Category Archives: Blog

The Legacy of Jihad

The Forbidden History
A Review of The Legacy of Jihad. Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims edited by Andrew G. Bostom.
Bruce Thornton

Attempts to reformulate the doctrine of jihad have been going on for a century, but with scant success, for such redefinitions fly in the face of centuries of orthodoxy. On this issue, the words of Clement Huart, though written in 1907, are still pertinent today: “The reformers of Islam may be right [that jihad is not holy war]. The intention of Mohammed, in what he said of jihad, may have been misunderstood and misrepresented. But into this question we do not desire to go. For what we are considering is, what Mohammedanism is and has been –– that is, what orthodox Mohammedanism teaches concerning jihad, founding its doctrine of a certain definite interpretation of those passages in the Koran which speak of jihad. Until the newer conceptions, as to what the Koran teaches as to the duty of the believer towards non-believers, have spread further and have more generally leavened the mass of Moslem belief and opinion, it is the older and orthodox standpoint on this question which must be regarded by non-Moslems as representing Mohammedan teaching and as guiding Mohammedan action.” The widespread support among Islamic peoples everywhere for terrorist jihad shows that Huart’s comments are as true today as they were in 1907. The Islamists are not “distorting” Islam, but rather the reformers and so-called “moderates” are.

ofx_sickle

Outfoxed: Unfair and Unbalanced

Say you think Fox News is politically biased and uses slick techniques to hoodwink viewers. They have the gall to call it "news". What do you do? Robert Greenwald interviewed some politically biased friends and used slick techniques to hoodwink viewers. He has the gall to call it a "documentary".

The interviewees include Noam Chomsky acolyte Jeff Cohen, leftist media reform champion Bob McChesney, The Nation correspondent John Nichols, socialist politician Bernie Sanders, Democrat politician Chellie Pingree, former TV newsman and left-wing blogger Walter Cronkite, ex-Fox employee and left-wing blogger Clara Frenk, and ex-Fox employee and Bush-bashing Iraq War critic Larry Johnson.

Of course Greenwald doesn’t come right out reveal this bias. Instead he leads his viewers to believe he sought out concerned professionals and neutral media experts. Bernie Sanders “independent Congressman”. HAHAHAHAHA! After a bit of research on the internet it’s obvious these people are so left of center that their opinion about Fox is about as predictable, and as useful, as a Muslim’s opinion of the Crusades.

And couldn’t they find even one ex-employee with some really juicy dirt? All we get is some whining about how out of place the poor partisans (who, other than Johnson, don’t reveal their partisanship) felt at Fox. That and a couple of emails similar to what anybody who gets email from their boss sees every day. Examples of Fox employees fired for their political views: zero. Fox’s real crime? Pinko McLefty gets a bad vibe, she’s not used to having her ideas challenged by Righty, and you know, like there’s a lot of pressure to do work and stuff.

Throughout the movie we hear the occasional anonymous voice, disguised by the same distortion effect almost 40 years of 60 Minutes has conditioned viewers to associate with the testimony of really serious whistle blowers. You might assume these would-be Deep Throats have substantial accusations to make. Nope, it’s just another slick gimmick.

If you thought the film’s subtitle, Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism, meant you’d see some examples of, say, Rupert Murdoch waging war on journalism, guess again. But we do get to play name the zillionaire media mogul who created a cable news network, forbade the use of certain phrases, used innovative special effects, and blurred the line between news and entertainment. Hmmmm, "proud internationalist" Ted Turner? NNNNNNNNNNNNTTT! Sorry, you are politically incorrect. Ted came first, but he’s a liberal so he doesn’t count.

There were many trivial points. Like, some people say certain common phrases are a nefarious attempt to editorialize. Then again, some people say you can find such phrases just about anywhere you care to look for them.

Did you know Bill O’Reilly tells his guests to shut up alot? You would have learned that former Democratic speech writer Chris Matthews bullies people too, if only Outfoxed had been a truly objective documentary concerning abusive interview techniques.

Watch Outfoxed closely and you’ll notice the interviews have been cut up and glued back together with very subtle crossfades. Greenwald didn’t provide any examples of Fox News using this sneaky trick.

A central theme of the film is that Fox cheerleads for Bush and the RNC. This reflects a paranoia amongst leftists that says more about how out of touch with history and reality they are and how much they hate Bush than it does about Fox. To make their point Outfoxed reveals that Fox follows the president everywhere and reports his statements. Oh the humanity! You’d never guess there was a time, not long ago, when every news organization reported what the president said and did. Back then it was called "reporting". Nowadays reporters brazenly try to influence elections, back then they sometimes kept a secret or two to avoid hurting their president or country. The standards are different today. Any news outlet that doesn’t inject snide anti-American comments into their reports is ipso facto a right-wing mouthpiece.

Back in the day the press fawned over FDR and Kennedy even while they pretended to be above politics. Disgust over Vietnam and hatred of Nixon flushed out Cronkite (making his moralizing in this film more than a little ironic). Shortly afterward Dan Rather followed his mentor’s lead. By the early 70′s the charade of objective TV news was over. For several decades thereafter anyone looking for TV news that didn’t have an anti-corporate, anti-military, anti-conservative, homophilic, pro-feminist, multiculturalist, evironmental alarmist bias had a hard time finding it. For leftists it was the Golden Age of Journalism. Until Fox News came along.

Outfoxed would have you believe that Fox uses dirty tricks to get high ratings, and their viewers are gullible misinformed rubes. Poll statistics show Fox viewers think differently than NPR listeners. QED. It apparently never occurs to leftists that anyone but them is intelligent enough to discern a political tilt in their TV news, or that Fox’s popularity may result from supplying a legitimate demand for news that simply isn’t tilted leftward. They seem similarly dumbfounded by the failure of left-wing talk radio, in spite of the use of real dirty tricks.

Clearly Outfoxed is full of gaffes. But the piece de resistance is the deliberately misleading portrayal of Bush’s cousin’s role in the 2000 election. Greenwald made a documentary dedicated to this very subject so he should know the facts. How then can he imply Bush’s cousin, who worked at Fox, called Florida for Bush? Is Greenwald from some alternate universe where documentaries about bias repeat demonstrable canards? This more complete account makes it clear that all the networks, based on information from VNS, announced Gore the winner before the polls had even closed. Obviously this earlier call, which Outfoxed never mentions, had more impact on the vote than the call for Bush later in the night – and contrary to what Outfoxed implies, in no case was any call unilaterally made by Bush’s cousin. You’d have to be unfair and unbalanced to argue otherwise.

The West’s Last Chance

The Noble Cause miserable traitors can’t see, and more, in three parts: An Islamist threat like the Nazis, Needed: Old war spirit in a new war, and At war with an enemy of an unspoken name.

By Tony Blankley
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
September 12, 2005

Europe’s effort at cultural tolerance since World War II slowly morphed into a surprisingly deep self-loathing of Western culture that denied the instinct for cultural and national self-defense.

If Europe doesn’t rise to the challenge, Eurabia will come to pass. Then Europe will cease to be an American ally and instead become a base of operations (as she already is to a small degree) against us.

. . .

World War II was good, despite the millions of deaths, the limitations on daily lives, the encroachment on peacetime liberties and the arduousness of wartime life. The war was good because the sacrifice was for a noble cause, for the perpetuation of America and the American way of life.

The struggle against Islamist terrorism is an equally good war — and for the same reasons. We have just as great a responsibility to win our struggle against insurgent Islamist aggression as our parents and grandparents had to win World War II.

There is no other cause so urgent. If we do not pay with our sacrifices now, we (and our children) will pay in greater losses later. We must be prepared to be just as ruthless and rational as the “greatest generation” was in defeating fascism.

. . .

Up until now, we have never accurately named the enemy or the danger. If the government can’t speak the real name and nature of the enemy, it becomes impossible to explain, or even design, a policy for victory.

This is why Mr. Bush — who has tried to talk around the problem of radical Islam — has seemed (to his critics) foolish or deceitful, neither of which he is.
What we need is a clear congressional declaration of war, as prescribed by the Constitution.

Congress should declare war on the Islamist jihadists.
Naming the formal enemy limits the focus of our war effort to the militant Islamists who have declared jihad against the West. There are many terrorist groups in the world. Many are no threat to the United States. The current danger is the Islamist one.

Cropaganda

Anatomy of a Photograph

The San Francisco Chronicle featured the original photograph on its front page in order to convey a positive message about the rally — perhaps that even politically aware teenagers were inspired to show up and rally for peace, sporting the message, “People of Color say ‘No to War!’” And that served the Chronicle’s agenda.
But this simple analysis reveals the very subtle but insidious type of bias that occurs in the media all the time. The Chronicle did not print an inaccuracy, nor did it doctor a photograph to misrepresent the facts. Instead, the Chronicle committed the sin of omission: it told you the truth, but it didn’t tell you the whole truth.
Because the whole truth — that the girl was part of a group of naive teenagers recruited by Communist activists to wear terrorist-style bandannas and carry Palestinian flags and obscene placards — is disturbing, and doesn’t conform to the narrative that the Chronicle is trying to promote. By presenting the photo out of context, and only showing the one image that suits its purpose, the Chronicle is intentionally manipulating the reader’s impression of the rally, and the rally’s intent.
Such tactics — in the no-man’s-land between ethical and unethical — are commonplace in the media, and have been for decades. It is only now, with the advent of citizen journalism, that we can at last begin to see the whole story and realize that the public has been manipulated like this all along.

Via Little Green Footballs, which regularly provides examples of misleading cropping.

Here’s another good one.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt reports on the Chronicle’s response to the criticism, and neatly summarizes:

Did the photo inform or mislead. It clearly misled. That’s the point. The only point.

No Withdrawal


"Some Americans want us to withdraw our troops so that we can escape the violence. I recognize their good intentions, but their position is wrong. Withdrawing our troops would make the world more dangerous, and make America less safe. To leave Iraq now would be to repeat the costly mistakes of the past that led to the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. The terrorists saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves, and so they attacked us. Now the terrorists are testing our will and resolve in Iraq. If we fail that test, the consequences for the safety and security of the American people would be enormous. Our withdrawal from Iraq would allow the terrorists to claim an historic victory over the United States. It would leave our enemies emboldened and allow men like Zarqawi and bin Laden to dominate the Middle East and launch more attacks on America and other free nations. The battle lines are drawn, and there is no middle ground: either we defeat the terrorists and help the Iraqis build a working democracy, or the terrorists will impose their dark ideology on the Iraqi people and make that country a source of terror and instability to come for decades." – President Bush (22 Sept 2005)

Via Security Watchtower.

The following is from a DOD press briefing on Tall Afar. The entire report is worth reading but this detailed description of the "terrorists" seems especially worthy of attention (via The Belmont Club):

I’d like just to briefly characterize the enemy, describe who we’re fighting here. This is an enemy, who when they came in, they removed all the imams from the mosques, and they replaced them with Islamic extremist laymen. They removed all the teachers from the schools and replaced them with people who had a fifth-grade education and who preached hatred and intolerance. They murdered people. In each of their cells that they have within the city has a direct action cell of about 100 or so fighters. They have a kidnapping and murder cell; they have a propaganda cell, a mortar cell, a sniper cell — a very high degree of organization here. And what the enemy did is to keep the population from performing other activities. To keep the population afraid, they kidnapped and murdered large numbers of the people here, and it was across the spectrum. A Sunni Turkmen imam was kidnapped and murdered. A very fine man, a city councilman, Councilman Suliman (sp), was pulled out of his car in front of his children and his wife and gunned down with about 30 gunshot wounds to his head. The enemy conducted indiscriminate mortar attacks against populated areas and wounded scores of children and killed many others. The enemy here did just the most horrible things you can imagine, in one case murdering a child, placing a booby trap within the child’s body and waiting for the parent to come recover the body of their child and exploding it to kill the parents. Beheadings and so forth.

Meanwhile the fifth column fourth estate continues to undermine the good guys: Poll: Fewer than half think U.S. will win in Iraq:

On Thursday, Bush tried again to portray Iraq as a front on the global war on terrorism that began with the attacks of September 11, 2001, saying a U.S. withdrawal would only embolden terrorists.

CNN tried again to portray the situation as hopeless and to pretend the Jihadis in Iraq have nothing whatsoever in common with the 9/11 hijackers.

The Cult of Multiculturalism

The Multiculturalists’ Anti-Anti-Terror War
By Rabbi Aryeh Spero
Human Events | August 15, 2005

They pontificate for the human rights of others — especially the enemy — more than for our own because that highlights, in their mind, how much more noble they are than the rest of us — morally superior to you and me.

. . .

In the eye of the cultural marxist, only Westerners — White Christian Westerners — can be guilty of racism, not, however, Islamicists, even at the moment they are preaching and practicing undeniable, virulent racism. Somehow that racism is neither organic nor religious/cultural, but “caused by us, our fault.”

How else could George Galloway justify his claim that: "[the US and UK] are the biggest rogue states in the world today"?

Undermining Anti-Terrorism

Anti-terrorism bill seen as undermining civil liberties
Tania Branigan, political correspondent
Wednesday September 21, 2005
Guardian

Liberal Democrats yesterday warned that the government’s counter-terrorism proposals would inflame community tensions and alienate young Muslims, as they unanimously passed a motion urging the party to defend civil liberties and oppose any move to water down human rights legislation.

. . .

Summing up the motion, Brian Stone, an activist from Hackney, London, said it expressed the heart and conscience of the Liberal Democrats. “The bombs were non-discriminatory. That day any Muslims in London were just as much [at] risk as I was. We have a government that seeks to imply that for some reason Islam is a crime and those who practise it are perpetrators. That’s what this motion is about.”

No, what we have is a sactimonious fifth column that seeks to imply that for some reason questioning Muslims is a crime and those who inquire are racist bigots. That’s what this motion is about.

Anyone who becomes alienated or inflamed by our attempts to protect ourselves is likely someone we need to protect ourselves from.

Open Letter to Michael Moore

A Letter to All Who Voted for George W. Bush from Michael Moore:

I really want to know — and I ask you this in all sincerity and with all due respect — how do you feel about the utter contempt Mr. Bush has shown for your safety? C’mon, give me just a moment of honesty. Don’t start ranting on about how this disaster in New Orleans was the fault of one of the poorest cities in America. Put aside your hatred of Democrats and liberals and anyone with the last name of Clinton. Just look me in the eye and tell me our President did the right thing after 9/11 by naming a horse show runner as the top man to protect us in case of an emergency or catastrophe.

I want you to put aside your self-affixed label of Republican/conservative/born-again/capitalist/ditto-head/right-winger and just talk to me as an American, on the common ground we both call America.

Are we safer now than before 9/11? When you learn that behind the horse show runner, the #2 and #3 men in charge of emergency preparedness have zero experience in emergency preparedness, do you think we are safer?

Well, I don’t think we have much common ground and you’re a poor excuse for an American, but I’ll try to answer. You want to know if those of us who voted for George Bush feel safer. Unlike you I don’t claim to speak for anyone but myself. My answer is: hell yes assclown. Certainly safer than Al Gore, John Kerry, or you would have made us. Even after 9/11 none of you would have lifted a finger against the Taliban. None of you would have taken out Saddam and his sons. None of you would have confronted the Jihadi threat. Of course we’re safer now that Al Qaeda’s Afghani training camps are closed, Saddam’s WMD shell games are over, and Jihadis are flocking to paradise by way of Iraq. Of course you would have trouble seeing the value in any of this. You never recognized the threat, or blamed us for creating it ourselves. Sorry if I sound confused – you’ve never been very clear on that point.

Unlike you I don’t hold civilization or the people who sustain it to blame for the sociopaths who want to tear it down. Unlike you I don’t sympathize with those sociopaths and undermine those who fight them. And unlike you I don’t blame Bush or FEMA for Katrina. I blame the dehumanizing welfare state and the mentality of dependency engendered by it. And that was wrought by the kind of soft-headed leftist idealism you espouse. You alone are to blame for your short-sighted and self-serving partisan vitriol, your hypocritical holier-than-thou criticisms of the righteous, and your two-faced attitude toward your country and countrymen.

And on this sacred day of remembrance, do you think we honor or shame those who died on 9/11/01? If we learned nothing and find ourselves today every bit as vulnerable and unprepared as we were on that bright sunny morning, then did the 3,000 die in vain?

So a letter demonstrating your ignorance of what has been achieved and utter contempt for those who paid for it is how you honor those who died? On 9/11 I learned that we were vulnerable and unprepared. Today I see that we are better off, thanks to the efforts and sacrifices of many brave and mostly unsung individuals, to which those of us who cherish civilization all owe a great debt. I also see that you are just as narcissistic and pompous as ever. Mr. Moore, in all sincerity and with all due respect please write your next open letter in Arabic so your most ardent fans won’t need to translate it.