything about any particular race. The third world has many races including white
Caucasians who are also up to no good.

Ever hear of the Russian Mafia, the Chetiens not to mention the many commies from Easter Europe. Not to mention the Muslims from all over the globe who cannot defy their radical masters, but rather they support them.

Then there are the Carribean lovies who are fused to their drug and gun culture and the list goes on.

What's with you two?

Posted by: John | 2007-10-20 6:03:41 PM

Can we please banish the nonsensical neologism "Islamofascism" to the ash heap of history? This idiotic term, popping up everywhere nowadays, seems to be deployed by those who know nothing about Islam nor fascism.

If Islamic fascism has any meaning whatsoever, then it should be used to describe the regimes of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Hafaz al-Assad and Saddam Hussein, not the Mullahocracy of Iran. The pan-Arab Ba'athist movement that arose after WWII was modelled after the Italian, German and Spanish fascist regimes. Ironically, Ba'athism was the brainchild of Arab Christians, not Muslims. And like all fascist movements, it was based on nationalism not religion.

The all-encompassing philosophy of the Iranian Mullahs, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, HAMAS, etc. is Islam as it has existed for the past 1400 years, not 20th century European fascism. The Koran is their "Mein Kampf" and Mohammed is their "Fuhrer". By calling them fascists, does one assume that Osama bin Laden, like Mussolini, will make the trains run on time? Not bloody likely.

Well-meaning Islamophobes: Please cease and desist from calling our enemies Islamofascists. They are Muslims simply following their religion. "Islamists" is a more accurate term, though I prefer Islamosavages myself. By calling them fascists, you are excusing the sole source of their depravity, the religion of Islam itself. And frankly, "Islamofascism" confers on them a sense of order, discipline and modernity that these low-intelligence, disorganized, 7th century cultists simply don't deserve.

Posted by: JP | 2007-10-20 7:01:05 PM

John ~

DJ has a history here of disparaging Jews. Although he has recently not cited them specifically as he did in the past, his "theology" is avowedly anti-Semitic.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-20 7:10:03 PM


Thanks for that. I am pro Israel and big fan of the wonderful Jewish people.

Posted by: John | 2007-10-20 7:12:14 PM

JP ~

Today is Islamofascism Awareness Day on many US campuses.

The term is meant to be "sensitive" to moderate Muslims.

I understand your stated opinion on the term, but it does cover our backsides if we are called Islamophobes by angry Leftoids.

Islamic moderates are as rare as hen's teeth, IMHO - but on the off-chance I ever meet one. . .

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-20 7:15:24 PM

Hey Man ... I am aware of Islamofascism every day all the time. And I don't like it.

Posted by: John | 2007-10-20 7:24:57 PM

Hey Man, I am aware of Islamofascism everyday all the time. And I don't like it.

Posted by: John | 2007-10-20 7:26:11 PM


I think folks like you and me would take being called "Islamophobe" as a great compliment ;-)

And I think Islamic moderates would be more accurately called ex-Muslims. As for meeting one, you'll probably see Bigfoot riding a Unicorn first.

The people holding this Islamofascism Awareness Day are no doubt our allies, but you must admit the term doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: JP | 2007-10-20 7:56:25 PM

"As for meeting one, you'll probably see Bigfoot riding a Unicorn first."

LOL ! ! !

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-20 8:06:40 PM

Anyone see this reported on CBC or CTV - or elsewhere? I doubt it.

"3 dozen Taliban killed in southern Afghan battle"

US-led coalition soldiers and Afghan forces killed about 50 militants in two days of major fighting near a Taliban-controlled town in southern Afghanistan's poppy-growing belt, officials said.

Taliban forces fired rocket-propelled grenades and small arms at a combined coalition-Afghan patrol near the town of Musa Qala in Helmand province, sparking a battle that lasted several hours and involved the use of military aircraft, the coalition said in a statement Saturday. Nearly three dozen militants were killed.

GOOD NEWS GETS swept under the carpet in the Enemedia.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-20 8:13:32 PM

Fascists are very popular in our Universities, entertainment industry, the infotainment industry - just like it was back in the 20's and 30's - but they're way too self righteous in these industries to see how far away they are from the ideals that allowed they're existence in the first place.

The Fascists hang the useful 'artists' last though, so perhaps they're just hedging their bets.

Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-10-20 9:22:10 PM

Why Jews (like Lady & Oswald)Welcome Muslims
By Lawrence Auster
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, June 22, 2004

"Mass Moslem immigration into America combined with world-wide Moslem Jew-hatred poses an unprecedented threat to American Jews—a "perfect storm" that is forcing at least some Jews into an agonizing re-appraisal of their traditional support for open immigration. So says Stephen Steinlight in his hard-hitting essay, "High Noon to Midnight: Why Current Immigration Policy Dooms American Jewry," published by the Center for Immigration Studies. A former director of national affairs at the American Jewish Committee and now an outspoken advocate of immigration reform, Steinlight tells his fellow Jews that they, along with the rest of America, face a momentous choice. If they turn away from their extreme immigration liberalism and help move America toward sensible immigration restrictions, the growth of the Moslem community in this country can be slowed substantially and even stopped, and a decent existence for the Jews themselves can be preserved. But if Jews and others continue in their embrace of open borders, in thirty years time the Jews will find themselves a besieged and powerless minority in an Islamic-dominated, anti-Semitic America.

The real object of Jewish fears

First of all, as crazy as it may sound, there is something that many American Jews fear in their heart of hearts even more than they fear Moslem anti-Semitism, and that is white Christian anti-Semitism.[...]

Jews' risible obsession with non-existent evangelical Protestant anti-Semites, combined with their obliviousness to actual mass murdering Islamist anti-Semites (whom, moreover, the Jews' favored immigration policies have allowed into this country) is an amazing phenomenon that we should not dismiss as simply a bizarre ethnic idiosyncrasy. It expresses, rather, a central preoccupation of a significant number of Jews, namely their corrosive apprehension of what they think the goyim might one day do to them—a fear they entertain despite the fact that, apart from some social exclusions and other ethnic prejudices that existed up to the end of World War II, Jews have never faced serious anti-Semitism from the white Christian majority in this country."

In their war against Christian Euros, (aka Nazi facilitators) liberal Jews like Lady and Oswald, will support a perverse agenda to aid & abet their Europhobic vendetta.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-20 10:40:51 PM

Master Bliar's mass immigration policies appear to ensure the ruination of Britain:

Muslim Tories: 'Iran has right to nuclear arms'
By Andrew Porter
Last Updated: 2:56am BST 19/10/2007

"A body set up by David Cameron to advise the Conservatives on Muslim issues has criticised the Government's relationship with Israel and concluded that Iran has "legitimate" reasons for wanting nuclear weapons.[...]

The report says: "Regardless of whether one finds Israel a congenial country or not, on any objective assessment of the type of unqualified support given to Israel by the current government it is not conducive to British national interests as this could damage Britain's relationships with 15 billion Muslims worldwide, including those in Britain.

The group calls on the party to be more sympathetic towards Iran. It says: "Given Iran's position in the Middle East, facing a nuclear-armed Israel, Iran appears to have legitimate reasons for seeking nuclear weapons for defensive purposes."

It says that an incoming Tory government should oppose Iran's weapon ambitions, but adds: "Any collusion by Britain in an Israeli or American military strike against Iran would be extremely damaging to Britain's long-term security interests."

Melanie Phillips characterises the document as "diabolical," "vile," "shocking," "treacherous," "bigoted," "lethal." However, Auster says, the liberal secular Jew Phillips, (like Lady and Oswald) doesn't get it.

"In short, Phillips sees Islamic extremism as immoral, rather than Islamic, for the same reason that the neocons refer to Islamic extremism as "Islamo-fascist," rather than as Islamic. In both cases the motivating impulse is to preserve the belief that Islam itself is not the problem, and therefore that Muslims can be assimilated into our societies and into a democratic global culture."

A letter to Auster;

SR writes from England:

May I offer an additional analysis of Melanie Phillips's failure to tell it like it is?

It is true: as a secular Jewish liberal Phillips sees the role of religion as you describe it--as a namby pamby "comfort," a sentimental wash over the harsh realities of life, not as a rational and appropriate way to order society. But there are other factors.

First of all, she writes for The Daily Mail which liberals regard as as a "right wing, Little-Englander hysterical tabloid" (the words of a friend with whom I am always arguing). She writes for a newspaper that is regarded by "right-thinking" people as suburban--"Suburban" is a word at which middle class English Liberals love to sneer. For them, suburban sentiments are laughable as they belong to "narrow-minded Little Englanders" that is to say, English people who believe in and adhere to traditional values. Phillips is sneered at by middle class liberals for her "hysteria" (she is known amongst Guardinista-BBC types as "Mad Mel"--and you have to realise that she was once a Guardian journalist). So she probably feels she is already too outre by just doing the Cassandra bit, let alone prescribing the correct remedy.

Secondly, in a society that is becoming increasingly anti-Semitic (under the rubric of anti-Zionism), she must be experiencing a certain amount of fear and so is worried about seeming too hawk-like because it must seem to her that calling a spade a spade will be bad for the Jews. One of the main reasons for Jewish support of multiculturalism and immigration has probably always been that there is safety in numbers--the more non-Anglo-Saxons there are the better it is for the Jews--it deflects attention from the Jews as the only "other." This is indeed a suicidal policy and one which never ceases to amaze me as a person of Jewish background. [LA adds: in this connection see my article, "Why Jews Welcome Moslems."]

An Israeli living in Britain recently told me that "we are uncomfortable and resentful of British Jews who complain about anti-Semitism but are unwilling to draw any realistic conclusions or do anything about it. We are the ones left to do the work for them--if anything happens here they will just go elsewhere. They are unwilling to stand up and be counted in Britain, but they expect Israelis to take all the flack and do all the work."

Ditto Lady and Oswald.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-20 11:57:01 PM

Fascism is emerged from racisms and Christianity. Same people that created it are talking in this blog freely. UK has the worse history in human right history and Blair must review their culture and history first. When I hear the name of UK I remember 1. Parrots 2. Establishing Slavery 3. Killing and destruction in third world countries for more than three centuries 3. Creating a cancer (Occupied Palestine) in the ME,....
The only break after communist that I love it is Islam. The western countries cannot benefit from their illegal ambitions with countries like Iran, and real Muslims. Same problem that they had with communists. Nobody cares in the west about human right (I'm talking about leaders) All countries that are ally of the west in the third world are corrupted and mostly totalitarian. Look at US and their rule in South America and ME. You can not find even one ally of them with good record in human right. They always have destructive rule in the world. They don't shy from mass killing of innocent people and they have a nice record of it. Christian killed more that 60 Million people in WWII.

Unfortunately the bright idea of communism doesn't have any power for controlling rootless people to push humanity to destruction. We saw how capitalism that has root in Christianity destroys our beautiful world.

Posted by: JJ | 2007-10-21 1:30:54 AM

Iran is in the process of cobbling up nuclear capability, a big boomer, in the guise of nuclear energy. We are sitting and waiting, watching it happen.

It is a Theocracy with Ahmadiddydoo , a brain washed and programed mad puppet, as the front man.

Should we be worried or are they worried?
They are threatening to respond with 11,000 rockets in a minute if the US attacks!
Now, how they arrive at the specific number, 11,000 is funny/strange. Does the number 11 have some significance with the Muslim world?

If capitalism and democracy are so bad, why are so many Islamics fleeing their homelands to live in them? JJ??

Canada was built on Judeo-Christian principles and I defy anyone to find a better place to live. We have gone to war to defend it and our principles and will continue to do so. Those who come here and become citizens should be expected to do the same, otherwise they don't belong here.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-10-21 6:26:44 AM

John ~

You can now view DJ without his mask. His most recent response is typical of what he really is.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-21 7:03:08 AM

Those terrible Jews are at it again, eh, DJ?

"7 sick Iraqi children allowed into Israel for treatment"

The Interior Ministry approved Sunday the entry of seven Iraqi children, aged between two and nine, into Israel.

Army Radio reported that the children were all suffering from heart disease and needed urgent medical treatment. Their entry was approved by head of the Population Administration Yaakov Ganot, despite their country of origin.

Iraq is officially at war with Israel and its citizens are barred by law from visiting here.

The approval of the group's entry followed cooperation between Rambam Hospital in Haifa and Shevet Ahim, an organization assisting children suffering from heart disease and in need of immediate treatment.

HMMM - I guess the "great" modern hospitals in Gaza, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and other Muslim countries were full.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-21 9:50:47 AM


Thanks for the heads up DJ is on my shun list.

Maybe his mother read the Merchant of Venice to him at bed time when he was a kid and it took.


I don't know about the Jews in Britain, but I know that Jerry Seinfeld, Elaine, Kramer and even George Costanza are all good Americans.

They may be a bit flaky but they are tolerant of others aren't they? I've seen a Negro in Jerri's apartment. I have seen Kramer hang out with a midget. And Elaine will go to bed with anything that has a pulse.

Now what's wrong with that? Isn't that what life is all about ... watching Jews have fun on TV? That's what most of the West is doing most of the time.

I know this sounds crazy, but it was written especially for you DJ because you are such a crazy kind of guy and this is the only kind of response and idiot like you deserves.

Posted by: John | 2007-10-21 10:36:15 AM


i generally ignore this kind of post, for obvious reasons. i can tell you've recently had brain surgery, and are not back to your usual coherent self, so i'll cut you some slack.

get well soon, buddy!! we're rootin' fer ya. :)

however, for the benefit of social liberals who might be reading this thread, here are some points to ponder:

speaking of imperialism: historically, no one has the moral high ground on this issue. Islam has been imperialist by nature. Europe has been imperialist by nature. see that word, "nature"? as in, "human nature"? Islam was just as power hungry as the Papacy. the accusation, "might is right" can't simply be pointed to someone you don't like.

speaking of allies: you have no idea of the history involved between the US and South America. if not for US foreign policy, SA would be much worse than it is. Reagan had to make a choice between dealing with authoritarian regimes (trying to make positive changes in the direction of democracy), and totalitarian regimes (which were much different animals).

same with the Middle East. if not for US foreign policy after WW2, the ME would be a place unliveable. deal with ALL the facts. for instance after WW2, the US made a deal with the house of Saud. the Saudis said, "if you build our infrastructure, we'll sell you the oil". more than 3 trillion dollars later, what does Saudi Arabia have to show for all this, besides the same f:)cking desert? where are the benefits? where is all this money? what is it being used for, besides funding "fascist" wahabism? and where are private property rights and free speech in the Middle East?

don't get stupid regarding Israel. most of that land was purchased by absent landowners, and was a barren, deserted wasteland. the fact that the Jews made something out of it is galling to the people in the area. but then, the reason for their success lies in a more fundamental attitude of respect for the individual.

and here, as well, no one is squeaky clean. but all things being equal, i err on the side of a nation which respects, to the largest degree, private property rights.

the US has something special, which is too important to lose: an historically unprecedented national Constitution, guaranteeing certain liberties for the individual, which are not as respected elsewhere in the world. that's why i am an unappologetic foreign policy neocon.

...which brings me to "fascism":

this word is mindlessly bandied about by the left, without regard for their own philosophy. Europe has always been more collectivist than America. Republican democracy comes from Europe, but the US to brought it furthest, by entrenching liberty of the individual into the Constitution.

this is why the US is a more successful nation than any in Europe. socialism is socialism, whether it comes from the left (democratic socialism), or the right (national socialism). the Constitutions of Europe are founded on false premises of collectivism. look what is happening now. collectivist Europe has driven democratic socialism so far to the left, it's becoming economically and socially unsustainable.

so, what's happening now? collectivist Europe is becoming frightened, and nations are beginning to swing to the right, and are bringing in governments, accordingly. instead of "democratic socialist" governments, they bring in "national socialist" governments; essentially, soft fascisms. Europeans are VERY nationalistic, whether on the left, or the right, despite their claims of altruism.

to call the US "fascist" is absurd.

a fascism is a system of government that holds the State above all else, and seeks to retain unity by nationalizing industry, pushing the concepts of racial purity, unified culture, and unified ethnicity.

let's see... in the US:

does the State try to force nationalization of industry? no. the US is a capitalist system.

is it about culture? mmm... nope. the US is multicultural and healthy.

is it about religion? buuuzzzzzz... wrong again. the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and the separation of Church and State (despite the pushing of some misguided domestic policy neocons).

is it about race? what a laugh. the Constitution killed slavery, and killed apartheid regarding civil rights. everyone can ride public transportation, use public washrooms, attend public schools, and utilize all publically owned facilities as equals (too bad the civil rights movement also included private property rights in it's equation).


capitalism and Christianity destroys our beautiful world? i hope the powers that be let this statement stand, as a monument to social liberal stupidity.

Posted by: shel | 2007-10-21 12:07:54 PM

"a fascism is a system of government that holds the State above all else, and seeks to retain unity by nationalizing industry, pushing the concepts of racial purity, unified culture, and unified ethnicity."

Hmmm. Sounds a bit like the separatists of Quebec:

"PQ backs new leader's hardline stance on French language"

Members of the Parti Québécois are rallying behind leader Pauline Marois's move to have the party adopt a more nationalist tone when it comes to language and identity, and to take back its traditional role as a defender of the French-speaking majority in the province.

"If we are not able to continue to defend our rights on this front, on this perspective, we face a risk of [decline]," she said as the party wrapped up its summer caucus meeting in Quebec City on Thursday.

'If we are not able to continue to defend our rights on this front, on this perspective, we face a risk of [decline]'— PQ Leader Pauline Marois

MNA Sylvain Simard said the PQ has been wary of associating language and politics ever since former premier Jacques Parizeau blamed defeat in the 1995 referendum on "money and the ethnic vote."

But Marois said the party must shake its fear of appearing intolerant to minorities, and must say out loud what most Quebecers are thinking: "You have to speak French."

Simard said he is fully behind his leader's wish to rebuild the party's message around the politics of speaking French.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-21 12:16:26 PM

And this too is a form of fascism:

"Be Not Afraid Global Warning Delusions"

The popular imagination has been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis. Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life--ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary. The key point here is that living things respond to many factors in addition to temperature and rainfall.


Posted by: obc | 2007-10-21 12:20:49 PM

Interesting tidbit:

"In Russia, on average, there are 3 births and 4 deaths every minute. That is a dying country.
And of course immigrants are not flocking to Russia either. The average life expectancy for men in Russia has dropped below 60 -- 20 years below the American male life expectancy. For years, some delusional Americans were advocates of the superiority of the Soviet system, and many of them still occupy chairs in our prestige academic institutions."

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-21 12:26:46 PM


good one. i agree. living things do respond to changes in the environment. it's called "adaptative evolution". within a few generations, species evolve to adapt to a changing environment. if the earth is getting warmer (i honestly don't know), organisms will adapt as necessary.

what's absurd is the notion that things will warm up so radically, there will be no time for living things to adapt. this is one of the many lies the fearmongers are pushing.

good night

Posted by: shel | 2007-10-21 12:38:46 PM

correction: "most of that land was purchased FROM absent landowners"

Posted by: shel | 2007-10-21 12:54:03 PM

There's a reason Arabs are demanding Israel return to the Green Line borders of 1967. That Green Line delineates the areas that Israelis turned from desert land into farm land.

When the Arabs lived there centuries ago, they were nomad shepherds who did nothing to rejuvenate the land they wandered through.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-21 12:57:52 PM

As for Blair I can only politely say too little too late. While he was PM, his wife, a lawyer, worked to "protect the rights" of the Islamists in the UK. Interesting combination I would say.

Different point altogether. I got a laugh from seeing how quick and easy it was to flush out DJ. At least he is consistent.

Now for the comments concerning the definition of the enemy, because we must have a clear understanding of whom the enemy is. For me I say that we are dealing with a totalitarian fascist ideology which hides under the veil (no pun intended) of religion. Having lived in my youth in a Muslim country prior to the infiltration of this ideology, I must in all honesty say that there was not a separation between Muslim and non Muslim. More than once I was insist mosques outside of their prayer time and was never made to feel unwelcome. The women there, contrary to the Arab countries, did not and would not wear a veil. They were actually as independent as Western women in many respects and were respected. I never had anyone trying to impose his/her beliefs on me nor was I mistreated in anyway. Yet these people were Muslim. To-day it is a different story due to the importation of Islamist ideology.

The point I hope to make is that we need to focus on this deadly ideology and stamp it out whenever we find it in our midst while at the same time assisting and encouraging Muslims here who denounce, speak out and work to combat this same ideology. Yes, I know there are verses in the Koran and Hadidths instigating such behaviour, but there are also verses in the Torah and Bible that we no longer implement.

Anyway that is my poor attempt at trying to distinguish some Muslims from these jihadists.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-21 1:07:50 PM

"The point I hope to make is that we need to focus on this deadly ideology and stamp it out whenever we find it in our midst while at the same time assisting and encouraging Muslims here who denounce, speak out and work to combat this same ideology."

Wow, the consistency of liberal secular Jews, Alain, Lady, Oswald and Melanie Phillips, is amazing. Liberal Jews all bleat to same beat. Their hatred of Christian Euros, especially Anglo-Saxons, is so ineluctable, that they are willing to import Muslim anti-semitism, invoke a suicide policy, (although Alain appears happy to live in dhimmitude) all in aid of the destruction of Europeans in their homeland. They won't even listen to their fellow conservative Jews, because their hatred is unquenchable. For them it's still 1939. In fact it will always be 1939.

"In short, Phillips (and liberal secular Jews) sees Islamic extremism as immoral, rather than Islamic, for the same reason that the neocons refer to Islamic extremism as "Islamo-fascist," rather than as Islamic. In both cases the motivating impulse is to preserve the belief that Islam itself is not the problem, and therefore that Muslims can be assimilated into our societies and into a democratic global culture."

However, Muslims do not see their position as immoral, but view it as simply Islamic.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-21 4:49:56 PM

Blah, blah, blah says the racist among us.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-21 5:48:59 PM

Nice try DJ and typical. I am neither liberal/leftist nor secular. Since I have never denied being Jewish you deserve no credit for getting that one right.

Perhaps one day someone will find a medical cure for you, so there is always hope.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-21 7:16:53 PM

Alain ~

It's called a lobotomy.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-21 7:20:22 PM

"Simard said he is fully behind his leader's wish to rebuild the party's message around the politics of speaking French."

And I am too.

Posted by: Marc | 2007-10-21 9:49:49 PM

And I'm the neo-coservative/orthodox one here....

It is simply a pleasure to watch that old scumbag slither around--pretending we are something liberal--just because he wants so pathetically and ever so desperately to believe it as such.

Which is why DJ is referred to as being an extremist. They exist to the left of the dreadful left--out there in lalalalalal land, and to the right of the right of right--just about where I sit.

Ladies and gentlemen, I rest my case. DJ is a facist who pretends to be against islamofacism. truth be known--he actually slobbers at the thought of licking Ahmadinejad's face and boots.

And that is putting it kindly!

Posted by: Lady | 2007-10-21 10:08:48 PM

Interesting how these liberal secular Jews avoid the question. They support the mass migration of Muslims into European homelands, clearly designed to undermine the Christian population in these countries, however, would never condone such a strategy for Israel. Why the hypocrisy, unless of course it is founded upon hatred of the majority people amongst whom they live. Why else would they, liberal secular Jews like Lady, Oswald and Alain, desire the replacement of Europeans in their home countries by importing Muslim anti-semites, unless of course their hatred of the host populations is so all consuming that it blinds them to the threat. As noted above their fellow Jews rail against the insanity. However, they are disregarded as self-loathing or in league with the evil Euro goyim. Why else would they prefer dhimmitude and Sharia?

It is a legacy of hate.

Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-21 11:24:43 PM

Dj you are simply a liar on top of everything else. Where have any of us written in support of mass migration of Muslims into European homelands as you call them? Answer no where.

You are consumed with vile hatred every bit as much as the Islamists. There is no possible exchange of ideas with such people, so you will simply be ignored henceforth.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-10-21 11:49:34 PM

WHOOPS! I guess the reporters had a bad day because they forgot to do their job:

"Crash detail overlooked"


The school bus accident (in Calgary) last Thursday that killed a nine-year-old child and injured others was a sorrowful tragedy.

The amount of media coverage of the accident was appropriate: Children should never predecease their parents.

Calgary's radio stations, newspapers and TV news covered the event exhaustively -- inspecting every detail, and asking good questions about how such accidents might be avoided in the future.

Every detail was examined except one: The woman who was the school bus driver was wearing a Muslim-style head covering that blocked her peripheral vision.

Why was this fact omitted?

LET'S START A CONTEST to see who can correctly guess the answer!

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 7:25:17 AM

AMNESIA INTERNATIONAL must be on vacation. I have not heard their public protest about this:

"Taliban use human shields"

Associated Press, by Rahim Faiez

KABUL, Afghanistan — Taliban militants used Afghan civilians as human shields during a battle with U.S. forces in eastern Afghanistan that left 20 Taliban and one civilian dead and 11 civilians wounded, officials said Sunday. Afghanistan's Defence Ministry said the joint Afghan-NATO operation was launched in the Korengal Valley in Kunar province, next to the border with Pakistan, with artillery fire and air strikes.

BUT MAYBE ALL THOSE "CIVILIAN" deaths reported by the enemedia are as a result of this practice of using human shields? Hmmmm?

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 8:29:36 AM

obc - WHOOPS! I guess the reporters had a bad day because they forgot to do their job:

I completely agree. It's hard to be credible when you omit or get the facts wrong. Reminds me of the post that someone made on the WS yesterday where they wrongly claimed that Maine had 2 female US senators before California.

Posted by: lotus 25 | 2007-10-22 8:55:48 AM

lotus ~

To assuage your "feelings", I was mistaken as to who was first - but my point is still valid. The enemedia gushed over 2 DemoRat women from the same state but ignored 2 Republican women from the same state.

As to "all" the other errors I made, would you mind citing some - or is it just that you disagree with my opinions which you regard as "errors"?

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 9:04:56 AM

. . . and lotus - I am NOT a reporter who works for a living and gets paid to get the facts right.

Any errors on my part are easily corrected without much damage being done. I am a private citizen - not a member of the "hallowed" fifth estate who rarely admit their mistakes - or if they do, it is buried on page 55 of section C in their arrogant publications.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 9:11:58 AM

Imagine Pope Benedict as our head of state passing whimsical judgements on matters on the economy, taxation, health care, security and education. Imagine him holding periodic hangings of gays, executing people for commiting minor crimes, enforcing ritualized female circumcision, sanctioning the stoning of adulterous women.

Sounds like something from the 1200's right?


Posted by: Epsilon | 2007-10-22 11:06:46 AM


Where have you written that you "don't" support mass Muslim immigration into European homelands? All you provide is a non-denial denial. If it's what you believe then please, prove me wrong, and make the pronouncement!

Posted by: DJ | 2007-10-22 1:07:27 PM

blah, blah, blah from the racist among us.

Posted by: obc | 2007-10-22 1:10:46 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.