The worst ally in world history

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5394278.stm

Earlier this week Tony Blair assured Gen Musharraf a leaked paper condemning Pakistan's intelligence service did not reflect his government's view.

In the leaked report, a naval commander at the Ministry of Defence (MoD) claimed Pakistan's intelligence service, ISI, had indirectly helped the Taleban and al-Qaeda.

In the BBC interview Mr Musharraf rejected these claims and said ISI's support was vital. "You'll be brought down to your knees if Pakistan doesn't co-operate with you. That is all that I would like to say. Pakistan is the main ally. If we were not with you, you won't manage anything," he said. "Let that be clear. And if ISI is not with you, you will fail."

Lets take Mr Musharraf's main thesis and examine it. "If we were not with you, you won't manage anything." Is that really the case? At the moment, Pakistan is eating its cake and having it too. Pervaiz gets to lunch with all the European and US bigwigs, while his secret service do the heavy lifting for the Taleban and Al Qaeda. He has basically out-sourced the running of the North West Frontier province (a huge area) to the Taleban and Al Qaeda. The latter are currently murdering anybody in the region who don't like the fact that they now call the shots, including upper echelons of the Karachi governing apparatus. Pakistan sponsors terrorists who attack Indian forces in Kashmir and northern India; not to mention commuters in Mumbai. It is sanguine about hordes of Taleban launching attacks on Afghanistan from within its territory, a fact that Mohammed Karzai is currently becoming bilious about. Pakistani death-cult 'schools' prepare Britons for their 'missions' to murder other Britons. The ISI built and fund many of those schools.

Pakistan must be the worst ally you could have. My question to Mr Musharraf would be, where is the up-side to this for us? If I was him I'd be preparing a bunker with more comforts than that hole Saddam ended up in.

Nobody knows their history

The rules of engagement for jihad are flexible. According to Khadduri, anything is possible, from mercy to mass enslavement to mass killing, just like with Greeks and Romans. This is a fundamental difference between the holy war of islam and of Old Testament Judaism, which prescribed the killing of all males outside of Israel, and the killing of every living thing within Israel (Deuteronomy 20, 10-20). We usually are outraged at what the Crusaders did in Jerusalem in 1099. Yet, the Crusaders acted in accordance with the ius bellum of the times, Muslim conquerors did the same all the time and everywhere: 698 they hit Carthage, in 838 Syracuse; the notorious vesir of the Cordoban Caliphate, Al Mansur, led 25 wars in 27 years against the Christian realms of northern Spain, enslaving, destroying, laying waste. They hit Zamora (981), Coimbra (987), Leon, Barcelona twice (985 and 1008), then Santiago de Compostela (997).

The worst destruction was wreaked by the jihadis on Byzantine Anatolia, which was then still full of cities; the massacre of Amorium (838) has remained a symbol for a long time; the urban culture of Anatolia never recovered from it.

The Seljuk Alp Arslan had entire Armenian cities massacred, the worst being the capital Ani in 1064. Bat Ye'or's evaluation therefore is more than justified: "Its lack of measure, its regularity and the systematic character of the destructions, which Islamic theologians had decreed to be law, make the difference between jihad and other wars of conquest".Certainly, mass enslavement remained the favourite aim of the wars. That was the way in which, as early as the eight century, the biggest slave-holder society developed that world history has ever known; it demanded a permanent influx of new slaves, transformed the African continent into the biggest supplier of slaves, a destiny which Europe narrowly avoided.

Professor Egon Flaig (quoted from Michelle Malkins blog).

I was struck today by a story on the front page of the BBC website, saying that more than 50% of Britons want British troops out of Afghanistan. I couldn't help wondering why. An incidental comment on a news bullitin today about that war went along the lines of "... and the Afghan government controls very little of the country." At what precise point in history did an Afghan government control more than 'very little' of Afghanistan, pray tell? Nobody knows their Afghan history.

The information in the quote from Egon Flaig about the Islamic way of war brought to mind floods of comments, vox pops, articles in the newspapers and conversations I have had with people about the nature of islam and the threat (or not) it poses to the rest of the world. Unsurprisingly (as humans seem designed to argue this way) prior behaviour often gets dragged into the mix. But the history reported by both muslims and non-muslims never seems to get much further than a few 'highlights'.

1. The crusades. These prove that the evil Christians are always the aggressor, and that the muslims are the victims

2. Muslim scientific and mathematical brilliance

3. The wonderful treatment of non-muslims in muslim societies historically

4. The great imposition of Israel onto the Arab (read muslim) world by the west.

And thats about it. The conquering by force of the north African and central mediterraenian Vandal and Goth states by muslim armies? Forget about it. The invasion of Spain? The attempted invasion of France? The conquering of the Asia by muslim mongols? Nah.

There are nested problems here. First, many people don't know the history. Second, many of those who do for political reasons won't interpret it in its most obvious ways. For instance, how many left-wing wacademics in the US tout the Arabs as the biggest slave owners and creators of all time? Not a lot. And third, muslims as a whole deny ANY facts that would intrude into their fixed world view, so you won't get much useful info out of them.

So where does that leave us? With a population who can't be educated by the media because not only don't the media know themselves, they want the muslim version of world history to be true, because they hate George W Bush more than Osama Bin Laden. Why don't British people want to extend the civilised world to encompass Afghanistan? Why don't the British people want our superb soldiers to act as guarantors for an Afghan government who DO control their own borders? Why don't British people feel that without the 32,000 Nato contingent in Afghanistan, a horrible domino effect would occur emanating from the new Talibanistan on the North West Frontier that would destabilise Russia, China and India? Why don't they recognise the amazing prospect that young Afghan girls and boys may actually go to school for pretty much the first time in Afghan history because our squaddies are killing the men who want to burn down the schools and get the girls back in the house where they can become ignorant baby-machines? Why don't the British people see that the Taliban ARE Al-Qaeda ARE the Mujahadeen ARE Hamas ARE Hezbollah to each other? Names are different, goals are the same.

How have British people NOT got those facts sorted out? By themselves, or with the help of the BBC, the Broken Broadcasting Corpse?

If you are going to give people the mandate, you must also demand that they consider the world their choices affect. With power comes responsibility. People should know their damn history.

Victor Davis Hanson goes to the nub

"Herein lies the greatest, most dangerous delusion we have been indulging for years now: everything our enemy does is merely a reaction to what we do. The enemy has no motives of his own, no goods or ends he is pursuing that may be very different from ours. He may think he does, and set those goods and ends out with clarity and force, and link them to the traditions of his faith, and be seconded in his opinion by millions of his co-religionists and the theologians of his faith, but they are all deluded. It’s not about Islam and Allah, it’s about Israel, oil, voting, cartoons, unemployment, American television, globalization, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, the occupation of Iraq–– any and every material or psychological cause other than the one spiritual cause the enemy keeps telling us over and over guides and justifies his actions and has guided and justified the wars of Islam for fourteen centuries.

This indeed is an “appalling” misunderstanding of the enemy. As long as we indulge this reduction of the jihadist to our own assumptions; as long as we show by our actions that we are not really sure that the ends we pursue are just and right, right enough to do things at times we’d rather not; as long as we cling to “dangerous delusions” about human nature and the primacy of the material over the spiritual, we will continue to lose the war. For our enemy has none of our hesitation, none of our doubt, none of our fear of the world’s disapproval. He knows why he kills and dies. What will it take to teach us what we should kill and die for?"

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton091706.html

I often read things which make me envy the writers skill, but no one as often as Victor Davis Hanson. This article is a superb summation of what most people, especially the socialist and Guardian-reading mass of the population, don't get about this war. They can't think outside the box, to borrow a ghastly phrase from the marketing world. Its much easier for the Israelis, the Serbs and the Georgians to get a direct grip on this current world situation than it is for people in the US and Britain. For the latter, this stuff was all dusty history and a few crazed rag-heads in Iran until Sep. 11, 2001. Islam was off the map, the failed religion of people who just didn't matter. Now it does matter because they have declared war by any and all means, chemical, biological or nuclear, on non-believers. And people are going to have to get over their deeply and lovingly held belief that these people aren't really serious. They can't be THAT agitated over religion, surely? But they are folks, and they are willing to lop off heads, machinegun schoolgirls and blow up airliners full of happy holidaymakers until we collectively cry uncle.

Who you gonna believe?

On Sunday, Nato said they had driven Taleban militants out of Panjwayi district, after a two-week offensive codenamed Operation Medusa. Nato said at least 400 Taleban fighters had been killed in the operation, the biggest offensive since Nato took over southern Afghanistan from US-led forces at the end of July.

The deaths cannot be independently verified.

The BBC are SO scrupulous about verification. Wowsa. They never ever just take peoples say-so and report is as fact.

"Don't worry, I'm just parking!" shouts the driver. He is Kassem Shaalan. He knows what it is like to be hit by a rocket. On the evening of 23 July, he and two other medics answered a call to rendezvous with an ambulance from Tibnin, in the hills to the east, to relay three civilian patients down to Tyre. Both ambulances were struck precisely by separate rockets as they were stopped at the roadside near Qana for the transfer. It was 2230 at night. There was nothing else on the road. They were clearly marked, and lit up with flashing blue lights and illuminated Red Cross flags. Kassem, his two colleagues, the three medics in the other ambulance, and the three Lebanese patients, were all injured. One of the patients, 38-year-old Ahmad Fawwaz, lost his leg in the ambulance. His mother Jamileh, 58, and son Ahmad, 8, were both seriously injured.

And right there at the end, as you can see, it says, in huge block capitals, 'The injuries and rocket explosions cannot be independently verified.'

Some way cool gassing from our dude in France

"I don't believe in a solution without dialogue," Mr Chirac told Europe-1 radio, urging countries to remove the threat of sanctions against Iran.
"We must, on the one hand, together, Iran and the six countries, meet and set an agenda for negotiations then start negotiations," Mr Chirac said. "Then, during these negotiations I suggest that the six renounce seizing the UN Security Council and Iran renounces uranium enrichment."

He was wearing a natty Nehru-suit, some beaded sandals, majorly cool sunglasses and had a spliff hanging from the corner of his mouth.

His last words to the star-struck radio-pixie were "Peace, Out". So, like, happenin'.

Back in the USSR

I never was in the USSR, but I do read. And I used to read many magazine and newspaper articles about the comical gymnastics that the Soviet newspapers and radio did to make sure they kept in with the Party. After all, twenty years in a gulag does nothing for your good looks. So the Soviet newspapers were not worth reading- they were some of the least read of any polity anywhere. What wasn't cringing toadying to party apparatchiks was probably lies. And the rest of the pages were information about where to go for some good-time commie fun- like the workers festival of heroic basket-weavers or some such.

It really takes some going to reach those depths. But try this on for size:

"Pope Sorry for Offending Muslims" Headline of the top story on the BBC news website.

Trouble is, he didn't say that. At all. That is the BBC speaking. Not the Pope. What the Pope ACTUALLY said was this:

"At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims."

Thats what he said. He is sorry FOR THE REACTIONS.

"I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect."

Those are the words of an intelligent and thoughtful man NOT IN THE LEAST CONCERNED by the grotesque, over-wrought misrepresentation of his words by virtually all the worlds muslims. He wants to engage them in a frank and sincere dialogue. Good luck with that.

The title of this blog is my despairing shot at the hopeless dhimmies (muslim bitches) who occupy a great swathe of modern Britain. The BBC is now the apologist and re-interpreter of world events on behalf of the muslims. Its relationship with them is similar to those hopeless skanky women who marry serial killers and death row inmates who never see any evil in them, are blind to any intimation of their true characters, and willfully blind to the evidence of the guys terrible crimes. Why they want to do it I leave up to the psychopathologists- but the evidence that they do it is there plain as day every day.

A modest proposal

Being of an orderly nature, I think we should get the whole "muslims enraged, insulted and riotous" thing organised. I suggest one month a year set aside for muslims to rant, scream abuse, burn things down and file lawsuits, during which time the rest of us could all mock mohammed, call muslims pigs and apes (whats good for the goose...), point out obvious truths about the so-called religion of peace and generally get things off our chests. That way we wouldn't have to have these episodes of faux-outrage and staged flag-burnings by men in white sheets and little beady caps every couple of weeks; just during the seasonal outrage-fest.

Either that, or muslims could grow up and get used to being mocked and derided. Like the rest of us have.

Middle eastern leaders 'Tell Truth' shock

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5344334.stm

Kofi Annan has graduated 'Summa Cum Laude' from the university of the bleeding obvious. After doing a straw poll of middle Eastern leaders, he discovered that most deem the Iraq war to have been a disaster. For once, we can all agree. Specifically for middle Eastern leaders, the Iraq war is and will be the biggest disaster to befall them in the short history of ME nation-states. Up till now, the exigencies of the cold war, and then the mypia and inertia of both the US and Europe allowed the most disgusting and anti-huminatiarian regimes to exist in the ME without challenge.

But with the sweeping away of the Talibans suffocating and poisonous cabal and then Saddams grotesque and murderous thugocracy, that changed suddenly; from Damascus to Riyadh, Cairo to Tehran, the unelected and corrupt men in charge started to sweat and thrum nervously on their thrones. Things were afoot. New winds started to blow through. First, Muammar Ghaddaffi, the worlds most hilarious dictator, did a well-publicised switcheroo and gave up all his WMD programs. Then the Syrian twit Assad pulled his troops out of Lebanon, and even intercepted a few jihadis on their way to a quick death in Iraq. Most of the rest decided they were US allies at least for now. Only the Iranians diverged from the path of reason and realpolitick.

They did what can only be explained as whistling through the graveyard. Instead of looking over the border at the 135,000 seasoned US troops and making the obvious judgement that perhaps now was not the best time to tweak the tail of the great Satan, it has twisted and tweaked like there is no tomorrow. First, they attempted (and are still attempting) to break up the Iraqi state by sponsoring Shia death squads. Second, they used their proxies in Lebanon to start a war with Israel. And third, they are going hell-bent for leather to develop nuclear weapons.

I think we all know in our heart of hearts how this will play out. The US is never going to let an Iranian state ruled by psychotic, irrational hate-mongers go nuclear, right next door to two delicate new democracys. In Iraq a third of the population have religious affiliations with Iran. In Afghanistan, no nation-state has ever really existed, not at any point in history. One is currently being created, but the time-scale is at the very least decades. A nuclear Iran would change the regional balance beyond recognition instantly. The stakes in any confrontation would immediately be off the scale. So I predict Iran will have a nuclear program for about another month, maybe two.

The middle-term problem is Pakistan. Having now given the North West Frontier province to Al-Qaeda, Musharraf looks much less like a US/British ally. And he has real nukes, right now. The wafer-thin margin of influence that the US/UK can exert in Pakistan would disappear in a trice were Mr Musharraf to meet a bloody end, which he probably expects at any moment (and so should we). So really, its a two-fer as Americans call it. Pakistan cannot be trusted to have nuclear weapons if its going to allow Al-Qaeda to create a state-within-a-state in the NWF province. It probably doesn't have many anyway, and a surgical take-out of those must have been contingency-planned for many decades at the Pentagon.

So my prediction is that within two years, the world will have one less nuclear program, and one less nuclear state. And quite possibly two or three revolutions. Watch this space.

Very impressive first person account from WTC

http://www.mpwilson.com/uccu/archives/000803.html

For those of you who don't do the English thing

By their fruits ye shall know them

A couple of weeks after 9/11, the professor [Edward Said] deplored the tendency of commentators to separate cultures into what he called "sealed-off entities," when in reality Western civilization and the Muslim world are so "intertwined" that it was impossible to "draw the line" between them. National Review's Rich Lowry was unimpressed. "The line seems pretty clear," he said. "Developing mass commercial aviation and soaring skyscrapers was the West's idea; slashing the throats of stewardesses and flying the planes into the skyscrapers was radical Islam's idea."

Thank you Mark Steyn. That is all I have to say on this very sad anniversary. Some of Britains finest minds were in those towers.

How can you argue with these people?

I heard recently that the 9/11 attacks were retaliation by Al-Qaeda for Nato's war against Muslims in Bosnia. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. How can you argue with such ignorance and stupidity? Where can you begin to challenge the lack of discrimination, the willful disregard for motive and intent, the ability to mutate events into their antithesis?

Over and over again, I read in the BBC propaganda organ that I am the problem- I'm ignorant of islam, ignorant of how a picture of Mohammed is the worst of all crimes, ignorant of the day-to-day life of pakistani goatherds currently residing in Britain. That may be true, although I'm sure I know more about their way of life than they do about mine. But when you listen to the paranoic and biased islamists and their cheerleaders in Britain waffling on about the Zionist conspiracy, the CIA 9/11 conspiracy, the Koran-flushing Gitmo outrage, the Abu-Ghraib torture conspiracy and finally the Nato-war-on-Bosnian muslims conspiracy, you enter a lobotamised world.

I'm tired of the willful perversity of the media in calling us ignorant, while at the same time 'bigging' the muslims and trying to persuade us that all the knowledge and beauty in the world can somehow be traced back to the muslim world. Our knowledge, education, tolerance and breadth of experience is constantly belittled and underrated, while their pig-ignorance, intolerance and bad faith are elided.

The result is very large numbers of muslims inhabit a world-view where everybody hates the muslims and the only response is mass-murder, beheading, disgusting torture and a crazed attempt to take over the world; and nobody challenges it because we're so darned tolerant and understanding.

We need to get less tolerant and understanding of things that directly threaten our way of life, and the ammassed civilisation of many thousands of years.

Playing by the rules

Societies that are highly homogenous ethnically and culturally gain a benefit of tranquillity and orderliness, because behaviour and the societal correction of anti-social behaviour are consistent across the board. Britain is now bearing a heavy burden of lawlessness and violent behaviour which is a direct result of a heterogenous culture. And its not just the most extreme behaviour which is a problem; recent immigrants are deeply ignorant of English mores and folkways, and that means our roads are chaotic and dangerous, our buses are chaotic and dangerous, our inner-city schools are chaotic and dangerous, and intra-communal relations are often chaotic and dangerous.

Many people warned about these things 50 years ago when the first mass-immigration was foisted on a highly un-willing British population, and were accused of racism, bigotry and xenophobia. Now that the evidence is there for all to see, if you point it out you are STILL accused of racism, bigotry etc. Especially for city-dwellers, and the poorest people in Britain, the trashing of their communities and way of life have been wholesale and catastrophic. Many English people, myself included, are now a minority in their own land, little islands of Englishness in a maelstrom of foreigners.

The English thegns who fought against William the Bastard at Hastings used as their battlecry "Out! Out! Out!". That atavistic urge is starting to awaken in the English. All you politicians, in your picturesque little home counties bastions, do you hear the faint but growing sound of revolt? Then you had better start listening...

Todays childrens quiz

Hello children!

Can you put these events into their chronological order?

- The invasion of Iraq

- The invasion of Afghanistan

- The second and successful attack on the World Trade Center towers

- The first and unsuccessful attack on the World Trade Center towers

- NATO come to the rescue of Bosnia's muslim population

Remember children, if you can do this, you are smarter than ALL the muslims in Britain!

(Health warning: facts are extremely dangerous to the muslim world view)

The easiest money you can make

Whats the easiest money you can make? Selling missiles to Iran? Selling nuclear technology to North Korea? Being a Palestinian? No way.

The easiest money on earth is:

"Death of a President, on More4, uses actors and computer effects to portray the president being shot dead during an anti-war rally in Chicago in 2007."

Guess which President they mean, and you win todays putty medal.

As the program maker says "It's a pointed political examination of what the War on Terror did to the American body politic. I'm sure that there will be people who will be upset by it but when you watch it you realise what a sophisticated piece of work it is."

Mmmmm. Perhaps. A more reasonable way of characterising it would be something like "...another hack piece of lefty bullshit fantasising about the murder of George Bush." And if you don't think that this is a common fantasy for those in the US and around the world whose pet peeve is the continued existence of Mr Bush, do a Google on George W Bush and assassinate.

The Democrats in the US in particular have spectacularly descended from their historical position as a moderately left-of-centre party with wholly American instincts into a festering melange of hate-groups, eco-frenzies, special interest lobbies, single race promotion groups and America-haters. As they become more extreme and unhinged, fewer and fewer ordinary Americans are willing to associate themselves with it. Joe Lieberman has already payed the price of having a rational view, and Hilary Clinton I predict will too. Democrat policy can now be summarized as:

We hate George W Bush
Pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan
Apologize to the world and grovel in self-abasement
We hate George W Bush
Stop all meaningful economic activity (due to warming of earth)
We hate George W Bush
Give zillions of dollars to third-world dictators as recompense for our oppression
By the way, did we mention we hate George W Bush? Just checking.

Anyway, returning to the original point of this post, making TV programs that feed into the Bush-hatred feeding frenzy is just about the closest thing right now to a guarunteed banker. "Producers of the film, which is directed by Gabriel Range, hope to sell the broadcast rights to the US."

I'm just surprised that there aren't five or six more of these murder-fantasies flying around, given that as soon as you get a distribution deal for the US, you can retire to the Bahamas with you hefty pile of loot, braying all the while about the fascist policies of Mr Bushitlerhaliburton. The sangria tastes so much better when its got that dash of self-righteousness.


All quotes taken from this BBC website article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5302598.stm?ls