They're not terrorists. They just delight in murdering civilians. "U.N.'s Malloch Brown Questions Hezbollah's 'Terror' Designation," from FoxNews, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
WASHINGTON — U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown may want to stick to reforming his own office and stop criticizing member states, a State Department spokesman said Wednesday.Malloch Brown was quoted in a British newspaper Wednesday suggesting that he does not think that Hezbollah, the Syrian- and Iranian-backed group currently fighting Israeli Defense Forces, is a terrorist organization.
"It's not helpful to couch this war in the language of international terrorism. Hezbollah employs terrorist tactics; it is an organization, however, whose roots historically are completely separate and different from Al Qaeda," he said, according to a transcript of an interview.
"...it is an organization, however, whose roots historically are completely separate and different from Al Qaeda," he said..."
Huh? What, so Al Qaeda is the only model for defining terrorism!??? Is the war against terror only against Al Qaeda? This man is nuts.
"...it is an organization, however, whose roots historically are completely separate and different from Al Qaeda."
On the contrary, the roots of these two organizations are historically identical: the genocidal invocations of the Koran coupled with the blood thirsty life example of Mohammed.
He’s right …they’re not terrorists. They’re Islamic. They’re simply killing innocents, civilians, and terrorizing the Jews as their holy book commands them to do.
I suppose since the Qur’an says to do so, its okay. I guess if their holy book commanded them to masturbate in public, it wouldn’t be at all indecent since their holy book says it’s okay.
If you put Islamic activity in the US and stripped away any religious connotations, it would be classified simply as criminal activity.
"It's not helpful to couch this war in the language of international terrorism..."
So just who, exactly, are you trying to help, Mr. Mark Malloch Brown?
In the current crisis in Lebanon, as in many others of recent years, the United Nations has revealed itself to be worse than useless. In word and deed, the U.N. betrays all civilized norms to act as a shield for tyranny.
The truth is that Hezbollah is a Islamofacist gang.
I see know difference in Hizballah then I do Hamas. They both do things to passify civilians and they both have seats in their respective goverments. They both practice terrorism (Hizballah being the creator of the suicide bomber), they both plant their weapons among civilians, and they both teach hate towards the Jews and non muslims. Hizballah is directly responcible for killing more American soldiers than any other terrorist group.
"It's not helpful to couch this war in the language of international terrorism. Hezbollah employs terrorist tactics; it is an organization, however, whose roots historically are completely separate and different from Al Qaeda,"
I despise such unmanly language as "not helpful". This guy is a weasel and enabler of Jihadist cowards Hizb'Allah
"Not helpful" is how a mother talks to a child or a grade school teacher addresses a student
Wonder how much they paid him to say that?
CLUE - LESS
"...whose roots historically are completely separate and different from Al Qaeda,""
They're not (the roots join at the Islamic trunk; moreover al-Qaeda itself has recently called upon Muslims to support Hezb'Allah).
But even if they were separate, this U.N. knumbskull has flunked logic 101: His statement implies that he thinks a group must be joined to al-Qaeda to qualify as a terrorist group. Somebody please get a box of crayons for that poor lad.
Only in the corrupt, make believe world of the United Nations (there's an oxymoron) could the U.N. Deputy Secretary-General state: "Hezbollah employs terrorist tactics; it is an organization" and then state that he does not think that Hizballah is a terrorist organization.
I suppose blowing up a marine barracks in Lebanon or a Jewish community centre in Argentina doesn't qualify as a terrorist act. And such people wonder why the UN is regarded as a corrupt whore of an organization.
Miching mallecho from Malloch Brown. And far worse, far more dangerous to the safety of Infidels everywhere. His absurd remark -- that Hezbollah "is an organization, however, whose roots historically are completely separate and different from Al Qaeda" is complete nonsense.
It should be used, however, by columnists as a way of getting into the subject of what texts prompt Al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden, what passages in the Qur'an, what stories in the Hadith, what horrific behavior from Muhammad, as detailed and retailed in the Muslim biographies and Muslim commentaries on his life, and which offer up someone as the Perfect Man, uswa hasana he is called in the Qur'an (the phrase appears in the Qur'an only three times, twice in connection with Abraham, once with Muhammad), al-insan al-kamil.
What does Malloch Brown know about what prompts those who set off the bombs in Bali? Who attacked the school in Beslan, or seized the theatre in Moscow? What texts are now being circulated by Arabs in Bosnia? What texts were read, or what attitudes created by the mere fact of calling oneself a Muslim, identifying with Islam, growing up in a world of Islam and nothing but Islam, helped to form those who put bombs in the London Underground, the Madrid Atocha station? What does Malloch Brown know about Islam? Does he know what that other Englishman high in Kofi Annan's hierarchy, the incredible Edward Mortimer, the one who hailed the arrival of the Ayatollah Khomeini to power with a dispatch for the London Spectator that began with a quote from Charles James Fox --"this is quite the most glorious morning in the history of mankind"? The same Edward Mortimer who as a journalist in England was famous for his pro-Islam, anti-Israel dispatches, an upmarket Robert Fisk who was hired by Annan to be not only his Chief Speechwriter and head of the Office of Communications but who, if we are to believe Edward Mortimer himself, is also a "
Senior Advisor to Kofi Annan." Oh, I believe it. [For more on the illegitimate Edward, google "Jihad Watch" and "Posted by Hugh" and "Edward Mortimer"].
They're all of a piece, these Malloch Browns and Mortimers and Urquharts. Once upon a time, before the decline and fall of the U.N., and that decline and fall was not caused, though it was helped along, by the Soviet bloc, but rather by the only bloc still remaining, that calls so much of the tune, the Arab or Arab-run Islamic bloc, whose nationals have infiltrated everywhere, whose agendas -- why, to believe the U.N. and its subsidiaries, the greatest crime, the most horrible event in the world was the creation, and continued existence, of the State of Israel -- no matter what the subject, "racism" at Durban, the rights of women at Cairo, whatever morally moronic U.N. conferrence is held, it will always and everwyehre turn absurdly into a bash-Israel event. Not a single word in Geneva, at the Human Rights Commission, about the grave mistreatment of Hindus and Christians in Pakistan, in Bangladesh, in Indonesia, not a word about Muslim attacks on Buddhists in south Thailand, not a word about the Muslim attacks for two decades in the Sudan -- or at least, not a word that stopped the genocide, if the Rapporteur for the situation in the southern Sudan, M. Biro, is to be believed.
The U.N. is now, and for the past three decades has been becoming more and more, merely a Protector of the Faith -- the faith being Islam, and its real aims, its contents, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics, its Lesser Jihad against Israel, and now all the other Jihads which are out in the open, prompted by the same texts and same sense of what Islam is entitled to, of how Islam must everywhere dominate and Muslims rule. That many intelligent people still do not understand this, because it would invovle too much of a rewiring of their own mental hard drive, and that they are reluctant to admit to this, to themselves, because of all the anguish this will cause, not least as they contemplate what they would have to do to adequately defend themselves (see the Benes Decree),is clear.
But they will be made to come round. Not by what the Americans or the Israelis do or do not do. But by what Muslims do -- to themselves, and to non-Muslims. Eventually what the malloch-browns and mortimers of this world presume to tell us de-haut-en-bas, so ably seconded by the mary-robinsons, javier-solanas, chris-pattens, will be so absurd, and be shown up so easily, by those in every country who will drily point out what people in the Western world are coming to realize, despite their leaders' silence or still worse, deliberate misinformation (can Malloch Brown really believe that Hezbollah and Al Qaeda have nothing in common? Nothing to do with each other? Does he expect people to believe this? How manhy people, outside the U.N. building? And for how long?), based on the timidity, cupditiy, and stuppidity demonstrated by so many in the ruling circles of the Western world, both in governments and in the media.
In making such a self-evidently absurd remark, Malloch Brown exposes himself to ridicule, and more than his own absurdity, such a statement shows that the compromised and negligent elites that continue to allow such people as Malloch Brown to rise high, and presume to lecture us, on matters that affect our very survival, the survival of the West and of the Rest of the Infidel world, are simply not up to the task, and have to be replaced, everywhere, by those who have understood Islam, understood Jihad, understood all the instruments, not merely that of terrorism, of that Jihad.
Malloch Brown is akin to a British civil servant, in 1941, still urging "compromise with the limited aims of Mr. Hitler." He is yesterday's man, at the shell, the League-of-Nations lookalike, known still, ridiculously, as the "United" Nations.
Several months ago, seeing Mark Malloch Brown's interview on Fox News Sunday, I was pleasantly surprised at how forthcoming he seemed to be about the issues plagueing the UN.
However, his outburst against the US a few weeks ago, and not this, suggests that he's becoming unhinged. He's one of many people who cannot be a part of any solution. As a matter of fact, the UN cannot be a part of any solution to the Mid-East, as resolution 1559 shows. Nor any other conflict for that matter.
On the UN itself, as long as control there is determined by one country one vote, with no distinction made between civilized countries and barbaric ones, it's going to stay as irrelevant as the League of Nations.
Just remember, you can't spell unethical without UN.
The UN is one of Islam's most useful idiots in it's Jihad against non-believers. The sooner we get out of the UN and kick those enemies of freedom out of New York, the better.
Two points about elites:
1) In any good society, to the extent that the society is good, elites are good and necessary -- and inevitable.
1a) No good society is perfect.
1b) No good society that has contracted a virus (PC) is necessarily beyond hope.
2) "By their fruits ye shall know them": elites are the fruits of a society. Elites do not fall from outer space: they grow from the society, and to the extent that a society is democratic (sophomores: please note the small "d"), elites reflect the broader, deeper, prevalent currents of the society out of which they have grown.
The truth of these two points does not mean that there may not develop a tension or a friction, in a particular good society, between elites and the broader population. A profound and widespread tension or friction, however -- as is asserted time and again by Jihad Watchers -- requires at least a shred of evidence beyond a tiny subpopulation on the Internet (+ a handful of personal acquaintances here and there + a dash of commentators one has run across on occasion).
Absent such evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that, so far, elites such as Bush, Rice, or Malloch Brown are not weird anomalous fruits growing against the grain, but rather are, as natural excrudescences, the more visible way by which to know the general temperment of our current Society. Which brings us back to #1: our elites are a mirror to a broader, deeper disease in our Society now.
There is hope (see 1b) -- but hope is different from obstinant or obtuse wishful thinking (rose-colored spectacles go well with blue scarves...).
Folks here should read Brown's entire speech, because he had a few other statements that were just as atrocious. For example:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/5ba34bfc-218d-11db-b650-0000779e2340.html
Yep, the Deputy Secretary General of the U.N. thinks that threatening to wipe a fellow member of the U.N. (Israel) off the map is the way to "normalize relations."
"...you can't spell unethical without UN..." ...bwahahahahahah! I'd love to burn a UN flag.
Why do we (I am speaking as an American) continue to to fund, participate, or even acknowledge the UN?
We need to get kick the organization out of the US and get back some very valuable NYC real estate.
Thanks for the link Steven.
Transcript: Interview with Mark Malloch Brown
Did you see he said this?
So he does know what is going on, and he does realize the depths of the evil of Hizbollah. And yet he says what he does - all this nonsense about "polarising" and "radicalising". What does that amount to besides a plea that the West don't resist terrorists lest they resort to terror? They have already - and it has become a necessity to stop them.
It seems to me that this man in some sense is aware of what is going on; it is just that he does not understand it. Maybe this is a matter of his lacking any historical perspective and any knowledge of what Islam is and teaches.
He's too ill-informed in the broader sense, too comfortable, too complacent. He takes a bureaucratic view of things. He's unaware of how irrational and how vicious human beings can be, even if he formally speaking knows about the katyushas falling on Israeli cities, the barbarity doesn't strike home with him. He doesn't see the fanaticism behind it and thinks a little negotiation and the problem is gone. He's not dealing with the kind of people who went to his public school but with the sort of people whom one meets in the pages of Norman Cohn's The Pursuit of the Millenium - the sort of people who haven't been seen in Europe since the Middle Ages, and who, even then, were on the margins of the culture.
Terrorist Supporter:
Crossing a sovereign nation's frontier, killing and capturing their soldiers, and then launching anti-personnel rockets into civilian population centers is not defending one's self - it's a naked act of AGGRESSION.. The fact your moral compass is broken doesn't change the equation.
It's no secret that respect for human life doesn't figure into Hizb'Allah's "moral" calculus - innocent Lebanese civilians are human shields when they are alive and propaganda fodder when they're dead. As for Israeli civilian non-combatants, they are to be directly targeted using rockets packed with ball-bearings to inflict the highest number of casualties possible. "Party of God"? More like "War Crimes R Us".
As for looking at the numbers, I'll quote you the immortal words of Steve Young: "Statistics are for idiots." The fact that Hizb'Allah's actions have resulted in the deaths of more Lebanese than Israelis is not testimony to their moral superiority - it is testimony to their thoughtless disregard for the consequences of their cross-border incursion and their simple inability to kill more Israelis with their innacurate weaponry, in spite of their best efforts.
As for WWII, Japan paid the price for attacking the United States - such is the fate of initiating war - and, like it or not, the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshimi saved more lives than they cost. As for Iraq, the country has a consensual government for the first time in memory, and if it weren't for self-serving jihadis such as yourself, the country would be immeasurably more peaceful and prosperous.
Finally, as for buying into Thierry Meyssan's smoke-and-mirrors conspiracy theories, which have been debunked by eye witnesses, structural engineers and mountains of physical evidence and documentation, you're perfectly entitled to make an idiot of yourself in public. We'll pass.
Thanks but no thanks for the Al Manar propaganda - we've heard it all before, ad nauseum.
Here was I just saying Malloch-Brown doesn't understand what's going on and up pops a translation of Khamenei on MEMRI.
As you'd expect, he's spewing hatred and irrationality, and it is all underpinned by Islamic beliefs:
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD123006
Many Westerners would read this and conclude that he's mad. But he's not, of course - merely horribly primitive.
Compare this vile nonsense with Olmert's dignified interview in the Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,251-2296832,00.html
Lebanese-born jihad expert Dr. Walid Phares discusses developments in the Mideast at NRO.
Excerpt:
"...Nevertheless, the majority of the Lebanese people have spoken, and they were seen and heard by the world in 2005. In short, free Lebanon is not with Hezbollah but is a hostage to it. The Lebanese would have preferred to see their government and army disarm Hezbollah with the support of an international coalition. Indeed, there was no other option. Had this been implemented in 2005-2006, the Israel-Hezbollah war wouldn’t have happened, and the Lebanese wouldn’t have needed to understand these Israeli air raids..."
Read it all here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDFmOWE0MTkzOTUyOGY4NGE2MGY3N2M3YmU4MzlmZDk=
Israeli Tourists Attacked In Turkey
2 maids attempting to flee Lebanon die - NOT a result of Israeli air strikes
Ummah News Links
Ok, so let me get this....
Terrorism is not terrorism (if applied to muslims).
Geonocide is not geonocide (if applied to muslims).
A treaty is not a treaty (if applied to muslims).
Breaking the law is not.. (well you know the rest).
If applying International Law Mr. Brown is in complete violation of his position, his organization, and the translation of the law. The opposite must then be true...he is not representing International Law, he is representing a higher agenda of advancing Islam, and obviously the U.S., Britain, and Israel are not playing with his agenda.
Mr. Brown is going to have a problem in trying to redefine terrorism; 1. either Hizballah is a terrorist organization, which would then mean the U.N. would have to advance further resolution 1559 (making Israel right to attack). 2. or Hizballa is not a terrorist organization, but actually part of the Lebanese army (not) which then (would make Israel right to attack). 3. or Hizballa is a state army of Syria and Iran (this is the one I want) and Israel would then have the right to attack Syria and Iran.
If the U.S. is using the U.N. as a diplomatic tool, how come we are not getting anything and there are no diplomats that are there?
The League of Nations ignored the muslim participation in WWII. The League would not even pursue the Mufti in 1947 for fear of Islamic uprising 60 years ago. It was the Mufti that advised Hitler on turning his labor camps into ovens to kill the Jews, and it was the Mufti that recruited muslims by the 10's of thousands into the Nazi SS.
As the League of Nations became obsolete the U.N. has reached the same point. If we stick with something this obsolete it starts working against us. And it has.
If it were not for these blogs we would be completely blinded by the Media, our State Department, and the U.N. With these blogs revealing as much as they are about the Muslim advance, think about how much is still getting swept under the carpet and or advanced with out us knowing.
Screw the UN. Screw Mr. Brown. Screw the whole miserable lot of them. Kofi Annon is a thief (see the ‘oil for food’ scandal) and a murderer (allowing UN personnel to stay in Lebanon to get blown away …not to mention genocide in parts of the world) anti-Israeli (then blames the Israelis for targeting the UN workers) and a pro-terrorist bastard (allowing Hezbollah to use UN facilities, attack from their locations, and sit around drinking tea with terrorists) who needs to go. Haven’t we had enough of this friggin’ knife in our collective backs?
The icing on the cake is the UN Tax. While the US already funds a good 20% of the UN, they’re not content and they want even more from us! Why? It’s not like anything we ask of them is ever taken seriously and requests are constantly turned down. Bolton’s got his hands full in the putrid cesspool of incompetence and treachery that the UN has become.
Hezbollah IS a terrorist organization. Their actions are criminal in civilized societies the world over. How are their historical roots different from Al-Qaeda? Al-Qaeda killed 3,000+ Americans on 911 and Hezbollah killed 200+ marines in Beirut years ago, the highest number of Americans killed until Osama and gang came along and did one better …so how are they different? Ideologically they’re both Islamic, both committed to destroying America, both refuse to accept Israel …THEY’RE BOTH TERRORISTS!!
He may not think they’re terrorists, but they are. I don’t think Mr. Brown is human and, surprisingly, I think I have a better chance of arguing my statement than he has of arguing his!
Mr. Brown, please resign. Please go jam your own head further up your own ass. You still have the ability to speak, so I suggest you shove it up there another inch or two until you can no longer pollute the world with your thoughts. If you want to do something good for the world ONCE in your life, please do this.
From the UN to HRW:
Human Rights Watch Courts the Mullahs
By John Perazzo
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=23630
Excerpt:
Ms. Whitson ends her letter as she began it – pathetically. “Finally,” she writes, “we urge you to make clear that further Iranian support for Hezbollah, including any prospective supply of military assistance, will be contingent on its compliance with these demands.” This statement ignores the fact that no Iranian support for Hezbollah is justified according to the stipulations of UN Resolution 1559 (passed in 2004), which called for “the disbanding and disarmament of all … militias” in Lebanon.
Human rights defenders?
IDIOTS.
Then WHAT would be his defination of a terrorist group ?, oh gee let me guess, the Israeli's or perhaps the Americans
You win a free trip to Turtle Bay!
Uh, uh. He doesn't say that. In point of fact he says that:
But he thinks that
I'm not sure what the function of "international" as a modifier is here, but AFAICT he knows that Hizbollah are terrorists - "Hezbollah employs terrorist tactics" - but thinks it best not to say so - "It's not helpful ...".
Who knows what he says in private? Maybe he is "fellow-travelling" with Islam even though it is very unlikely he believes in it. But my guess is that he actually does believe what he says - the damn fool. He (in a sense) knows what Hizbollah is but thinks that a little blurring of distinctions and a little talk can "solve" matters, because he doesn't really understand what Hizbollah is about.
Visit my blog where I poke fun at Muslim fundamentalists:
Welcome to Torontonistan!
David
You can make your blog references permanent by typing it in the URL box under the Post a comment section, and then checking the 'Remember me' option, instead of posting this same memo in various threads. You might want to try it.
This is slightly OT, but gives a bit more information on what kind of obstacles, at the U.N., are being put in the way of Israel's right to defend herself.
"France not hopeful of Mideast resolution"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20014626-1702,00.html
...so the French officials say that Israel cannot defend itself against Hizballah rockets, which strike Israeli civilians.
Thanks for the tip, Infidel Pride.
...and surely France knows that Hizballah will not likely respect any such truce (and only a fool would trust them?)
Infidel Pride,
Thanks for posting that technical tip. (I figured I try it out at least once).
I know how to make a small fortune, but don't have the time. Make toilet paper with each square a duplicate of the UN flag. I'm thinking of ordering a flag and using it for a cleaning rag for my car if I can find a cotton one.
An Iran flag/toilet paper item would sell well, but it will result in the death of all those involved in the manufacture and distribution.
Nasrallah’s image helps painter’s business
Ummah News Links
Al Qaeda and Hezbollah have historically different roots. No, they are far closer than, say, the Nazis and the Japanese militarists, or the Nazis and the Fascists. Their world-view comes from the exact same texts, the very same passages, word-for-word, in the Qur'an, and from the very same stories authenticated by the very same muhaddithin, and from the very same Inspiring Life of the Perfect Man, Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil.
Yes, of course one is run by Egyptians and Saudis, and Sunni in its membership. And the other is run by and for Shi'a. One appeals to all layers of society, but its leaders are from the Muslim gratin, al-Zawhiri being the member of a very prominent Egyptian family, which included Azzam Pasha, first head of the Arab League, and another being one of the many children of the richest contractor in Saudi Arabia, but by a Syrian mother (take note of that: did this mother make Bin Laden think he was not quite pure Arab enough, just a touch of the northern Lebantine about him, so that he had to demonstrate his Arabness by being extra-devout, extra-fanatical?).
So in that sense they are different. But really, can Malloch Brown point to any differences in the ideology, or in the passages upon which the ideology is based? Of course he can't. The more such people open their mouths, the easier it is for us to realize, with horror, just how awful those who join and then rise to the top of these bureaucracies, whether at the U.N., that corrupt and corrupting organization (in the United States, unlike many other countries, the U.N. is hardly respected, but apparently it still is in parts of Europe, where the press needs to do better to expose the Islamintern International and its infiltration of the U.N. bureaucracy), or at the E.U., turn out to be.
Malloch Brown is of a type, a type fleshed out by the nearly-indistinguishable Edward Mortimer or the just-slightly-more presentable Brian Urquhart. And to think that Shirley Hazzard once worked there. To think that Joseph Gessen was once an intrepreter there. What a falling-off there was. And, amazingly, continues to be.
At the risk of sounding senile: is there anyone who can tell me of any benefit that the UN has provided to the US of A ... or the world, for that matter?
When I was young and working in Manhattan near Grand Central Station, I used to walk over to the UN occasionally and, being in my youthful 20's, I always came away with the question: "Why do we have a place where all our enemies can meet, use us, harm us,....?"
Hugh:
The U.N. isn't "respected" by anybody but starry-eyed idealists and fools.
The U.N. is convenient for the regimes of Western Europe and the regimes of the Third World, because it's an organization in which they are able to restrain and inhibit otherwise unilateral U.S. action. Chirac, the self-appointed leader of the anti-American world bloc, knows that the U.S. military is the most powerful in the world. Therefore he is always looking for various tools of "soft power" to compensate for this, and restrain what he famously called "the American hyperpower." The U.N., the Kyoto Protocol, the International Criminal Court, etc., are all aimed primarily at tying down the American Gulliver with a hundred little Lilliputian strings.
Therefore it does no good to point out the U.N.'s shortcomings to the Europeans. Whatever tools they can get their hands on to oppose America, they will use.
Yeah, and the dish ran away with the spoon, too!
These people (Hizbollah), or their immediate predecessors (Moslem Brotherhood) tried to kidnap me and my wife in Homs, Syria, in March 1982 while the Syrian army was doing its thing to the Brotherhood in Hamah (20,000 dead). Fortunately, a small part of that Syrian army took the opportunity of our presence to set an ambush. That was one nice little gunfight outside our small roadside hotel at three in the morning ho ho ho. It was on-again off-again for about an hour as the army hunted them down and disposed of them in that special way they have of dealing with their enemies (e.g. 20,000 dead in Hamah - plus a few in Homs that night).
I have no sympathy for Hizbollah. They are terrorists. End of story. Anyone who says otherwise is an ignorant fool. Or a knave. I suspect the latter.
No, I have no liking for the regime in Syria either. Sure, they protected us that night, but that was for their own reasons, not ours. When people talk about Lebanese casualties, they should first consider how these countries treat their own...
Anyone ever heard of the concept of the "Hamah Rules"? The entire Arab world has, and they understand what they mean. The Hamah Rules are very short and sweet - they are that there are no rules ... the Syrian army really did a number on that place. I saw the results, personally.
The Western world probably didn't hear much about it because that was when the Falklands War started, which would have grabbed all the media attention.
Sir Henry:
Interesting that the ummah can turn a blind eye to genuine genocides against certain members of the ummah when the perpetrator of the genocide is Muslim, ain't it, whether it's Arab Sunni Saddam against Kurdish Sunnis, Arab Shias and Persians, or the Alawite Assad regime against MB types (presumably Sunni if MB) in Hammah.
But then it's also interesting that the global view is that the sole reason that the 22 Arab states surrounding Israel are bona fide police states with poorer economies, petrowealth notwithstanding, than some of Africa's poorest nations, is because there are 6 million Jews living on a sliver of land that's 1% of the size of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Go figure either.
Sir Henry:
Take heart. Hizbollah has been labeled by established authorities the world's largest terrorist organization with very GOOD reason. As for Syria, the US may soon be at war with it which ought to tell you something about the place.
Glad to see you escaped their vile clutches.
The UN is the US's frankenstein's monster. It used the UN to use its morally relativistic and PC arguments to harm countries that were in the way of US interests. The UN has always favoured evil over good. It favoured the bosnians over the serbs, the turks over the greeks, arabs over israeli's, the list goes on. The US turned a blind eye to this and paid it lip service to show the bankrupt third world regimes that it cared. As long as US interests were ignored it wasn't a big problem. Now that the UN has the balls to apply the same double standard to the US everyone suddenly realizes how corrupt this institute is. The zionism is racism resolution I believe was in 1975. Where is the Islam is racism, pedophelia, mass mureder resolution? Back then the US was in a middle of an energy crisis, it did veto the resolution but it should of left the UN. It should have never backed Annan in cyprus when he tried to set up an apartheid state with a minority muslim turk population holding all the cards. The US should not back up the hague and its racist courts that hand 2 year sentences to muslims guilty of genocide. The US is as bad as the EU on this one the difference is there are some voices of reason in the US congress and the average US citizen sees thru the bullshit and wants out.
... where I poke fun at Muslim fundamentalists.
There are no Moslem fundamentalists; Islam itself is fundamentalist. There are no moderate Moslems; Islam itself is radical. There are no Islamists; there are only activist Moslems and inactive Moslems wholly supporting the activist Moslems.
The Koran, Hadiths, sacralized histories, and Sharia make this so.
610 * 623 * 732* 1066* 1215 * 1453 * 1492 * 1683 * 1928 * 1938 * 1948 * 1996 * 2001
When I hear Michael Savage talking about "radical Islamists" and "at its best Islam can be a beautiful religion" it makes me sick. It wouldn't kill him or Hugh Hewitt or Laura Ingraham to crack a book. Or maybe it would.
it was good of Sir Henry to remind us of the Hama massacre [spring 1982]. All these fake "human rights" outfits, like hrw and amnesty, should be talking about it all the time. They like to throw the "war crime" charge at Israel. But Hama was worse a hundred-fold than anything Israel ever did. Yet, it can't be called a "war crime" because Syria did it to its own population. That's OK, especially when Arab-Muslim states massacre part or parts of their own populations [think Sudan, Iraq]. Egypt under Nasser used poison gas against rebels in Yemen --fellow Arabs but not Egyptians-- back in the 1960s, but that never aroused much "human rights" indignation.
There really is a need to teach people the basics of Middle Eastern history, especially in modern times, plus the basics Islamic imperialism, jihad, shari`ah, dhimma, etc. Not only the common folk but the "intellectuals" are abysmally and appallingly ignorant. In France, Le Monde Diplomatique feeds all sorts of misconceptions, shaping "leftist" [tres gauche] opinion there, while the French Gauche forgets that LeMonde is French govt-run, like the bbc in the UK.