The Home of Atilla

“Politics should be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.” Dwight D. Eisenhower

Archive for the ‘Islamism’ Category

Why ‘Queers against Israel’ is so Absurd

Posted by Atilla89 on August 29, 2009

I’ve recently started writing articles on a very small university paper under the heading of ‘International News’. Since I very rarely actually write anything here, I will start putting these up on the blog for you all to read.

It is common knowledge that every country around the world has its own set of problems. Some have big and serious problems such as Afghanistan, while others like Australia are quite well off. However, in late June in Toronto, Canada 180 protesters from “Queers Against Israeli Apartheid” (http://queersagainstapartheid.org/) marched in an attempt to “reignite Toronto’s queer community in the fight against apartheid”. Israel has many problems, some relating to security, others relating to the issue of the Palestinians. Naming your group Queers Against Israeli Apartheid draws attention to the dirty little secret in the Middle East, that is homosexuals are not welcome there. Except for Israel that it. The protest group echoes another similarly ridiculously named group, Queers for Palestine. Both groups ignore the fact that Israel is the most liberal country in the Middle East allowing anyone almost anyone who is prosecuted to find shelter within its borders. There is a reason why the Baha’I faith decided to move the remains of Bab from Iran to Haifa and it wasn’t for the view.

Some people on the fringe of both sides of politics will believe anything that you tell them about Israel or Jews. If you needed more evidence of blatant lies being printed about Israel look no further then the claim being put forward by the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet that Israeli soldiers kidnap Palestinians to steal their organs and sell them in the black market. Did I mention that Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt refused to apologise to Israel for this disgusting report. I think Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman got it right when he said “It is regrettable that the Swedish foreign ministry does not intervene when it comes to a blood libel against Jews, which reminds one of Sweden’s conduct during World War II when it also did not intervene.” It is these sorts of allegations and lies that regularly rise up around the world which then must be combated in the media as well as at university campuses.

Posted in Antisemitism, Arabs, Europe, Islamism, Israel, Jews, Middle-East, Uni | 1 Comment »

How The U.S. Have Tried To Make Friends With Iran

Posted by Atilla89 on October 8, 2008

Many people believe that from 1979 onwards, the only contact that America has had with Iran is through proxy wars in Lebanon and Iraq. The view is completely wrong and in fact the opposite is true. While it would be correct to say that America has had a frosty relationship with Iran, this hasn’t stopped them from trying to be allies since the moment Iran, as we know it today, was born. More from the Jerusalem Post:

Almost 30 years ago, president Jimmy Carter tried to show what a nice guy he was by pressing the shah of Iran not to crush the revolutionaries. After the monarch fell, national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski met top officials of the new Islamist regime to pledge US friendship to the government controlled by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

https://i2.wp.com/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Khomeini_Famous_Portrait.jpg

Ruhollah Khomeini

This may seem strange, but don’t forget at this time, Khomeini was seen to have the majority of popular Iranian support, it would seem only natural to support the guy that everyone else likes. Plus don’t forget that Iran still hadn’t kidnapped anybody or started up Hezbollah, yet. However this all changed when only:

Three days after the Brzezinski meeting, in November 1979, the Islamist regime’s cadre seized the US embassy and its staff as hostages, holding them until January 1981. This was our introduction to the new Middle East of radical Islamism. Carter continued his weak stance, persuading the Teheran regime that it could get away with anything. The hostages were only released because Iran was suffering desperately from an Iraqi invasion and feared Carter’s successor, Ronald Reagan, as someone likely to be tougher.

This is just one of the many reasons why I view Carter as the worst U.S. President in history. As usual, Carter lost whatever backbone he had and instead of trying to get rescue the hostages (he held off until April 24, 1980 and even then the attempt failed) he negotiated with a rogue state, even when it was obvious that he was failing. Now this is where relations between Iran and America get really interesting:

On September 29, while [US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates] giving a lecture at the National Defense University in Washington, someone asked him how the next president might improve relations with Iran. Gates responded: “I have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years.” Then Gates revealed what was actually said at Brzezinski’s meeting, in which he has been a participatant, summarizing Brzezinski’s position as follows: “We will accept your revolution… We will recognize your government. We will sell you all the weapons that we had contracted to sell the shah… We can work together in the future.”‘

Knowing this completely changes the view that America has always rejected diplomacy with its enemies. After reading this, it becomes clear that it was America who made the first move to try and open diplomatic relations with the new regimes only to be rebuffed and taken advantaged of.

Far from persuading Khomeini that the US was a real threat, the US government made itself appear a pitiful, helpless giant, convincing Teheran – as Khomeini himself put it – that America couldn’t do a damn thing. His revolution and ideology were too strong for it.

Now if this isn’t enough to persuade you how futile it is to try and negotiate with these people, maybe this will help:

Former US Marine Col. Timothy Geraghty was Marine commander in October 1983 when suicide bombers attacked the barracks of US peacekeeping forces in Beirut, killing 242 Americans. He now reveals that a September 26, 1983 US intelligence intercept showed Iran’s government ordering the attack through its embassy in Lebanon. The timid response to that operation set a pattern leading directly to the September 11 attack.

America has tried to help them, negotiate with them, only give them weak sanctions and after all that they get attacked in their own embassy and lose valuable military personnel to Iranian made and supplied bombs in Lebanon and Iraq. Maybe its time to take a real stand against terrorism and nuclear proliferation?

Posted in Hizbullah, Iran, Islamism, Lebanon, Middle-East, Military, Religion, Terrorism, U.S. Politics, US, War | 2 Comments »

How Education Is The Key For Peace Between Israel And The Palestinians

Posted by Atilla89 on August 12, 2008

If you’ve ever wondered how to stop the cycle of violence that plagues Israel and the Gaza Strip & West Bank then I have the answer for you, education. This may seem a little bit strange but education has the most say in a child’s outlook on the world. When I say education I am not just referring to going to school and then coming home to do homework and study. I am talking about the education that children receive from their parents, their friends, their religion and the media both independent and state-sponsored.

When a child learns to hate a particular people or religion from an early age, that hatred stays with them for a long time. When the message is continually hammered into them from every source of education it is almost impossible to undo the effects of such an upbringing. Of course, I am talking about the education that is continually forced upon Palestinian children. In my opinion, it would take generations to undo the damage being done to the Palestinian children in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. However outlining a brief plan of such a solution is not the point of this post. My aim is to show one particular grotesque way in which such a hatred of Israel and Jews is being fostered upon Palestinian children.

For example, a recent article in Pajamas Media titled ‘How Gaza Kids Are Spending Their Summer Vacation‘ is a great example of this ‘education’. When most people think of school holidays (especially summer) they think of going to the beach to relax, maybe going to a summer camp (known as a Sport and Recreation camp in Australia), you get the picture. However in the Gaza Strip, summer holidays means something completely different:

‘Hamas and Islamic Jihad, ever mindful of their responsibilities as pillars of the Palestinian community, are running their annual summer camps for thousands of youngsters…In addition to receiving healthy doses of religious and political indoctrination, they’ll be learning how to handle weapons and navigate assault courses.’

Hang on you say, did I read that last part right? They are letting children handle weapons? These sorts of descriptions sadly no longer surprise me (think Farfour, the Hamas version of Micky Mouse), indeed they are almost the norm now in Gaza. However to somebody else who has no idea about Palestinian society this would come as a shock and rightly so, this sort of treatment is disgusting.

‘An Islamic Jihad operative was at pains to point out to Ynet that children would only be handling dummy rockets, not real ones. Allah forbid that they should play with real Qassams or Katyushas — someone could lose an eye.’

Because that is any better…

Of course, this not anything new. During March I wrote a post very similar to this one in which I showed a video of children giving out flowers and lollies to passing Palestinians celebrating the recent (then) terrorist attackat Dimona. These sorts of actions just illustrate my point of how education is the key to stopping this conflict. Golda Meir, a former Prime Minister of Israel got it right when she said that peace would only be possible “when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us”.

Posted in Antisemitism, Arabs, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Islamism, Israel, Jews, Middle-East, Military, Palestine, Religion, Terrorism, War, Zionism | 6 Comments »

An Anatomy of Surrender

Posted by Atilla89 on April 28, 2008

Firstly, I had a really great Pesach Seder, lots of people. I got a present from my aunt, a book called Tobruk by Peter Fitzsimons which I will start reading as soon as I get the chance. In the meantime, here’s a nice piece from Bruce Bawer detailing how the West has surrended culturally to Islamism. The paper talks about how the West’s media, acedemia and artists have betrayed their ideals (namely freedom of speech) to kowtow to Islamism. The byline of this article is Motivated by fear and multiculturalism, too many Westerners are acquiescing to creeping sharia. Hat tip to LGF for this one. Here’s the link to the article.

Enough. We need to recognize that the cultural jihadists hate our freedoms because those freedoms defy sharia, which they’re determined to impose on us. So far, they have been far less successful at rolling back freedom of speech and other liberties in the U.S. than in Europe, thanks in no small part to the First Amendment. Yet America is proving increasingly susceptible to their pressures.

The key question for Westerners is: Do we love our freedoms as much as they hate them? Many free people, alas, have become so accustomed to freedom, and to the comfortable position of not having to stand up for it, that they’re incapable of defending it when it’s imperiled—or even, in many cases, of recognizing that it is imperiled. As for Muslims living in the West, surveys suggest that many of them, though not actively involved in jihad, are prepared to look on passively—and some, approvingly—while their coreligionists drag the Western world into the House of Submission.

But we certainly can’t expect them to take a stand for liberty if we don’t stand up for it ourselves.

Actually after reading this, I sometimes wonder if in Australia we should have a Bill of Rights as well in order to further cement our ideals and values to stop Islamists or some other group trying to censor what we say. If anyone here has an opinion on this feel welcome to share it in the comments section.

Posted in Australian Politics, Europe, Islam, Islamism, Religion, Terrorism, U.S. Politics | Leave a Comment »

Appeasing Islam

Posted by Atilla89 on March 10, 2008

This guy, Pat Condell makes some very, very interesting points in his new video. I wouldn’t say that I would agree with him 100%, but 95% of it is definitely speaking to me. This line, in relation to Europe, is definitely one of his best “freedom was handed to us… is not ours to give it away…” Hat tip to LGF.

Posted in Europe, Islam, Islamism | 1 Comment »

Melanie Phillips views on the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and Sharia Law

Posted by Atilla89 on February 17, 2008

I have found a very interesting post in which Melanie Phillips has given her views on the controversial statement made by Rowan Williams. The statement,

“I think at the moment there’s a great deal of confusion about this. A lot of what’s been written, whether it was about the Catholic church’s adoption agencies last year, sometimes what’s written about Jewish or Muslim communities, a lot of what’s written suggests that the ideal situation is one in which there is one law and only one law for everybody. Now that principle that there’s one law for everybody, is an important pillar of our social identity as a Western liberal democracy. But I think it’s a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people don’t have other affiliations, other loyalties, which shape and dictate how they behave in society, and that the law needs to take some account of that. An approach to law which simply says there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, I think that’s a bit of a danger.

That’s why there’s a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law.

brings about several points that are of importance specifically for the UK and Europe. However I believe that contentious issues such as Sharia law, Islamism and religious extremism will become relevant for the rest of the world very soon. Now Williams has tried to backtrack by saying he did not mean having a parallel law system but I really don’t see how he could not mean that. Melanie elaborates:

He explicitly said that he wanted British Muslims to be able to have the choice between two jurisdictions, between the English Common Law, the English legal system in civil law, and sharia law. He then went on to say, and I was at his lecture, I heard him answer questions straight afterwards in which he said, ‘I didn’t say I wanted a parallel system’. Now I don’t know whether the man has a semantic understanding that passes our understanding, but in my view, a supplementary jurisdiction existing side by side with the majority legal structure, in which people are given the choice of one or the other, is in my book, parallel structures. So I think this is absolute nonsense.

The next point that Williams brings up is the issue of other religions having their own system of law, he drew on the example of ultra-orthodox Jews having separate halacha (Jewish Law) rulings. I would just like to point that these are on a voluntary basis and Jews must no matter what country they are in, follow the law of the land which takes precedence of Jewish law, except in a few situations (a stupid example would be a country introducing a law saying all Jews must walk naked down the street). Melanie further elaborates:

Let’s take the Jewish Rabbinical courts first. Yes, they do exist, and it’s true, as you say, that sharia courts already exist. But they both exist very much under the law. Jewish Rabbinical courts exist absolutely explicitly under the English law. Their dealings are informal, the arbitration of disputes is informal, it takes place on a voluntary basis. When Jews in Britain are married or divorced, they have to be married or divorced according to English law. Jews recognise explicitly there can only be one law of the land which binds them. So all their rabbinical religious dealings are informal. Now the sharia courts want something more than that. Muslims want something more than that, and what Archbishop Williams was saying is something more than that. What he was suggesting was that sharia law should move from being a completely informal system, to being one in which people can choose which system of justice they’re under. In other words, it has equal jurisdiction, a supplementary jurisdiction was the word he used, with the English law. That gives it equal status. That would mean I think that a polygamous marriage under sharia law would be recognised by the English State. Where he’s absolutely correct is that we have had what I would call Islamisation by stealth. We’ve had a situation now for several years, in which the British State has turned a blind eye to the practice of polygamy among British Muslims. Worse still, it is giving welfare benefits to the multiple wives of British Muslims, thus de facto recognising polygamy. We also have, increasingly, sharia compliant mortgages, sharia financing, and a lot of other things in which the majority culture of Britain is being steadily Islamised. That is very different from allowing a minority religious faith to practice its faith, to form communities of faith and culture, which a liberal democratic society should do, we should certainly give religious minorities the space to do that. But that is very different from a religious minority expecting the majority law and polity of the country in which it’s living to change to accommodate it.

You can read the whole article below.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Islam, Islamism, Jews, Middle-East, Terrorism, UK | 3 Comments »