Conservative Liberal

FDR would have been a Republican today.

The Left really does support the new Nazis

I often say that the Left is Nazi-sympathizing.  But I used to think that they do that without completely realizing who they sympathize with.  But this is absolutely amazing.  It turns out, they know exactly who they support (via LGF):

…Kassass’s evaluation of the situation in Egypt was echoed in the exchanges of Sadala Mazraani of the Lebanese Communist Party, and Ali Fayyad of Hizbullah. Mazraani admitted that during the civil war in Lebanon, Islamists and socialists were fighting each other, and argued that we should learn from the successes of the anti- fascist front of WWII, the nationalist revolution of the 1950s in Egypt and the non-aligned movement of the 1960s, when imperialism was on the defensive. He pointed out how Latin America is uniting with the Middle East against the common enemy, and said it was more a matter of coordinating movements that have recognized common goals. "The Lebanese Communist Party actively works with Hizbullah against the occupation and in elections, both trying to unite Lebanese society to fight Israel and Zionism."

Ali Fayyad of Hizbullah backed up Mazraani, though he complained that, "many socialists in Europe still refuse to work with us, calling us ‘terrorist’". He admitted that Islamists are conservative and often don’t want to work with the left, especially extremists like Al-Qaeda, which "will not work with anyone and will fail". Then there are the liberal Muslims who don’t care about the war and occupation, lack a clear position on imperialism, and as a result, actually ally with it. "The differences of Hamas and Hizbullah with the left are minor — family and social priorities — and at the same time, the Islamic movement must apply democracy, which is really the same as shura. Democracy is a bridge to cross to a better world. We should avoid intolerance in governance, whether it’s Islamic or not, and forcing religion upon people." He referred to Gramsci’s argument about creating a common front at important historical junctures to induce historical change, after which the different groups can go their separate ways.What a lovely irony to have an Islamist quoting a Western communist theorist.

"By working with Islamic groups in an open way, the left can have a positive impact on Islamic movements, and vice versa."

The international left, as represented at the conference, emphasized practical ways to reach out to the broader Muslim community, as reflected in conference forums on such projects as twinning UK and Palestinian cities, countering the boycott of the Hamas government in Palestine with a boycott of Israel and Western firms that provide military equipment to Israel, countering Islamophobia — in a word, citizens’ diplomacy.

James Clark of the Canadian Peace Alliance described how the anti-war coalitions are now supportive of Muslims who find themselves targets of racial and religious profiling and no-fly lists, and that there is active work in the peace movement to counter Islamophobia, "which the governments use to fan the flames to generate support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are committed to defend all civil liberties. "On the wall of the prayer room at Ryerson University in Toronto, someone’s spray painted ‘Die Muslim’. The administration refused to condemn this as hate crime, so we organised a petition and a campaign to counter Islamophobia, and as a result, the head of the Islamic students’ organization was elected president of the students’ council. So you can use such incidents to educate and mobilize people." Clark vowed that the Canadian peace movement, inspired by the Arab resistance in Lebanon and Iraq, would work with Muslims to defeat imperialism.

Johannes Anderson of Denmark criticized the Danish left for not standing behind Muslims during the cartoon controversy, allowing a weak prime minister to emerge unscathed. "I’ve changed through the past years and grown through criticism. We should not be afraid of it. We fight for democracy in the Middle East and Europe against neo- liberalism which is taking away our rights everywhere."

I can’t believe I just linked to Al-Ahram.  But here it is.  The Left now knowingly cooperates with Muslim Brotherhood, an organization with clear Nazi ties.

Powered by Qumana

April 8, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bernard Lewis’s lecture

Here is the link to the lecture.  Just read it.  It is crucial for understanding who we are fighting and why.

Powered by Qumana

April 8, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What happened to Britain?

I did not comment on the British sailors and marines taken hostage (or should we call them POWs?) while they were still held, because there was a lot of questions about the whole thing.  Now things are clearing up.  During their press conference it became pretty clear why they did not fight back.  Basically by the time they knew beyond any doubt that the Iranians had hostile intents, they were already surrounded, outgunned and outnumbered.  Normally in war people surrender in such circumstances, so the Brits can’t be blamed for surrendering.  What they did afterwards is another story.  But first about how they were taken.  The rules of engagement are faulty.  If the Brits opened up on the Iranians while they were approaching, none of this would have happened.  According to some people I asked, our guys would have done exactly that.  HMS Cornwall could have sunk them all, but they were ordered not to shoot.  And by the time the British boarding party was surrounded, they could not without killing their own guys.  But then the Brits just went along with the Iranians.  It seems to me that the reason for that is the attitude displayed by one of the released sailors during their press conference.  He said: "Iranians are not our enemies.  We are not at war with Iran".  That attitude made an act of war into a misunderstanding, so they did whatever they could to get out of this situation.  And if this required humiliating their country, so be it.  Could you imagine Royal Marines defending Port Stanley saying: "Argentineans are not our enemies.  We are not at war with Argentina" after Argentinean troops landed on Falkland Islands?  But evidently people still don’t understand that we are at war and don’t understand the nature of the enemy.  So they participate in the disgraceful TV appearances (via LGF).  Then they sell their story for big bucks.  I am not even adding my own comments to this: there is nothing to add to LGF’s post.  Someone might say that I should not be judging them: I am not in this situation and don’t know what I would do.  True, but at least I know who the enemy is.  Therefore, I at least can hope that should I be in this situation, I might be strong enough to just give my name, rank and serial number.  At least I know what I should strive for.

The problem does not affect just those sailors.  It affects the whole country of (formerly) Great Britain.  This is also via LGF:

Schools are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils, a Government backed study has revealed.

It found some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.

There is also resistance to tackling the 11th century Crusades – where Christians fought Muslim armies for control of Jerusalem – because lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.

The findings have prompted claims that some schools are using history ‘as a vehicle for promoting political correctness’.

The study, funded by the Department for Education and Skills, looked into ’emotive and controversial’ history teaching in primary and secondary schools.

It found some teachers are dropping courses covering the Holocaust at the earliest opportunity over fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.

The researchers gave the example of a secondary school in an unnamed northern city, which dropped the Holocaust as a subject for GCSE coursework.

The report said teachers feared confronting ‘anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils’.

So, the teachers are afraid and quite ready to sacrifice the historical truth on the altar of political correctness.  Meanwhile, the BBC (no, I am not linking to it) does this (also via LGF):

Amid the deaths and the grim daily struggle bravely borne by Britain’s forces in southern Iraq, one tale of heroism stands out.

Private Johnson Beharry’s courage in rescuing an ambushed foot patrol then, in a second act, saving his vehicle’s crew despite his own terrible injuries earned him a Victoria Cross.

For the BBC, however, his story is "too positive" about the conflict.

The corporation has cancelled the commission for a 90-minute drama about Britain’s youngest surviving Victoria Cross hero because it feared it would alienate members of the audience opposed to the war in Iraq.

The BBC’s retreat from the project, which had the working title Victoria Cross, has sparked accusations of cowardice and will reignite the debate about the broadcaster’s alleged lack of patriotism.

"The BBC has behaved in a cowardly fashion by pulling the plug on the project altogether," said a source close to the project. "It began to have second thoughts last year as the war in Iraq deteriorated. It felt it couldn’t show anything with a degree of positivity about the conflict.

"It needed to tell stories about Iraq which reflected the fact that some members of the audience didn’t approve of what was going on. Obviously a story about Johnson Beharry could never do that. You couldn’t have a scene where he suddenly turned around and denounced the war because he just wouldn’t do that.

Below in that Telegraph article is the description of exactly what he did:

He was cited for "valour of the highest order" after he drove a Warrior tracked armoured vehicle through heavy enemy fire in May 2004 to come to the rescue of a foot patrol that had been caught in a series of ambushes. The 30-ton Warrior was hit by multiple rocket-propelled grenades, causing damage and resulting in the loss of radio communications. Pte Beharry drove through the ambush, taking his own injured crew and leading five other Warriors to safety. He then extracted his wounded colleagues from the vehicle, all the time exposed to further enemy fire.

The following month, Pte Beharry was again driving the lead Warrior vehicle of his platoon through al-Amarah when his vehicle was ambushed. A rocket-propelled grenade hit the vehicle and Pte Beharry received serious head injuries. Other rockets hit the vehicle incapacitating his commander and injuring several of the crew.Despite his very serious injuries, Pte Beharry then took control of his vehicle and drove it out of the ambush area before losing consciousness. He required brain surgery for his head injuries and he was still recovering when he received the VC from the Queen in June last year.

So, the British teachers are scared to teach historical truth, while BBC, which used to be the voice of Freedom 65 years ago, effectively spitting on The Few.  I am afraid "we shall never surrender…" will never again be heard in Britain.  Churchill must be turning in his grave.

Powered by Qumana

April 8, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | 2 Comments

My friend’s brother…

…is a US Army officer.  He has just got back from Iraq, and my friend invited me to join him and his brother for lunch last Thursday.  I am going to try to re-cap what I’ve learned.

My friend introduced me by saying: "Eric counters the leftist demonstrations", to which his brother replied with a question: "Protest Warrior?"  Needless to say, I was pleased that he knew about us.  My friend’s brother was in Ramadi.  I asked him about the attitude of the locals toward Americans.  He replied that initially, when his unit just got there, everybody hated them, but now it is different.  It’s not really surprising: after all, Ramadi is in the Sunni Triangle.  But then, they started fixing infrastructure, providing security and generally improving people’s lives, while relentlessly pursuing the bad guys, and things started to change.  Now things are relatively quiet.  The local police are very effective.  They are former insurgents for the most part, but, as he put it, "they are joining the winning team".  In contrast, the Iraqi army units in Ramadi are not very effective: they are mostly Shias from the South and are not trusted by the locals.  We asked if there was a lot of fighting.  He said that initially it was pretty bad: the insurgents were mounting coordinated attacks daily, in several places around the city, in large numbers attacking fixed American positions.  To some extent it must have made thing easier: it was essentially conventional warfare.  It does not happen any longer.  The insurgents might take pot shots at our guys, but that’s about it.  The locals inform on them: they are tired of fighting.  And, as I’ve said before, many insurgents switch sides and join the police.  People are still afraid to show too much friendliness toward our guys: "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is still there.  But the locals do cooperate with the authorities.  We asked whether the insurgents were locals or foreigners for the most part.  He said that the insurgents were mostly locals, but the suicide bombers are mostly foreigners from all over the Muslim world.  Out of curiosity I asked whether there were any Chechens fighting our guys.  He said that he hasn’t seen any, but he heard of them.  He also said that some formerly hot places like Tal Afar are completely pacified, while Ramadi is almost pacified.  We asked what our guys do if somebody starts shooting at them from some building.  He said that usually our guys shoot back and call for a couple of tanks.  If the bad guys are still shooting by the time the tanks arrive, the tanks eliminate them.  If after a couple of shots from tank cannon the bad guys are still there, they call for an air strike.  I asked if the bad guys hide behind the civilians.  He said that they perhaps would, but the buildings used by the bad guys are all empty: the locals don’t want to be there and simply abandon those places.  I asked him whether General Petraeus, the new commander in Iraq, is any good.  He said that while he does not know personally, he’s heard good things about him.  However, he did mentioned that Petraeus has a bit of MacArthur complex: he always has a bunch of reporters following him.  I replied to it that MacArthur did get a job done.  Besides, some good PR would not hurt right now.

Here is the bottom line that I got out of it.  The new tactics is basically creating a sharp contrast: cooperate with or at least do not resist the authorities, and your life will be really nice.  Join the insurgency, and you won’t have a life.  And this is working, as it should.  People for the most part do not want to fight anybody.  They just want to be left alone.  Whoever gives the people a chance at peaceful life will ultimately win.  Thus, they will not be on our side if we just abandon  them to "Al Qaeda in Iraq".  We just need to be patient.  Any artificial deadline will preclude us from succeeding: why would anybody join us knowing that we will just leave by a certain date?  We will go home, but the locals will have to live there.  So, their survival requires them to be on the other side.  That is why we cannot leave by any deadline.  Furthermore, we will need bases there.  Just like we kept bases in Germany in order to confront the Soviets, we will bases in Iraq to project power against the crazy mullahs in Iran.

Powered by Qumana

April 8, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | 1 Comment