Berlin Zoo’s Polar Bear Knut Is Sick

Berlin Zoo’s Polar Bear Knut Is Sick

Apr 16, 9:29 AM (ET)

BERLIN (AP) – The Berlin Zoo’s popular polar bear cub, Knut, is not feeling well and had his daily public appearance in front of thousands of visitors cut short Monday after only 30 minutes.The zoo’s veterinarian, Andre Schuele, put the 4 1/2-month old cub on antibiotics and said the Knut is “off stage to get some rest while we watch him closely.”There was no specific diagnosis “but he is still a young animal and therefore susceptible to infections,” Schuele said.

“At the moment he is resting on his blanket and sleeping,” Schuele said, adding that despite his lethargy Knut did eat his regular meal in the morning.

(AP) Knut, the polar bear cub, plays at the Zoo in Berlin, Germany, Monday, April 9, 2007. Knut was…
Full Image

Thousands of people line up each day to see the cub, and his button-eyed face has been a fixture for newspapers, television and the Internet.

Born at the zoo on Dec. 5, Knut – who was rejected by his mother and hand-raised by zookeepers – rose to fame last month thanks to television and newspaper pictures. So potent is his appeal that zoo attendance has roughly doubled to 15,000 on average daily since his debut, officials said. He has his own blog and TV show and appeared on the cover of Vanity Fair.

Veterinarian Schuele did not know if Knut would be strong enough for public appearances in the next days.

“We don’t know yet – the little one is not a machine,” he said.


On the Net:

Berlin Zoo:

Shooting Rampage Raises Troubling Questions

Shooting Rampage Raises Troubling Questions

Monday’s massacre at Virginia Tech–the deadliest mass shooting in American history–highlights at least one tragic reality: more than five years and seven months after 9/11, almost eight years to the day after the Columbine High School bloodbath–in which two Colorado teenagers killed 12 fellow students and a teacher before taking their own lives–the United States still does not take security seriously. Not really.

It is incomprehensible and inexcusable that the gunman was able to open fire in a dorm and then … two hours later … in a classroom across campus after the administration had essentially allowed–or encouraged–students to carry on as usual.

One student who was interviewed by the Fox television network said he and his girlfriend were walking toward the engineering building, where most of the victims died, and only prevented from entering the facility by an alert policeman who led them to the safety of his patrol car. From there, the two students observed wounded or dead shooting victims being carried from the building.

Another student told CNN: “I’m pretty outraged that someone died in a shooting in a dorm at 7 o’clock in the morning and the first e-mail about it–no mention of locking down campus, no mention of canceling classes–they just mention that they’re investigating a shooting two hours later at 9:22.”

He added: “That’s pretty ridiculous, and meanwhile, while they’re sending out that e-mail, 22 more people got killed.”

Actually, at least 30 or 31 more people got killed.

The massacre followed a spate of recent bomb threats–to the engineering building.

Why weren’t the students told to lock down and barricade themselves into their rooms early in the morning right after the first shooting, when the gunman was still at large?

Why, after Columbine and 9/11, do universities still lack relatively simple but effective security measures–for example, a campus-wide siren system that could signal evacuation or lockdown orders?

As our prayers and thoughts go out to the victims and their families, let us also resolve to get to the bottom of what happened so that we as a nation may finally do our best to prevent such an awful tragedy from ever happening again.

The administration may seek to deliberately divert attention from its own apparent mistakes and missteps by emphasizing the need for “healing” and psychological assistance to the survivors and the victims’ families at the expense of relentless fact-finding and rigorous analysis. Certainly, help is needed. Nobody disputes that. But the best therapy–and the most appropriate memorial to the victims–would be a series of concrete steps to improve security on campus and share valuable knowledge and insights with other schools and institutions.

Again, along with tragic and shocking … and sickening … incomprenesible and inexcusable are words that come to mind.

Never again.

Post Script: Classes were canceled on the first day of school last August, and students were told to stay in their rooms, when a hunt for an escaped inmate accused of killing a sheriff’s deputy and a security guard ended with his capture at Virginia Tech. The escaped inmate, described by state and local law enforcement officials as an “anti-government survivalist,” was found hiding shirtless and shoeless in a briar patch near campus athletic fields and less than 150 yards from where he is alleged to have shot and killed a popular and highly decorated sheriff’s deputy.

Carnage at Virginia Tech; Readers point to campus ban on self-defense; More video, plus student e-mail

ISLAM 101; ADVANCED COURSE, ISLAM 9-1-1 at Oklahoma State University


* So-called Muslims in training  

Last fall, a group of concerned Muslim college students, tired of the negative reports in the media about Muslims, organized a monthly educational series entitled Islam 101. “Unfortunately, because of the hateful acts of a few so-called Muslims and the unheard voices of the majority of the Muslim population, Islam has been horribly misunderstood,” they explained. “We, as a Muslim community in Stillwater, felt the need to start Islam 101 since we found ourselves being constantly misrepresented in the media and we wanted to give the people of Stillwater a chance to meet us and get to know the Muslims in their community.” (Islam 101 was made public in an Easter Sunday article in the Stillwater News Press, Stillwater, Oklahoma) Horribly misunderstood? Constantly misrepresented? Could it be? A bad press! Are these examples of a bad press? “Islam is a religion that brings hope and comfort to more than a billion people around the world. It has made brother and sister of every race. Is has given birth to a rich culture of learning and literature and science. Tonight we honor the tradition of a great faith by hosting Iftaar at the White House.”—President George W. Bush. “I wish Americans could see this Islamic school. Here you have young boys and young girls in their traditions, but learning their national curriculum, working together…I’m sure they’re going to be young people who are going to be very capable in the world.”—Secretary of State Condi Rice. “We’ve got to ask, why is this man (Osama bin Laden) so popular around the world? Why are people so supportive of him in many countries…that are riddled with poverty? He’s been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and people are grateful. We haven’t done that. How would they look at us today if we had been there helping with some of that rather than just being the people who are going to bomb in Iraq and go to Afghanistan?’—Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). One could go on and on—politicians, movie stars, Abrahamists like Robert Edgar, socialists, progressives, multiculturalists, Democrats thirsting for votes, bending the obligatory knee to Islam untrammeled. Misunderstood? Misrepresented? It could be, but not the way some imagine. Fast forward now to Islam 9-1-1: In Yala, Thailand, gunmen ambushed Watcharaporn Boonmak, a 26-year-old Buddhist woman, as she drove her motorcycle through a Muslim neighborhood. She was shot and burned alive. In Kohat, Pakistan, an explosive device was detonated in Darra Adam Khel’s barbershop. The Taliban had warned him that shaving beards was un-Islamic. In Iraq, Muslim terrorists have murdered barbers for giving Muslims western-style shaves and haircuts. It is a crime. Christian merchants licensed to sell beer by Saddam Hussein have been murdered because selling beer is a crime. Christian women have been pulled off buses by Islamic terrorists and murdered for not wearing a hijab. Little note has been made of these atrocities in the bad press received by Islam in America. In Kirkuk, two elderly Chaldean Christian nuns, sisters Fawzeiyah Naoum, 85, and Margaret Naoum, 79, were stabbed to death in their own home by persons unknown. Sure. Want to guess? It was Mohammed Something-Or-Other and he had just finished reading the Qur’an.  In Gombe, Nigeria, Muslim extremists clubbed Christian teacher Christiana Oluwatoyin Oluwasesin to death for supposedly touching a Qur’an. Two days later these same cretins set fire to an Evangelical Church. Did they shout Heil Hitler or Allahu akbar?                                                                                                                                                              * Christiana Oluwatoyin Oluwasesin.  

But Muslims did not commit any of these horrendous crimes— no, sir, not in Yala, not in Gombe, not in Kirkuk. It was the so-called Muslims. Sure, and the low-life thugs that chased Jews through the streets of Nazi Germany in the 1930s were not Nazis, they were what? So-called Nazis? And even though the Ku Klux Klan had a bad press not even Robert Byrd referred to them as the so-called Klan. On the other hand, these so-called Muslims are more numerous than the fleas in a Mad Mullahs beard, spend more time in a mosque than Hitler’s Christian Nazis spent in church and are a hundred times more as deadly. The Jihad report for March 2007 lists 288 attacks, 1,974 dead and 2,823 critically injured. And it’s been done without benefit of a single concentration camp!

The Muslim Student Association of Oklahoma State University at Stillwater, sponsors of Islam 101, makes no apology for terrorism. They had nothing to do with any of these crimes. They are guilt free. Islam can do no wrong. It was the so-called Muslims. Yeah, and the dog ate Opie’s homework. Is it lying or taqiyya?

Modar Ablujebain, MSA President, explained the difference between Muslims and so-called Muslims by comparing the 9/11 attackers to Christian extremists. Sure…of course…there is little difference between Mohammed Atta and David Duke. They both crawl about on all fours. Does this make David Duke a so-called Christian? The comparison with the Klan would be ridiculous if it weren’t so blatantly stupid. Muslim terrorists murder more people every day than the Klan has killed over the last 50 years.

“A terrorist is a faithless killer,” said Abuljebain. Where does he come up with these things? Does he watch The View? Does he have a hot line to Rosie O’Donnell? Terrorists are not faithless—far from it—they are full of faith to the point of madness. Fortunately for Christianity, it wasn’t the Bible that sent Jurgen Stroop into the Warsaw Ghetto—it was Mein Kampf. The last person to glimpse Adolph Hitler or Joseph Goebbels on their knees in a church was named Lucifer. Hitler was not a Christian. Like Mohammed, he was founding a religion, not continuing one.

Qur’an 8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.” Words to kill by.

The Muslim Student Association did not endorse or participate in the May 14, 2005, Free Muslim March Against Terror. Members of the Association have led demonstrators in chants of “Death to Israel’ and “Death to the Jews.”

“We are going to clear up misconceptions about Islam and Muslims and educate people about what we believe and what we produce and how we do so in Stillwater.”  And War is Peace and Love is Hate and Slavery is Freedom. While George Orwell was worried about the Nazis and Communists, Islam skipped the 14 centuries between the 7th and 20th and went straight to—where else—1984.



The Hamas Day of Infamy

The Hamas Day of Infamy
By Nancy Kobrin | April 16, 2007

Today marks the 14th anniversary of the first suicide-bombing attack perpetrated by Hamas against Israel, an event that opened a horrific new chapter in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.On April 16, 1993, Sahar Tamum Nablusi, 22, became the first Hamas suicide bomber. With a copy of the Koran on the front passenger seat, Sahar drove his bomb-laden Mitsubishi van rigged with cooking-gas canisters into two buses at a roadside café of the Mehola Junction in the Jordan Valley. This attack is also known as the “Bet-El bombing” (literally, the House of God bombing).

Nablusi killed himself and murdered a Palestinian laborer Maruan. Five people were initially reported injured, though some news reports placed the total number of wounded at eight. Tragically, it is more difficult to find out the names of the murdered and injured than that of the murderer. (One is reminded of the notoriety acquired by a serial killer, in contrast to his nameless victims.)

When I first read about the attack, in the still-hopeful days before the Oslo Accords, I knew that it augured a tragic future. Having watched Lebanon from the sidelines since the early 1980s, when Hezbollah launched its first suicide attacks (also in April), I realized that Israel had to brace itself for more attacks to come.

And, indeed, the horrendous example set by Nablusi has found countless imitators. Many have even acted in the month of April. On April 11, 2002, for instance, Nawar Nizar, a 24-year-old al-Qaeda operative from the French city of Lyon, perished while exploding a fuel tanker outside the Ghriba synagogue in the resort island of Djerba in Tunisia.

Why does April seem to coincide with an increase in suicide attacks? April is the traditional time of spring, a time of rebirth and renewal, with holidays like Pesach and Easter. For the Islamic suicide bomber, however, life holds no meaning. Joy is unknown to them, and those capable of feeling it must be attacked and destroyed. To these joyless automatons, we become a threat, a constant reminder of what they lack.

In today’s world, Hamas’s inaugural attack speaks to the shallowness of Palestinian democracy, a democracy in which the people choose cold-blooded terrorists to represent them. Hamas has perpetrated the most heinous crimes against the Palestinians. Hamas sends Palestinian children, and sometimes even their mothers, to their deaths. It is Hamas that has given the world a phenomenon heretofore unknown in history: the post-menopausal grandmother suicide bomber.

On this April 16th, let us recall a seemingly minor suicide bombing that introduced the civilized world to the evils of suicide terrorism. It was a watershed moment, a psychological equivalent to 9/11 for humankind. It was with that attack that Hamas demonstrated the depths to which it will sink in its perversity.

In remembering that day, let us also bear in mind what Hamas seeks to destroy: civil society; democracy; and the right of citizens to live without terror. And let us never forget the thousands of victims killed or wounded by a terrorist’s final act. On this day and always, we must carry these innocents in our hearts.

Click Here to support

Levin out the facts

Levin out the facts

By Ray Robison

In the op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) challenges  the assertions of the Vice President of the United States Richard Cheney regarding the cooperation of the Saddam regime and al Qaeda. The Senator relies on “intelligence reports” that are in fact political documents created by the Senate, not intelligence products, that the Senator had a strong hand in creating. The political nature of these reports is made clear by the fact that several Republican members of the senate intelligence committee had to defer to an appended dissension, largely unnoted by the media coverage of the report, to tell us this:

Simply stated, this second series of reports is designed to point fingers in Washington and at the Administration. The conclusions in the reports were crafted with more partisan bias than we have witnessed in a long time in Congress. The “Phase II” investigation has turned the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee initially designed to be the most bipartisan committee in the Senate, into a political playground stripped of its bipartisan power, and this fact has not gone unnoticed in the Intelligence Community.

As happens more and more, “intelligence reports” like these are completely mischaracterized by the media partially due to the misleading statements of leading Democrats. To be clear, these reports and their supporting investigations were limited in scope in the first place and are often not as comprehensive as the Democrats insist. But we can also demonstrate the mischaracterization by the Senator of the findings of this investigation. For instance, Senator Levin said in his LA Times op-ed:

In September, for example, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan report that Hussein was “distrustful of Al Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from Al Qaeda to provide material or operational support.” And the CIA reported a year earlier, in October 2005, that the Iraqi regime “did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.”

The Senator finds support for his conclusion in a CIA report, but fails to mention that the senate committee requested an update from the CIA for the 2006 report. The CIA restated its position for the committee on the matter of prewar intelligence concerning Saddam – al Qaeda ties, found within the very report the Senator refers to:

“The research the Counterterrorist Center has done on this issue has called into question some of the reports of contacts and training . . . revealed other contacts of which we were unaware, and shed new light on some contacts that appeared in prewar reporting. On balance, this research suggests that the prewar judgment remains valid.” [Emphasis added]

Though ignored by Senator Levin, the CIA reaffirmed its prewar intelligence regarding Saddam and his support to Islamic terrorism, specifically al Qaeda. So what was the previous judgment of the CIA? We can find that in the political document as well:

Iraq’s interaction with al-Qa’ida is impelled by mutual antipathy toward the United States and the Saudi royal family and by bin Ladin’s interest in unconventional weapons and relocation sites.

The CIA continues to find a relationship between the two actors and defines it as impelled by a common animosity for the United States and Saudi governments, and desire for WMD. It reaffirmed that reporting in the very document the Senator used to bash the Vice President with. That is a far cry from the characterization made by the Senator. The Senate committee report also shows that no other agency has conducted an in depth investigation into regime links to Islamic terrorism post OIF except for the Defense Intelligence Agency, of which the report added that one senior analyst from the DIA took the position that there was no cooperation between the actors. By far, the informed opinions listed in the report itself, a report purposely limited in scope to exclude for political reasons many sources of new information, support the Vice President’s position that Saddam was working with Islamic terrorists to some degree.
Despite the Senator’s claim to the contrary, the Vice President has never said that such support made the Saddam regime directly responsible for 9/11. That is indeed, another fiction that Senator Levin has manufactured. The claim made by the Vice President, a view of which there are many supporters, is that the Saddam regimes culpability for terrorism and the stated desire by al Qaeda to obtain WMD made the removal of Saddam imperative. The exact same argument was made by the majority of the Senate when it overwhelmingly passed the legal authorization to remove the Saddam regime from power.
Ray Robison is co-author of the book Both in One Trench, a blogger, and a frequent contributor to American Thinker.

“Algeria is Fighting a Battle of Universal Dimensions Against a Poison That Has No Borders: Islamist Terrorism”

“Algeria is Fighting a Battle of Universal Dimensions

 Against a Poison That Has No Borders: Islamist


An April 14, 2007 editorial by N. Sebti in the liberal Liberte daily, read: “Today, the entire world has understood that Algeria, beyond [the fight on] its own territory, is waging a battle of universal dimensions against a poison that has no borders: Islamist terrorism.” [1]

Omar Belhouchet, writing in the daily El-Watan, called for a combined strategy of military action and democratic reform: “It is inconceivable, inadmissible, and shocking to relive the nightmare of the 1990s… In the 1990s the Algerians knew how to resist the Islamist terrorist war machine with heroism and extraordinary self-sacrifice, and they are capable of doing so again… On the other hand, they fear the resignation, weakness, and compromises [of principle] of those who have the responsibility for bringing Algeria out of the crisis.

“It is time for the Algerian state, at the risk of plunging the country into a grave political and moral crisis, to determine, once and for all, a clear policy of eradicating terrorism. The politics of the outstretched hand has its limits…”

He added that democratic reform and a crackdown on corruption were also necessary, as political frustrations only served the Islamists. [2]

Vice-Editor of Liberte: “It’s Not Over”

Mounir Boudjema, Vice-editor of Liberte – a newspaper that lost four of its journalists to Islamist terrorism in the 1990s – wrote in an April 12 editorial: “The attacks in Algiers, which up to now had been a secure sanctuary, against the very symbol of political power, were designed to keep Algerians under the yoke of fear and resignation. [This was] a signal as powerful as the explosion [itself], telling us ‘it’s not over’ and that we need to go to bed in fright and in anguish and to wake up with fear in our hearts. [It was] a message to the Algerians to give up on life and to capitulate to fatalism.

“The terrorists are right about one thing: ‘It’s not over’. As long as they remain living and armed, taking cover in their hideouts or in their laboratories of death, ‘it’s not over’. As long as the republican and patriotic forces of this country are [still] standing, ‘it’s not over’. As long as they have not taken in the extent of their failure to turn this country into a second Afghanistan or an open-air morgue, ‘it’s not over’.” [3]

Algeria Remains, Alas, Fertile Ground for Obscurantist Ideas”

Hakim Outoudert, writing in the regional daily La Depeche de Kabylie, questioned the Interior Minister’s assertion that the attacks were an isolated event, and called for an ideological battle against fundamentalism in order to dry up the “terrorist matrix”:

“Minister of the Interior Yazid Zerhouni… reaffirmed the ‘isolated’ and ‘diminished’ character of the group at the origin of the drama, and assured [us] as to the overall security situation, which, according to him, remains ‘in order’…

“The distinction, unencumbered by complexes… between a truly fruitful National Reconciliation program and the implacable struggle against terrorism is the only responsible attitude to be adopted in order to do away with the scourge and to rehabilitate the spirit of vigilance, as much that of the citizens as that of the security forces… It must be recognized that this vigilance has been muted for some time…

“There is another necessity, and not the least one, in order to frustrate the millenarian designs of Islamist terrorism, and consequently to lessen the political import of its murderous operations: the political-ideological struggle against fundamentalism.

“In this field, Algeria remains, alas, fertile ground for obscurantist ideas, and even for the Islamist cult of martyrdom. How [else] could a young man have internalized the idea of finding his celestial salvation in blowing himself up? How many young Algerians might be in the same state of spirit, and await only a sign from the ’emir’ in order to ‘merit’ their place in paradise, and some ‘houris‘ as a bonus?

“Where did these young people contract this evil, if not from within Algerian society, through a bigoted media literature, but above all within the mosques in subversive suburbs?…

“[Should we] do away with fundamentalism, the matrix of terrorism, by drying up [its] ideological ground, or maintain [its] destructive potential by ceding it the terrain of political initiative? One day we’ll have to choose. The sooner the better.” [4]

FIS Leaders and the Founder of the GSPC Denounce the Attacks

Hassan Hattab, founder and first Emir of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (which has since become the Al-Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Maghreb, the group which carried out the attacks), denied any connection with the bombings. In a telephone interview with the El-Shorouq El-Yawmi daily, Hattab said that he “washed his hands” of all those who “went down this misguided path,” and said that the attackers were acting on orders “from abroad.” [5]

‘Abbasi Madani, former head of the banned Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) who now lives in exile in Qatar, told the Qatari daily Al-Raya that the attacks were a great wrong, and that the Algerian issue was a political one which could not be dealt with in this way. He also blamed the government for the attacks, though, saying that it too encouraged the violence in order to prevent a political solution. [6]

Likewise, Rabah Kebir, a former top member of the Islamic Salvation Front, issued a statement on April 14 in which he “vigorously condemned this odious, unjustified criminal act, which targeted the Algerian people and its institutions” and which had killed and injured “many victims among the innocent children of the Algerian Muslim people.” He condemned “the violence that continues to [fell] victims and prolongs the sufferings of the Algerian people, thus answering to the aims of the enemies of the reconciliation.” [7]

Dissatisfaction With the Algerian Government’s Policies on Terrorism

In his column in Liberte, Mustapha Hammouche, a fierce critic of the Islamists, complained that Interior Minister Yazid Zerhouni had (like Rabah Kebir) described the attackers as “enemies of the National Reconciliation”:

“In the 1990s it was still permitted in our political culture to condemn Islamist terrorism, and even to defy it, as there were still some islands of moral and political resistance. Back then it was possible to condemn a terrorist act for what it was: an abject crime…

“Today the terrorist act is [considered] condemnable solely because it contradicts the policy of national reconciliation. It is not permitted to question the official program, even if it has failed in [bringing] that which legitimates it: peace. The critics of the sacred [National Reconciliation] plan are thrown into the same camp as those who place the bombs – that of enemies of the National Reconciliation.” [8]

An April 16 editorial by Larbi Zouak in the El-Khabar daily made the same point: “The strange thing about this government is that what is important to it is not the lives of citizens who fell, and will fall, to the criminal [i.e. terrorist] groups. Rather [what is important to it is] the President’s policy and the Reconciliation… Are the lives of Algerians so cheap? Is it conceivable that [the President’s] egoism could extend to such a deadly level?” [9]

Director General of Al-Arabiya TV: The Terrorists Are Not Motivated by Poverty or by Lack of Democracy, but by Religious Extremism

The attacks in Algeria and Casablanca also made the headlines in the international Arabic press. In an April 15 editorial in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Director General of Al-Arabiya TV ‘Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, wrote:

“I listened with annoyance to the same questions over and over when analyzing the terrorist incidents in our region, when the presenter at the international [TV] station said: ‘Don’t you think that the three incidents in Casablanca have in common that they occurred in a poor region, and that those who carried them out came from a poor neighborhood? Don’t you see that [what] ties them together is poverty?’

“And in the analysis of the Algerian incident, the Western press came out and pointed to the problem of democracy in Algeria and its connection to what happened on that bloody day.

“I say that I was annoyed, because [this is] a situation that has become repeated and which has gone on for more than a decade, and in which the personalities [involved] are well-known, and whose literature has spread in all languages…

“Bin Laden, his associate Al-Zawahiri, and others are people from rich families – rich, and not just well off. In addition, none of the terrorists, despite there being thousands of them… speaks about the issue of poverty, nor do they call for elections – to the contrary, they describe elections as heresy that must be combated.

“True, there is poverty in Morocco, and a political struggle in Algeria, and the region is full of grave issues that need to be faced, from corruption to political monopoly to totalitarian regimes… but these bombings were terrorist acts that are related to issues of another kind, and have nothing to do with poverty or elections. This is a war of people who are religious extremists.”

“If the Americans Left Iraq Tonight, and the Jews Fled Palestine, and Extremist Governments were Established… This Would Not Satisfy Them”

“To make the picture clearer… This religious war has nothing to do even with the major issues, slogans [related to which] are raised in the terrorists’ literature itself, like Palestine, Iraq, the U.S., etc. These are people who want martyrdom, that is, they want [to fight] war, anywhere in the world, and for any cause that has a religious angle. They want to go quickly to Paradise.

“They are not fighting for money, public reform, or for… the environment, and they are not nationalists, pan-Arabists, or communists… They are not jokers, hippies, or oppositionists. They are seekers of martyrdom, meaning that they are in a hurry to go to Paradise. They are not interested in the life of this world, and they want to take with them to the grave the greatest number of people possible.

“I know that this is an issue that is difficult for the Westerner to understand. It is also difficult for many of the Muslims themselves to accept this, and they always try to justify it with… issues that they consider legitimate and comprehensible.

“[But] the truth is that these [terrorists] want death for the sake of Allah… That is, even if the Americans left Iraq tonight, and the Jews fled Palestine, and extremist religious governments were established in Morocco, Algeria, and Egypt – this would not satisfy them… They want Paradise, and for this they will travel to the ends of the earth, to the North Pole and the South Pole, to fight the infidels, whose numbers, in their view, are five billion.” [10]

[1] Liberte (Algeria), April 14, 2007.

[2] El-Watan (Algeria), April 12, 2007.

[3] Liberte (Algeria), April 12, 2007.

[4] La Depeche de Kabylie (Algeria), April 14, 2007.

[5] El-Shorouq El-Yawmi (Algeria), April 12, 2007.

[6] Al-Raya (Qatar), April 12, 2007.

[7] El-Watan (Algeria), April 15, 2007.

[8] Liberte (Algeria), April 15, 2007.

[9] El-Khabar (Algeria), April 16, 2007.

[10] Al-Sharq Al-Awsat (London), April 15, 2007.

Remembering the Muslim who inspired Hitler to wipe out the Jews

Remembering the Muslim who inspired Hitler to wipe out the Jews
By David Bedein  April 15, 2007

The 27th day of Nisan year marks the day when the Warsaw Ghetto uprising began against the Nazis in 1943.

The 27th of Nisan was therefore selected as Holocaust Remembrance and Heroism Day in Israel — the day on which Israel would remember the mass murder of Jews in World War II — not only as a day of mourning and remorse, but also as a day to remember those who fought back against the Nazis and their allies.

To paraphrase the question asked on Passover two weeks ago, people often ask why this persecution of Jews in Christian countries was different than other persecutions?

After all, Jews had suffered persecution in Christian lands over the centuries.

The answer: This time, Nazis incorporated the Moslem idea of Jihad — the impulse for total destruction and complete annihilation in the spirit of a Holy War.

The Moslem cleric who inspired Adolf Hitler with the idea of Jihad was none other than the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin El Husseini, who did not want masses of exiled Jews to wind up in the

land of
Israel, which he claimed as a future Arab Palestine, devoid of Jews.

Indeed, in 1936, the Mufti welcomed Hitler’s deputy, Adolf Eichmann, to his office at the Supreme Islamic Council based at the Palace Hotel in the center of
Jerusalem, where Eichmann kept meticulous records of his meetings with the Mufti, where the Palestinian Arab leader of that generation taught Eichmann about the philosophy of Jihad.

Journalist Maurice Pearlman, who reviewed the records of Eichmann’s meetings with the Mufti at the trials for Nazi leader in Nuremberg, wrote a book entitled THE MUFTI OF JERUSALEM, published in 1947, in which Pearlman noted that the Mufti instructed Eichmann that the way in which the Nazis could best persecute the Jews was to do so slowly and in stages, so as to catch them unaware of the next stage of persecution.

Eichmann offered reciprocal hospitality for the Mufti in Nazi Germany. In 1939, with the outbreak of World War II, the British government, then presiding over the mandatory government in Palestine, expelled the Mufti, who chose to travel to fascist Italy and then to Berlin, where he remained for the remainder of World War II. Hitler provided the Mufti with a radio station in
Berlin from where he propagated the Nazi message in the Arabic language, and the Mufti was assigned the task of organizing a Moslem
contingent of the Nazi murder machine which killed Jews throughout Yuogoslavia.

The Mufti obtained Hitler’s assurance in November 1941 that after dealing with the Jews of Europe, Hitler would treat the Jews of the
Middle East similarly.

Husseini promised the support of the Arabs for the Nazi war effort. In Berlin, Husseini used the money confiscated from Jewish victims, to finance pro-Nazi activities in the Middle East and to raise 20,000 Muslim troops in Bosnia, in the Hanjar Waffen S.S., who murdered tens of thousands of Serbs and Jews in the Balkans and served as police auxiliary in

Heinreich Himmler, the chief administrator of the Nazi death machine, brought the Mufti on numerous tours of the death camps. Most recently, a book was written about the ZunderKommandos, whose task it was to remove the dead Jews from the crematoria.

One of those ZuderKommandos remarked in an interview with a researcher that he witnessed a man with a turban whom the Nazi camp commandant brought to witness the gassing of he Jews and the removal of the bodies from the gas chambers, the stripping of their valuables and the burning of their remains. The Nazi told the ZunderKommando that this was the Mufti of Jerusalem. During the final months of the war, the Mufti actually lived in Hitler’s bunker. Although arrested by the French army, the Mufti was somehow able to escape to
Cairo. The Mufti was later sentenced to death in absentia in

After Adolf Eichmann was abducted and brought to Jerusalem for trial in 1961, Golda Meir, then the foreign minister of
Israel, demanded that the Mufti also be brought to trial for the same crime of genocide against the Jewish people.

The Mufti’s legacy did not stop when he escaped the defeated Nazi Germany. Upon arrival in
Cairo, he resumed the role that he had left, as the spiritual leader — in exile — of the Palestinian Arab community. The Mufti played a key role in the decision of the Arab League to reject the UN paritition plan in 1947 to declare a Jewish and an Arab state in
Palestine. Instead, the Mufti rallied Arabs throughout the Arab world to apply Hitler’s
concept of the final solution to wipe out the Jews in their nascent state of

The Mufti raised a new generation of young Palestinian Arabs to form a new Moslem brotherhood to take up the cause of a lifelong effort to eradicate the Jewish state. The Mufti also became a surrogate father to a young man who took upon the name Yassir Arafat, a name given to him by the Mufti in memory of Yasser bin Ammar, a celebrated Muslim warrior and companion of the prophet. The relationship between the Mufti and Arafat was related by Arafat’s brother Fatchi to the HaAretz newspaper in December, 1996.

The Mufti died in July 1974, one month after the PLO National Council met and ratified the Mufti’s “strategy of stages” — to conquer Palestine in phases – as the strategic methodology that the PLO uses to this day,

With the outbreak of the Palestinian Arab rebellion known as the Second Intifada in October 2000, a theme that repeated itself over and over on the official Palestinian television station overseen by Arafat was the use of an academic lectures, broken up by martial music, to highlight the comparison between Yasser Arafat and the lateGrand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini. Listeners were told how Husseini opposed the Jews (al-Yahoud) in Jerusalem and how he stood up to then-world power Great Britain, as a
model for Arafat’s struggle in the modern era.

The DC Holocaust Museum Ignores the Mufti

Boston attorney Charles Morse has made an issue of the fact that The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum ignores any mention of the Arab or Muslim role in the Holocaust and by ignoring the link between Nazism and current Islamic extremism

While the museum has programs on the role of Christianity in promoting anti-Semitism – yet nothing on Islam..

There is no mention of the mufti in the museum’s permanent exhibit, nor is there any reference to the Mufti in the millions of files of the US Holocaust museum. In contrast, there are 33 large files on the mufti in the Yad VaShem Holocaust memorial in

Walter Reich, who served as the director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum from 1995 to 1998, was quoted in the Washington Times on February 9th, 2006 as saying that “a focus on Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial at the Holocaust museum . . . would be, I believe, appropriately within the museum’s mandate. Indeed, it would be strange if the museum did not focus on such anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, given the museum’s devotion not only to the Holocaust but also to contemporary genocides and given the prevalence in contemporary Arab rhetoric of not only the kind of anti-Semitism that helped lead to the Holocaust but also the calls for genocide that are aimed at the Jews of Israel.”

Reich lost his position at the US Holocaust museum when he objected to the overture of President Clinton’s middle east advisor, Dennis Ross, who suggested that Yassir Arafat, the protege of the Mufti, be brought an honored guest to the US Holocaust Museum.

A historic footnote: Following the recent passing of Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, one of the files discovered in Wisenthal’s library contains a record of Wiesenthal’s pursuit of the Mufti of
Jerusalem in the late 1940s after the Mufti escaped punishment for his war crimes. That file is now being translated and edited for publication.


Laina Farhat Holzman: Who is hijacking peaceful Islam?

April 15, 2007

Laina Farhat Holzman: Who is hijacking peaceful Islam?

Madeleine Albright, our former secretary of state, recently claimed that jihad is an “internal struggle,” not “holy war” Clever Islamists have been telling everybody from the president down that Islam is a “peaceful religion” that has been hijacked by some really violent people.

Bernard Lewis, the dean of Islamic studies, wrote “What Went Wrong” after we were attacked on 9/11 to try to explain Muslim anger and failure to thrive. A handful of brave Muslims have also published books discussing some horrific problems with Islam. And now a Muslim doctor, Tawfik Hamid, who was once a member of a terrorist cult, has published in the Wall Street Journal April 3 “The Trouble With Islam” and he says, “Sadly, mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence” Mainstream!

Hamid shows that Islam was a violent religion from the very beginning. The Prophet Muhammad himself was violent, and the collected religious texts of Islam give multiple examples of this, usually explaining the necessity of such violence. Then how is this different from the violence in the Bible or the violence of such Christian practices as the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the Religious Wars of the 17th century? It is different. We don’t do this any more.

Two biographies of the Prophet Muhammad represent opposite ways two scholarly authors see this religion. Reza Aslan No God But God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam, Random House June 2005 tells the story of Islam with sympathy and a good sense of history. He reminds us that this story begins in the 7th century and the players are people of their time and place. He presents the Prophet as a revolutionary who was doing nothing less than transforming a narrow, brutal tribal society into a universal Muslim community. And he is critical of those who followed in the leadership of Islam after Muhammad’s death, including the clerics who had a monopoly over interpreting and developing the institutions of Islam as a religion; something that Muhammad did not have time to do.

Aslan thus adds to the already popular notion that what Muhammad said and did was very different from how the religion was shaped — something comparable to the difference between Jesus and the religion that followed in his name. Using this excuse further, Aslan who is Iranian shows enormous sympathy for the Shiite side of the religious quarrel that erupted the moment the Prophet died. I find his arguments in this case completely unconvincing.

Robert Spencer’s “The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion Regnery Publishing, 2006 is a book every bit as scholarly as Aslan’s that uses most of the same sources, yet he provides a picture of dueling Muhammads — on one hand meek and mild, preaching peace and tolerance — and on the other a fire-breathing warrior and man of violence. Apparently, both of these pictures are true because there were things that the Prophet said early in his ministry that he violated later because of changing circumstances. Had he died after his first 10 years, polygamy, warfare, raids, torture and decapitations never would have been enshrined in Islam. But then, Islam might not have become a world religion, either.

“Islamic Imperialism” by Efraim Karsh Yale, 2006 charts what should be obvious to everybody but the naive — that Islam was from its very beginning an imperialistic movement devoted to conquest, loot and forcing their religion on the unwilling. In the Prophet’s farewell address in March 632, he said, “I was ordered to fight all men until they say ‘There is no god but Allah.'” And this same message was repeated by Saladin in 1189, Khomeini in 1979 and Osama bin Laden in 2001. Where did they get this if not from the founder’s mouth?

The real problem for Muslims, then, is to separate themselves from undue reverence for their holy texts Koran, Hadith and Sharia and the model of the Prophet Muhammad’s behavior. These texts are as revered as is the Bible, but except for a small fringe of Christian fundamentalists, nobody today expects to cure appendicitis with holy oil or to blow trumpets to make a city’s walls fall down. Modern Western religion is introspective and seeks to find the internal meaning in their faiths to make them better human beings; they don’t look to it literally as a blueprint for war or a permanent code of law.

The solution for Muslims is to go back to their religion’s real roots. We look to the Hebrew scriptures for the Golden Rule and Ten Commandments and Christians look to the behavior of Jesus: love your neighbor as yourself. Islam can look to the Five Pillars of Islam prayer, belief in one God, alms to the poor, fasting one month a year, and a one-time pilgrimage to broaden the mind and soul. The examples of Muhammad, the collected memories of his words and deeds, and the code of laws drawn up later, all belong in the realm of historic documents, not blueprints for modern life.

Every horror carried out by al-Qaida and its ilk — decapitations, kidnappings, torture, stoning women, child marriage and murdering hostages — is justified by referring to the model of the Prophet himself. This is the problem with Islam.

Laina Farhat Holzman is a historian, lecturer and author of ‘Strange Birds from Zoroaster’s Nest’ and ‘God’s Law or Man’s Law.’ Contact her at or visit her Web site at

Good-bye to Western Civilization

Good-bye to Western Civilization

Barry Rubin, GLORIA

As a Middle East expert, I daily see material from Arab and Islamic sources containing hair-raising threats against America, Israel and the West, as well as media reports on the details of horrendous terrorist attacks. But this item in a British newspaper may be the scariest sentence I ever read.

It’s so frightening because the story reveals how the institution most entrusted with preserving democratic society and Western civilization–the school system–is betraying that trust. According to a report by the British government’s Department for Education and Skills, schools in England are dropping the Holocaust from history lessons to avoid offending Muslim pupils.

And here’s the really scary sentence in the press reports: “Some teachers are reluctant to cover the atrocity for fear of upsetting students whose beliefs include Holocaust denial.” Get it? They are told at home or by Muslim preachers that the Holocaust never happened, and rather than challenge this misinformation, teachers are shutting up so as not to disturb a world view based on lies.

By the same token, the Crusades are being dropped not even–though this is also not a good excuse–because that might stir social conflict but since “lessons often contradict what is taught in local mosques.” Moreover, teachers are dropping such material due to, as press reports put it, “Fears Muslim pupils might express anti-Semitic and anti-Israel reactions in class.

Similar reports have already appeared in France, where the rot has gone even further. Thus, 500 years of progress in open intellectual inquiry through the use of logic and evidence are abandoned. Rather than confront or challenge students, they will be left safe in their prejudices. Aside from the broader implications, such behavior constitutes a reinforcement of racism, intolerance, and hatred in the name of a philosophy–political correctness–which is supposed to combat these things.

And to make things even worse, note that there have been no riots, no mass protests to demand the preservation of ignorance. This is not only surrender but one being offered voluntarily, without even being pressed or threatened.

Up until now, democratic, modern societies have successfully absorbed large numbers of immigrants because of the process of assimilation or, in milder form, acculturation. The idea, so successful in the United States, has been that immigrants must accept the society’s rules. And why not, since it has been so successful? Indeed, the stability, freedom, and material benefits offered are the reasons why people came to the West in the first place. In addition, immigrants were free to keep most of their own culture and all of their religion.

But now, it is the successful society that must adapt to less democratic ones. Where does it end? Can schools teach democracy to those told this is heresy because laws can only be made by God? Can evolution, or even intelligent design, if it contradicts what is said in mosques or might provoke complaints in class? And what about the value of tolerance itself, since it might upset those who have been taught intolerance toward others?

This new approach also condemns Muslim immigrants to be slaves of the radical Islamists among them. Rather than challenge extremism, the school would reinforce it. Students hungry for knowledge and freedom would be told to shut up and believe what their mullahs say. Any Muslim female student who did not want to wear concealing clothes or wanted personal freedom cannot depend on help or validation from French or British society. Instead, she is sentenced to imprisonment in a behavioral and intellectual ghetto.

Finally, there is one more horrifying element–perhaps the worst of all–in what is happening in Europe: the passivity with which people are excusing or ignoring this revolution against freedom.

Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university. His co-authored book, Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, (Oxford University Press) is now available in paperback and in Hebrew. His latest book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, was published by Wiley in November 2005. Prof. Rubin’s columns can be read online at:

Posted by Ted Belman @ 6:40 pm |