By Aaron Hanscom
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 20, 2007
Last year Pat Rose, head of the FBI’s Orange County al-Qaeda squad, was asked whether radical Muslim students at the University of California at Irvine posed a security threat. Rose responded evasively, saying that “it was a tough question to answer.” Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes would have no difficulty with the question. On January 31, Pipes gave a talk at UCI titled “The Threat to Israel’s Existence.” Pipes was invited to speak by Hillel at UCI and Anteaters for Israel, UCI’s pro-Israel group. But it was another student organization that decided to give Pipes a welcome he won’t soon forget.
Roughly 100 member of occupied the central seats in the lecture hall at the beginning of the speech. Most of them wore t-shirts reading “UC Intifada,” the latest in a long line of pro-terrorism fashion trends to hit campus. A coordinated disruption began about five minutes into the talk, after one member stood up and addressed Pipes. After being approached by UCI officials, the protesters exited the building while chanting slogans such as “Anti-occupation, anti-Israel!” and “Anti-hate, anti-Israel!”
Reut Cohen, a third-year student, decided to follow the MSU students outside with her video camera running. She was greeted with laughter and waving from the members of the MSU, who are well aware of the work Cohen does on her blog documenting their organization’s activities. Apparently unconcerned about the fact that he was being filmed, an organizer of the protest proceeded to give an impromptu speech. To shouts of “Takbir” and “Allahu Akbar,” he said:
They have no future. And it’s just a matter of time before the state of Israel will be wiped off the face of the earth…. Our weapon, our jihad, our way of struggling in this country is with our tongues. We speak out, and we deflate their morale, and this is the best we can do right now. And our brothers and sisters, on the other side of the world, they’re handling business in their own way. May Allah give them strength…
Cohen’s video immediately began circulating on the internet. In an interview with the present author, Cohen said, “MSU’s right to free speech does not require the administration to be silent when MSU calls for the destruction of Israel and threatens students who support her.” Indeed, silence was the initial response of UCI officials.
Not until Fox News aired Cohen’s video and inquired about the event did UCI release a statement. Media Relations Director Jim Cohen explained that “the protesting audience members stepped into the aisle and peacefully left the building.” As Daniel Pipes made clear on his blog, there was no condemnation of the protesters (the MSU wasn’t even mentioned by name), “much less [of] the horrifying statements their leader made outside the hall.”
This underscores a troubling fact about today’s college campuses: Calling for the destruction of Israel and supporting terrorism are tolerated. By contrast, calling for the destruction of terrorist groups is likely to earn students condemnation from campus officials.
Starkly demonstrating this double standard is a recent story from San Francisco State University. On October 17, SFSU’s chapter of the College Republicans held an anti-terrorism protest at the school’s Malcolm X Plaza. Members had painted flags of Hamas and Hezbollah on butcher paper, on which they stepped during the protest. An offended student, noting that the flags have the word “Allah” written in Arabic, filed a complaint. This led to allegations of “attempts to incite violence and create a hostile environment.”
In fact, if anyone at SFSU has a record of inciting violence, it is Muslim students. In November 2004, a mob of Arab students attacked a group of College Republicans during a “Turnout the Vote” event. Meanwhile, the General Union of Palestinian Students at SFSU has a history of issuing threats of violence against Jewish students on campus. During one pro-Israel rally, Jewish students had to be physically escorted off campus by 25 San Francisco city police officers.
Considering that such acts of real violence have taken place at SFSU so recently, the Office of Student Programs and Leadership Development could have placed the “terrorist flag stomping” incident in its proper context and dismissed the charges. Instead, the OSPLD sent the case for trial to the Student Organization Hearing Panel. If the panel of students, faculty and staff members finds the College Republicans guilty, the organization will be effectively disbanded — a possibility that has rightly exercised free-speech advocates. Vice President Robert Shelley of the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education has said, “In a free society, neither SFSU nor any other agency of the government has the power to investigate a group simply for disrespecting a religious symbol.”
Conversely, there is nothing objectionable about investigating groups who support terrorism. Muslim students at UCI who spout such hatred as was heard during Daniel Pipes’ speech should be monitored. Omri Ceren, a PhD student who often blogs about the tense situation at UC Irvine, explained why earlier this year. “The kind of viciousness regularly on display at UCI Muslim Student Union events doesn’t emerge in a vacuum — it represents a sensibility built on the ground of very particular beliefs about Jews, Israel, and the US government.” Indeed, as Ceren notes, speakers who appear at the MSU’s events, while generally careful to avoid advocating violence, have on occasion done just that. Ultimately, allowing groups like the MSU to host such extremists creates what Ceren calls the “perfect hiding place for terrorism — a place where the terrorists could hide in plain sight.”
What many college administrators in California and even some counterterrorism officials are reluctant to acknowledge is that those places are the state’s universities
The Shi’ites, according to Mahmoud Al-Sayyed Al-Dugheim, are even worse than (gasp) the Zionists! The fervid conspiracy theorists are beginning to trip over their Protocols. “London-Based Syrian-Born Historian Mahmoud Al-Sayyed Al-Dugheim on Al-Jazeera: Iran Established Global Shiite Government, Operating in Accordance with the Protocols of the Mullahs of Qom, to Annihilate the Sunnis,” from MEMRI:
The following are excerpts from an interview with Syrian-born historian Mahmoud Al-Sayyed Al-Dugheim, which aired on Al-Jazeera TV on January 30, 2007.TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1380.
Mahmoud Al-Sayyed Al-Dugheim: “We consider the Zionist plan to be dangerous to the Arab nation, but even more dangerous is the Safavid Sassanian Iranian plan to restore the Empire of Cyrus, which would range from Greece to Egypt, and the Arabian Peninsula, in addition to other regions. The Zionist plan was unable to penetrate the ranks of Islamic unity, the way the Safavid Iranian plan did. The collaborators with the Zionists throughout the Arab and Islamic world are too ashamed to reveal themselves, while the collaborators with the Sassanian Safavid plan boast about it in public. Wasn’t it one of their leaders who said yesterday: ‘We are a Lebanon in Iran, and an Iran in Lebanon?'”
“While the Zionist plan targets Jerusalem, which is holy to us, the Safavid plan targets Mecca and Al-Madina. If you go back to their books – which they do not mention in the media, yet these books exist and are accepted by them – they claim that their Hidden Imam will come to Mecca and Al-Madina, destroy the Al-Haram Mosque and the Mosque of the Prophet, and dig in the graves of Abu Bakr and Omar and burn them both, and then he will command the wind to blow them away. He will also dig in the grave of Aisha, the Mother of the Believers, and will execute her. All this is part of their plan.”
“The Shah was most definitely one of the sworn enemies of the Arabs, but he did not legislate a law to persecute the Sunni Muslims, who constitute one-third of the Iranian population. The new Iranian constitution persecutes Sunni Muslims in Iran, while it gives constitutional rights to the Zoroastrians, the Jews, and the Christians. This constitution denies the Sunnis these rights. There is no Sunni mosque in Tehran, even though there are over two million Sunni Muslims there.”
“All these actions are part of the 50-year plan of the Protocols of the Mullahs of Qom. This plan has been published and is well known. It aims to infiltrate the Sunni Muslim countries, to annihilate them, and to sow civil strife between the ruler and his subjects, all within fifty years.”
“Listen to the following secret communiqué: ‘At the command and with the guidance of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Guide of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and under the title ‘The Shi’a of Ali Are Victorious,’ the extended conference of the world’s Shiites was held in the holy city of Qom. It was attended by the leaders of all Shiite parties and religious authorities. The conference decided that a global organization must be established to annihilate the people who are left, to examine and analyze the current regional situation, to build a military force, to infiltrate governmental institutions through the women’s organizations everywhere, and then to infiltrate intelligence agencies, and to finish off the Sunni leaders, even by assassination.’ This is the plan of the Hashashin, which still exists.
“While the American target is economic oil, the Iranian Persian goal is to massacre the Arabs, as is evident in all their writings.”
Something to think about……….The Peaceful Majority
by William Haynes
I used to know a man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War Two. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since.
“Very few people were true Nazis “he said,” but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.”
We are told again and again by “experts” and “talking heads” that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.
Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.
It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the “peaceful majority” is the “silent majority” and it is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia comprised Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China’s huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War 2 was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet. And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were “peace loving”?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don’t speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.
As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.
Lastly, I wish to add: I sincerely think that anyone who rejects this as just another political rant, or doubts the seriousness of this issue or just deletes it without paying heed to it, or sending it on, is part of the problem. Lets quit laughing at and forwarding the jokes and cartoons which denigrate and ridicule our leaders in this war against terror. They are trying to protect the interests and well being of the world and it’s citizens. Best we support them.
Hillary: Little Miss Can’t Be Wrong
By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
FrontPageMagazine.com | February 20, 2007
Sorry seems to be the hardest word for Hillary Clinton. The New York senator is not used to being challenged on either her policy positions or her votes – especially when it comes to Iraq. For the last six years, she’s operated in a protective bubble – insulated from the press and the voters.
Those days are over.
Since she entered the presidential race two weeks ago, she’s learned quickly that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire – and most likely in the rest of the country – want truthful answers and won’t accept scripted spin.
During the last week, wherever Hillary Clinton campaigned, she faced one dogged question that wouldn’t go away: “Are y ou sorry for your 2002 vote in favor of invading Iraq?”
But try as they might, neither reporters nor voters can pry the “S” word out of Hillary. She refuses to apologize for voting to authorize the use of our military.
Instead, she repeats that she “takes responsibility” for her vote and that had she “known then what I know now,” she would have voted against the resolution. She reiterates that she doesn’t believe in “do-overs” and even tries to persuade her listeners that she never meant to vote for “pre-emptive war” and that she was actually voting to strengthen the weapons inspectors.
Iraq is not her mistake; it’s President’s Bush’s mistake. End of story.
But the questions persist. So, why has she chosen to take on an unnecessary fight about whether to apologize for a vote she cast five ye ars ago? Her fellow candidate John Edwards and 2004’s Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry, both have used the “S” word and apologized for their votes. Likely her advisers have warned that the perception that she flip-flops on the issues is a key negative and have urged her not to change her position. She doesn’t want to look like Kerry in 2004.
But her refusal to apologize is typical of two other characteristics that so frequently land her in trouble: her stubbornness and belief that she is always right.
We’ve seen this before.
Urged to compromise on health-care reform in 1994, she refused. Counseled by most of her staff to release the Whitewater documents when The Washington Post first requested them, she said no and triggered the designation of a special prosecutor. When Whitewater co-conspirator Jim MacDougal suggested that he buy her out of the investment to avoid political embarrassment, she refused, saying that she planned to use the proceeds for Chelsea’s college tuition. When Bill Clinton had the opportunity to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit, Hillary vetoed that possibility, paving the way for her husband’s impeachment.
When Hillary takes these positions, she believes that she is right – and no one can convince her otherwise.
When Hillary is right, this stubbornness is commendable. But when she is wrong, it is frustrating to her supporters and infuriating to her advisers.
But there’s another reason for her stubbornness. Hillary, for all of her vaunted independence, depends on gurus to guide her every move. She falls under their spell and, while thus mesmerized, she believes they can do no ill or make no mistake.
Hillary wouldn’t compromise on health care because her guru-du-jour Ira Magaziner told he r not to do so. She wouldn’t release the Whitewater records because her former mentor, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum, advised against it. She wouldn’t back off her support for the war partially because the generals to whom she had come to listen and admire while serving on the Armed Services Committee warned that it would lead to a disaster. Combine that with the flawed guidance of her pollsters and you see why Hillary is stuck.
Sometimes the gurus are right (as on Iraq). Sometimes they’re wrong. But Hillary can’t tell the difference.
That’s a key reason why she shouldn’t be president.