Over One Million Americans Have Read Corporal Rock’s Email To Traitor Dingey Harry Reid

Over One Million Americans Have Read Corporal Rock’s Email To Traitor Dingey Harry Reid

Stay Tuned For More Reports, Photos & Videos From Our Young Americans Fighting In Ramadi

#1 most emailed story from the NY Post

Douche Harry Reid

By GEOFF EARLE, Post Correspondent

April 24, 2007 — WASHINGTON – A tough U.S. Marine stationed in one of the most hostile areas of Iraq has a message for Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid: “We need to stay here and help rebuild.”In raw and emotional language from the bloody front lines, Cpl. Tyler Rock, of the 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, skewered Reid for being far removed from the patriotism and progress in Iraq.

“Yeah, and I got a quote for that [expletive] Harry Reid. These families need us here,” Rock vented in an e-mail to Pat Dollard, a Hollywood agent-turned-war reporter who posted the comment on his Web site, http://www.patdollard.com.

“Obviously [Reid] has never been in Iraq. Or at least the area worth seeing . . . the parts where insurgency is rampant and the buildings are blown to pieces,” Rock wrote.

Based in Camp Lejeune, N.C., Rock catalogued a series of grim daily traumas in Iraq, like getting covered in ash and sleeping under a dirty rug in an Iraqi family’s house, or watching “several terrorists die” on the same strip of pavement.

But he says he is optimistic about the future of a country that he says has “turned to complete s- – -” during a bloody insurgency.

He also spoke admiringly of the risks brave Iraqi citizens take every day.

“If Iraq didn’t want us here then why do we have [Iraqi police] volunteering every day to rebuild their cities?” he asked.

“It sucks that Iraqis have more patriotism for a country that has turned to complete s- – – more than the people in America who drink Starbucks every day.

“We could leave this place and say we are sorry to the terrorists. And then we could wait for 3,000 more American civilians to die before we say, ‘Hey, that’s not nice’ again.”

“And the sad thing is after we WIN this war. People like [Reid] will say he was there for us the whole time.”

Rock’s candid e-mail swept across the Internet after Dollard posted it on his site, and it was picked up by the Drudge Report and numerous other Web sites.

“What does [Reid] know about us ‘losing’ besides what he wants to believe? The truth is that we are pushing al Qaeda out and we are pushing the insurgency out. We are here to support a nation.”

Iraqi Red Crescent tells Democrats to stop partisan bickering

Why Must We Be Silent in the Face of Such Outrages?

Exclusive: Why Must We Be Silent in the Face of Such Outrages?
Adrian Morgan
Author: Adrian Morgan
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: April 23, 2007

FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan articulates the utterly horrifying behavior of Islamists and asks why the West appeases and caters to their murderous rampages, outrageous demands and daily encroachments into our lives. This piece comes with a strong warning to America that all must hear.


Why Must We Be Silent in the Face of Such Outrages?

By Adrian Morgan

 The past week has seen three incidents demonstrating Islamists’ total hatred for Christianity and the values of the West. On Wednesday, April 18 in Malatya, central Turkey, three Christians were tied up, tortured for up to three hours, and then had their throats slit. Two of the victims, Ugur Yuksel amd Necati Aydin, were Turkish, and the other was a German national, Tilmann Geske. Their crime was to be Christians, working for Zirve, a publishing house which prints Bibles.

 Four people were arrested at the scene. The suspected leader of the killers, 19-year old Emre Gunaydin, had thrown himself from a window to escape arrest, sustaining head injuries in the fall. On Saturday, Gunaydin’s girlfriend was also arrested. Malatya is the hometown of Mehmet Ali Agca, who tried to murder Pope John Paul II in 1981. Even though both Turks who died on Wednesday had abandoned Islam and converted to Christianity, Ugur Yuksel was buried as a Muslim.

 Thousands of miles away on Jolo island in the southern Philippines, seven Christians were taken hostage by Muslim terrorists last Monday. Their kidnappers belonged to the group Abu Sayyaf, which has links with Al Qaeda and also the pan-Asian terror group Jemaah Islamiyah which has enacted numerous atrocities, including the Bali bombings of October 12, 2002, in which 202 people died, and of October 1, 2005, in which 20 people died.

 The Abu Sayyaf group has a reputation for hostage-taking. It also has a reputation for decapitating hostages. The leader of Abu Sayyaf on the island of Jolo is Radullan Sahiron, a one-armed man who rides a horse. This individual would be easy to identify, but because he beheads local people whom he considers to be “spies”, no one informs on him, and he has so far escaped arrest. He has a 5 million-peso bounty on his head, worth $89,000 US.

 On Thursday, April 19, the severed heads of five of the Christian victims were left at one army camp, and the heads of the other two were left at another military camp later on the same day. Their bodies were found in a village on Friday.

 Last Tuesday, in Peshawar, main city of Pakistan’s troubled North-West Frontier Province, a disturbing video was recovered by Associated Press. A bearded man, identified as Ghulam Nabi, is shown in a car, claiming his innocence. A ligature is tied around his neck. Nabi is then shown on his knees on the ground, his hands tied behind his back. A man pulls at his beard to expose his throat. He is then decapitated.

 What makes this video more disturbing is that the killer is a fresh-faced boy, barely 12 years of age. The video (censored at the moment the knife touches Nabi’s throat) can be found here. The boy hacks at the victim’s neck, and when he finally severs the head, it is raised aloft, while the words “Allahu Ackbar” (“Allah is great”) are chanted by onlookers. The soundtrack of the video has songs praising Mullah Omar (leader of the Afghan Taliban) and Osama bin Laden.

 Ghulam Nabi was a Pakistani Taliban member from Baluchistan, southwestern Pakistan, who was accused of being a “spy” for the US. Nabi was blamed for the death of Akhtar Mohammad Osmani, an ex-governor of Uruzgan province in Afghanistan. Osmani, a senior leader in the Afghan Taliban, had been killed by a US airstrike on December 19 last year.

 Slitting throats and beheading people are not the actions of honorable men, especially as in Turkey and the Philippines the victims were guilty only of belonging to another faith. Apologists for Islam will claim that such actions are not typical of Islam, yet these people are either deliberately lying or they are totally ignorant of Islam’s history.

 In Turkey, the killings of the three Christians have been condemned by the most senior Muslim in the nation, Ali Bardakoglu, head of the Religious Affairs Directorate.  On September 14, 2006, Bardakoglu had demanded that Pope Benedict XVI retract comments which had been made in a speech at the University at Regensburg. Bardakoglu called the pontiff’s words “extraordinarily worrying, saddening and unfortunate” and questioned if they reflected the “spite, hatred and enmity” of others in the Christian world.

 In his Regensberg Address on September 12, Benedict had quoted a Byzantine emperor, Manuel Paleologos, who around the year 1391 had said “show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Though the Pope did not condone this statement, Muslims around the world did what Muslims seem to do best – they whined about their victimhood and threatened violence.

 In Pakistan, the US-designated terror organization Jamaat ud-Dawa (not outlawed by Pakistan) issued a fatwa, urging the Muslim community to kill the Pope. In Britain, Anjem Choudary, a former leader of Al-Muhajiroun claimed outside the Catholic Westminster Cathedral that the Pope should be executed. Choudary was not charged for this.

 Killings of Christians ensued. In Iraq, an Assyrian priest, Father Paulos Iskander, was beheaded, and a 14-year old Christian boy was crucified in Albasra. A group calling itself “Kataab Ashbal Al Islam Al Salafi” threatened to kill all Christians in Iraq if the pontiff did not apologize to Mohammed, the founder of Islam.

In Israel, churches were attacked. In Somalia on September 17 an Italian nun, Sister Leonella, was shot three times in the back while she worked in the SOS Hospital in the Huriwa district of Mogadishu. Three other nuns were subsequently evacuated for their safety. A Somali imam, Sheikh Abubukar Hassan Malin, urged Muslims to “punish” the Pope. He said: “Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim.”

 When Salman Rushdie received a fatwa against his life on February 14, 1989 for “insulting” Islam, Muslims across Britain, India and Pakistan called for his death. In July 1991, Hitoshi Igarashi, Rushdie’s Japanese translator, was stabbed to death. In the same month Ettore Capriolo, the Italian translator of the Satanic Verses, was seriously injured in a stabbing attack.

 On November 2 2004, baby-faced Muslim killer Mohammed Bouyeri stabbed, shot and tried to behead film-maker Theo van Gogh on an Amsterdam street. Van Gogh had made a film about the appalling treatment of women in Islam. This film, called Submission, (Islam means just that) had been scripted by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali apostate from Islam. With a knife, Bouyeri had pinned a “hit list” to van Gogh’s chest. This list named people who had insulted Islam, including Hirsi Ali and Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

 In February last year, Danish cartoons of the so-called prophet Mohammed led to violent riots from Indonesia to Gaza to Pakistan, Nigeria and India. At least thirty people died. The illustrators had to go into hiding. A Taliban commander in Pakistan claimed that assassins were traveling to Denmark to kill the artists. In Trabzon in Turkey on February 5, 2006, Catholic priest Father Andrea Santoro was shot in the back by a 16-year old youth who shouted “Allahu Ackbar”. The youth was later sentenced to 18 years’ jail.

 In India, a Muslim state minister in Uttar Pradesh offered $10 million to anyone who beheaded any of the Danish cartoonists. In Peshawar in Pakistan Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, imam of the Mohabat Khan mosque, offered1.5 million rupees ($17,000) and a car to anyone who killed one of the artists. Neither of these individuals was charged with incitement.

 When Banglaldeshi author Taslima Nasreen wrote of the poor treatment of Hindus in her native country and criticized Islam’s treatment of women, an imam issued a fatwa against her, offering a bounty of $5,000 upon her head. In 1994 after mass protests against her, Taslima had to leave Bangladesh. She later went to Calcutta in India to care for her dying mother. In March 2004, the head of the Muslim Raza Academy threatened to burn her if she ever set foot in Mumbai (Bombay).

 In January 2004, Syed Noor-ur-Rehman Barkati, main imam of Tippu Sultan Mosque in Kolkata said to a congregation of 10,000 that he would offer 20,000 rupees ($436) to anyone who would blacken Taslima’s face “with ink, paint or tar. Or she can be garlanded with shoes.” In June 2006 the same imam offered on local TV the sum of 50,000 rupees ($1,175) to anyone who blackened her face and drove her out of Calcutta. Last month Taqi Raza Khan, president of the All India Ibtehad Council, issued a 500,000 rupee ($11,760) reward for anyone who would decapitate (sar qalam karna) or drive Taslima Nasreen from India.

 In Pakistan, a malicious rumor that a Koran has been “desecrated” is enough to cause anti-Christian riots. On November 12, 2005, such a rumor led to a community at Sangla Hill in Punjab province being attacked by Muslim fanatics who were urged on by imams at mosques. Four churches were attacked, along with two priests’ houses, a kindergarten school, a nunnery and a medical center.

 On February 19, 2006 Muslims incensed by the Danish cartoons rampaged against Christian targets in Sukkur, Sindh province in south Pakistan. The St Saviour’s Church and St Xavier’s Church, as well as St Mary’s school which had been built in 1889, were set alight.

 On September 19 last year, French philosophy lecturer Robert Redeker wrote an incisive piece on Islam for the newspaper Le Figaro. This included a statement that the Koran was “a book of unparalleled violence”. As a result, he found himself and his family on the receiving end of death threats. Photographs of Redker’s family and maps of his home were circulated on the internet. He and his family moved location several times, and he lost his job.

 Is there a pattern in the above incidents? Since the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, Muslims around the world have learned to exploit the politics of fear. Muslims have threatened, and continue to threaten, death against anyone who “insults” Islam or its founder. And what is the end result? People in the West buy into this thuggish barbarism. The ideological foundations of the West were built upon the finest principles distilled from ancient Greek, Christian and Jewish heritage. Yet now, those who represent us in the media and politics are intimidated into silence. Like cowards with no principles, we offer up our bellies to the beast of Islam.

 Last week the biggest news in Lewiston, Maine, concerned a terrible “hate-crime”, where a college student put a bag of pork onto a table where Muslim Somali students were eating. The incident was not something to praise, but compared to Islam’s intimidation of the entire Western world, it amounts to less than a hill of beans.

 In Europe, the ideologues of the European Union have created a lexicon of words that politicians must never use – such as “fundamentalism”, “jihad” and “Islamic terrorism”, even though Islam was built upon terrorism and war. One EU commissioner, Franco Frattini, has even stated publicly that there is “no such thing” as Islamic terrorism.

 Out of fear, people cave in before they are even threatened. In September 2005 the Tate Gallery in Pimlico, London, removed an artwork by conceptual artist John Latham, because it contained a copy of the Koran. In November 2005, a production of the play Tamburlaine the Great was deliberately censored at the Barbican in London. The producer, David Farr, omitted a scene where Tamburlaine burns the Koran, admitting he had done so for fear of offending Muslims.

 When a 1740 play by Voltaire, entitled Fanatacisme, ou Mahomet le Prophete (Fanatacism, or Mohammed the Prophet) was due to be read out in Geneva in 1994, the authorities banned the performance. When the play was performed in the southern French town of Saint-Genis-Pouilly in December 2005, Muslims caused a small riot.

 In Germany in September 2006, Deutsche Oper Berlin cancelled a production of Mozart’s opera Idomeneo. The revised production included severed heads of religious leaders, including Mohammed. This was thought by Kirsten Harms, the theater’s Director, to be too risky. She cited “questions of sensitivity, also questions of political diplomacy” for her actions. The opera was later staged with little fuss.

Dante Aligheiri (1265 – 1321) wrote the visionary book the Divine Comedy (Divina Commedia) in three parts. The Inferno features (in Canto 28) a description of Mohammed in Hell: “Rent from the chin to where one breaketh wind. Between his legs were hanging down his entrails; his heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.” In the 15th century, artist Giovanni da Modena painted a fresco of Hell, including Mohammed as one its denizens, in the Basilica of St Petronio in Bologna, Italy (pictured). In 2002 a Muslim plot to destroy the fresco was foiled.

 In Britain, appeasement of Muslims proliferates. Churches hold interfaith services, with Muslims leading prayers. So far, no mosque has reciprocated by holding interfaith services with Christians leading prayer. Judeo-Christian morality guided the West and helped it to grow, yet now Christians are weak in defense of their faith. Councils such as Lambeth in south London have purged all mention of Christmas in their Christmas illuminations.

 Jews are regularly insulted and attacked by Muslims. I saw this at first hand when I lived in Stamford Hill, an Orthodox Jewish area of north London. Jews had lived there for a century but in the 1990s, Muslims from outside the neighborhood began to buy up properties in the area to create Islamic seminaries. In Casenove Road, N16, a Muslim boys’ school was set up less than 15 yards from an Orthodox school, and fighting regularly occurred, instigated mostly by Muslim pupils. The media and the police ignore their plight, preferring to magnify the slights against Islam, which rarely involve violence. Jewish people are FOUR TIMES more likely to be on the receiving end of faith-based attacks than Muslims.

 Rabbi Alex Chapper, from Ilford in Essex, was walking home from synagogue with three friends, when they were attacked by a group of seven Muslim teenagers, who had called them “Yehudi”. One shouted: “We are Pakistani, you are Jewish. We are going to kill you,” before punching Rabbi Chapper in the face. One Jewish man was hit over the head with a bottle, but police did nothing. Rabbi Chapper said: “We identified the youths and told the police but they were never prosecuted. They just did not seem interested. I feel very let down.”

 English language Islamic websites continue to produce anti-Semitic filth like the following from a Saudi site: “The Jews, who are the nation of pigs and monkeys, are nothing but a source of evil, corruption, tribulation and war. Hatred against the Muslims is inherited by every generation of Jews who in turn teach it to their children. Our enmity and hostility against them is based on our faith.”

 Abdulrahman al-Sudais (also spelled Sudeis or Sudayyis) is imam at the Grand Mosque at Mecca. He has called Jews “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the violators of pacts and agreements, the murderers of the prophets, and the offspring of apes and pigs.”

 This anti-Semitism was initiated by Mohammed himself, who according to Sahih Muslim said: “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him…” Sura 5:60 of the Koran describes certain Jews transformed into apes and pigs, and in Sura 5:82 it is written: “Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters.”

 Two high street banks in Britain, the Natwest and Halifax, ordered that no pigs should be depicted in their branches or advertising, lest they offend Muslims. Jews have been a vital presence in Britain since the time of Oliver Cromwell, and though Jews do not eat pork, no bank had paused to consider if images of piggy banks might offend Jews. Dudley Council tried to ban all images of pigs in 2005, lest these “cause offense” to Muslims.

 Schools also try to censor mentions of pigs, for fear of hurting Muslim feelings. In Batley, Yorkshire, a principal banned all telling of stories involving pigs to young children. Barbara Harris explained: “Recently I have been aware of an occasion where young Muslim children in class were read stories about pigs. We try to be sensitive to the fact that for Muslims talk of pigs is offensive.”

 This March, a children’s concert was altered by politically correct teachers, who objected to mention of the Three Little Pigs. These became the “Three Little Puppies”, before public outcry reversed the decision. A spokeswoman for Kirklees Primary Music Festival said: “We feared that some Muslim children wouldn’t sing along to the words about pigs. We didn’t want to take that risk. If changing a few words avoids offense then we will do so.”

 A recent report from Britain’s Historical Association claims that in some UK schools, teachers have stopped teaching about the Holocaust or the Crusades. This is because the educators were unwilling to confront “anti-Semitic sentiment and Holocaust denial among some Muslim pupils.”

 We in the West (and particularly in Britain) have become deracinated, afraid to talk of our culture with any pride. “Heritage” in Britain merely celebrates a few old buildings, but not the thoughts, deeds, traditions, inventiveness, aspirations and inspirations of our forebears.

 In the United States, Muslims have openly campaigned to demand that public buildings have no representations of Mohammed displayed. According to Bukhari, “whoever makes a picture, will be punished on the Day of Resurrection and will be ordered to put a soul in that picture, which he will not be able to do.” In the 1950s, when the Muslim presence in America was minimal, a sculpture of Mohammed was removed from the steps of the Manhattan Appellant Courthouse in New York after lobbying by Muslim nations.

 In 1935, when the current Supreme Court building was opened, it contained a frieze of historical law-givers, carved by architectural sculptor Adolph A. Weinman. This included an image of Mohammed (pictured). In 1997, CAIR petitioned Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, demanding that the statue be sandblasted or removed. CAIR, then only three years in existence, objected to the sword in Mohammed’s hand as it was viewed as “reinforcing long-held stereotypes of Muslims as intolerant conquerors.”

 The stereotype is not incorrect. According to the Koran, Mohammed himself was a warmonger. One entire Sura of the Koran, (Sura 8, Al-Anfal or “The Spoils of War”) describes the caravan raiding committed by the “prophet” outside Mecca. The earliest biographer of Mohammed was Ibn Isshaq (d. 768). His work survives in redactions by Ibn Hisham (died 828). In one of the many battles waged by Mohammed, that of Udud (625 AD), the prophet offered a sword to the bravest fighter, saying of this weapon: “It is to strike the enemy’s faces with it until it is bent.”

 If Mohammed were alive today, he would almost certainly be in jail, guilty of war crimes. Suspecting a plot against himself, he ordered that the entire male population of a Jewish tribe in Medina, the Banu Qurayzah, should be decapitated, according to Isshaq’s testimony. Seven hundred males were beheaded in one afternoon while Mohammed watched. The wives and children of the tribe were distributed as slaves and “booty” to his followers.

 Mohammed today would also be subject to the terms of Megan’s Law. When he was in his sixth decade of life, Mohammed consummated his marriage to Aisha. She was a child aged nine. Bukhari (810 to 870 AD) wrote (Vol VII, Book 62, Number 64): “Narrated Aisha: that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that ’Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death).”

 Tabari (d. 923) wrote (IX:131): (Aisha narrated) “My mother came to me while I was being swung on a swing between two branches and got me down. My nurse wiped my face with some water and started leading me. When I was at the door she stopped so I could catch my breath. I was then brought in while the Messenger was sitting on a bed in our house. My mother made me sit on his lap. Then the men and women got up and left. The Prophet consummated his marriage with me in my house when I was nine years old.”

 Personally, I can only describe such an individual as a monster, despite claims by Somali cleric Sheikh Ahmed Abdullahi that Mohammed was “the most honorable person who ever lived in the world.”

 Via the internet, I have twice been subjected to Muslim threats to have my head sliced off, because I was not “respectful” of Islam. While extremists terrorize people with their threats, so-called “moderate” political Muslims simultaneously work with their leftist allies to erode the social fabric of Western societies. I have been vilified by members of Britain’s left as a “frothing right-wing Islamophobe”, even though I abhor any poor treatment of individual Muslims. Such is the price, it seems, of free speech in today’s world.

 I am a citizen of a free country that is rapidly losing its sense of what freedom represents. Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, are fundamentals in a healthy democracy. Appeasement to an uncompromising 7th century ideology, especially when such appeasement is motivated more by fear than by genuine respect, is the fast route to totalitarianism or subjugation.

 America is not nearly as far down the road to perdition as Europe and Britain. Unless people are allowed to speak freely, critically and openly about any dead religious figure, even if that speech causes offense to some, the very mainstays of our Western values will disappear. I would rather live free and forthright, even with death threats from barbarians, than be cowed into silence under PC servitude. Remember what your Constitution was built upon, and stand up for what it contains. I fear that Britain is already dying. Please do not allow this to happen to your great nation.

Reverend In The House

Reverend In The House

by The Reverend Bob Parks


As we all know, the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have been anointed the arbiters of taste and decency in the media. Sharpton has destroyed the career of Don Imus and has threatened others who stray and violate the code of good taste in words and deeds.


I asked myself who am I to criticize these men? They are men of the cloth. They are assumed by the mainstream media to have the virtue and title to look over all of us and judge those who must be judged for the betterment of society, and young black female basketball players.


I also asked who am I to provide commentary on social, military, and political issues? I thought a common citizen could have a voice like anyone else, but apparently, the mainstream media only listens to Black Democrat politicians and the Black clergy, not that there’s anything wrong with that. I’ve just decided to even the playing field.


So I went online, paid $29.00 plus $5.00 for shipping and within a few days, I will officially hold the title “Reverend” and a certificate I can proudly mount on my living room wall.

“Illustrating absurdity by being absurd….”

– Rush Limbaugh


Now before some of you get all bent, rest assured I’m not going to cross the line into blasphemy. I’m not going to marry anyone… even though I can. I’m not going to baptize babies… even though I can. I won’t sermonize from the pulpit… even though I can.


But as a Reverend, I can criticize the words and motives of the Reverend Al Sharpton and the Reverend Jesse Jackson with a lot more credibility than as a private citizen. When they next attempt to boycott, and have fired, anyone for using stupid, and even vile, First Amendment protected speech, I can put the spotlight back on men who are morally in no position to judge anyone’s free speech.


Whatever works.

Inching forward in the Middle East

Inching forward in the Middle East

By James Lewis

Unlike a football game, progress in the Arab-Israeli conflict comes in inches, not yards. But in the midst of all the pessimism there is genuine movement on the Gordian Knot of the entire seven decades of struggle: The Arab refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist. Because that knot is now slightly unraveling under the pressure of the Iranian threat to Sunni Arab nations (which is all Arab nations minus half of Iraq).

With a looming nuclear Iran fifty miles away, the Saudis cannot afford war with Israel. Tehran has already stirred up riots during the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, and Saudi legitimacy rests on protecting the holy places.
Specifically, the Arab League, led by the Saudis and Jordanians, has now publicly offered to recognize Israel. That offer comes with conditions that make it unworkable on the surface, although it may provide a basis for further negotiation. But the big breakthrough is implicit, as usual in the complex maneuvering characteristic of that part of the world. When the United States recognized Communist China after many years of passionate refusals, all the preliminary negotiations were conducted in secret between Henry Kissinger and Chinese Foreign Minister Chou En-lai. Nixon’s public trip to China just put the official stamp on well-established secret understandings. There are now many reports of secret conversations between Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel.
Remember that Anwar Sadat was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood after Egypt openly recognized Israel. No other Arab nation dared to follow Sadat’s example. Twenty years later, Yasser Arafat told Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak that he, Arafat, would be assassinated if he agreed with the generous Israeli peace proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. So the peace agreement never occurred.  Offering recognition of Israel involves a great personal risk for all the Arab leaders involved. The terrorists are always out there, ready to kill any peace makers.
But the Arabs do not want a nuclear Iran trying to control the holy places of Mecca and Medina, with the ultimate possibility of radioactive fallout drifting across the Persian Gulf. For the Sunnis, Ahmadinejad represents a deviant strain of Islamic heresy, which cannot be allowed to control the two holiest cities of pilgrimage. Saudi preachers make worse denunciations about the Shi’a than they do about the infidels.
The implicit message in the Arab League proposal comes in the very use of the word “Israel” and in the public goal of diplomatic recognition.  Tehran and its puppets, Hezb’allah and Hamas, won’t even use the name “Israel” — it’s still the “Zionist entity” for them. In international diplomacy, using a nation’s name is to recognize it implicitly. And the open goal of the Arab proposal is public recognition. You can’t do that unless you are implicitly granting Israel’s right to exist in peace, and you can’t do that unless you are willing to terminate the de facto state of war that has existed since 1948. So this proposal breaks the logjam in public, even while posing unworkable preconditions. Inch by inch.
Israel has publicly rejected the Arab League proposal. But that’s only the cover story. Prime Minister Olmert has also praised the “great wisdom” of Saudi King Abdallah, without giving any details. News leaks of phone conversations between the sides are common.
So — it’s agonizingly slow, but progress. Underneath, there is very likely to be selective intelligence sharing on Iran and the common terrorist threat from Hezb’allah and Al Qaeda. There may be talks about giving Israel overflight permission in any attack on Iranian nuclear facilities — on condition that it be successful. When Israel knocked out Saddam’s nuclear reactor in 1981, the French, who had built the reactor, secretly provided blueprints and work schedules to the Israeli Air Force. When the strike occurred, it had pinpoint accuracy and French technicians were sleeping at home and in no danger. (Surprise!).
Some of that is probably going on right now among the players who do not want an Iranian nuke — which is all of them. Nobody but nobody wants a psychotic regime armed with nukes next door.
So there are grounds for cautious hope. This is a dangerous time. But Arabs have lived with Israel’s nuclear program for decades, and they don’t feel threatened by it. Like America’s nuke program, it is  carefully designed never to be used except in extremis. Don’t attack Israel, and Israel will never use its nukes.
That kind of rationality does not apply to Tehran, with its Armageddon martyr complex
If Iran were fifty miles from our shores, even the Denial Demagogues would have to get worried. Ironically, the new threat from Iran has made the Arab world more prepared for peace than ever before.
James Lewis blogs at http://www.dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/.

Hamas spokesman to Israel: “The cease-fire has been over for a long time … “We are ready to kidnap more and more, and kill more and more of your soldiers.”

Hamas spokesman to Israel: “The cease-fire has been over for a long time … “We are ready to kidnap more and more, and kill more and more of your soldiers.”

Stop the presses: The hudna’s over. “Hamas: Truce with Israel at end,” by Ibrahim Barzak for The Associated Press:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip – Hamas militants fired a barrage of rockets and mortar shells toward Israel on its independence day Tuesday, and said they considered it the end of a five-month truce with Israel.

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, whose Hamas-led government negotiated the cease-fire with its militant wing, blamed Israel: “We made great efforts at keeping the truce and there was a positive Palestinian position, but unfortunately this position was met by expanding the aggression and escalating it against the Palestinian people,” he said. “It’s not a Palestinian problem, it is an Israeli problem.”

Nine Palestinians were killed in fighting with Israel over the weekend, most of the militants, but also two civilians.

The barrage, which came on Israel’s 59th independence day, did not cause any damage or injury, but it marked the first time Hamas acknowledged firing shells toward Israel since agreeing to a cease-fire along the Gaza-Israel border in November. Hamas is tightly organized, and Israel says attacks from Gaza have the tacit approval from the militant group’s political leaders.

Israel Radio, citing military officials, said the rocket attack appeared to be an unsuccessful attempt to create a diversion in order to capture an Israeli soldier posted at the Gaza border. In June, Hamas-allied militants had tunneled from Gaza into Israel and seized an Israeli soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, who is still being held.

In Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his defense minister discussed a possible response. More security consultations were planned for Wednesday, government officials said.

The Israeli military has warned of a Hamas arms buildup in Gaza, and has readied contingency plans for a large-scale invasion of the territory. However, Olmert said earlier this month that the time is not ripe for a major ground campaign.

Hamas had held back attacks on Israel for months, especially during power-sharing talks with the Fatah movement of moderate President Mahmoud Abbas. A spokesman for the Islamic group’s armed wing said the group considered the truce over.

“The cease-fire has been over for a long time, and Israel is responsible for that,” the spokesman, Abu Obeida, told the Voice of Palestine radio station. “We are readby to kidnap more and more, and kill more and more of your soldiers.”

Hamas-allied militants have demanded hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for the release of Shalit, the captured Israeli soldier.

On Monday, Olmert said freeing soldiers is important to the government, but that it would not repeat “mistakes made in the past” by releasing violent prisoners who then carried out more attacks against Israelis. But Olmert said there would be “no escape in the end from making a difficult decision” on trading prisoners for the captured troops.


In a growing problem for Gaza, Palestinian smugglers and clansmen settle differences with guns, and bands of self-styled vigilantes have killed suspected pimps, prostitutes, drug dealers, owners of music shops, internet cafes, pool halls — activities which could divert people from worship — and women suspected of sexual misconduct. Bystanders are often wounded or killed.

Posted by Marisol at 09:23 A

Saddam’s WMD are alive and well and buried in Syria

Saddam’s WMD are alive and well and buried in Syria

Malnie Phillips wrote an article in The Spectator titled “I found Saddam’s WMD bunkers”

She began it with

It’s a fair bet that you have never heard of a guy called Dave Gaubatz. It’s also a fair bet that you think the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found absolutely nothing, nada, zilch; and that therefore there never were any WMD programmes in Saddam’s Iraq to justify the war ostensibly waged to protect the world from Saddam’s use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Then she blogged on the subject under the title The questions that need to be asked about those WMD.

In it she raises a great deal of evidence in support and then extacts from Memorandum in Support of Request for Congressional Investigation of John Negroponte,submitted by John Loftus, President the International Intelligence Summit (www.IntelligenceSummit.org)

You won’t want to miss reading it all.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 5:53 pm |


  1. Sorry, Melanie, but this story is at best entertaining. The described construction project aimed at building concrete bunkers beneath the riverbed of the Euphrates would have been rather voluminous and would have taken years to accomplish (not to speak of the recovery operation), and it would have been very easy to monitor daily from a satellite. Please check Mr. Gaubatz’ medical record.

    By the way, – the transfer of Iraqi WMDs to Syria was described several years ago by Yossef Bodansky (including the Iranian purchase of former Soviet nuclear bombs from Khazakstan). What became of him, – does anybody know?

    Comment by Per NORWAY — April 24, 2007 @ 2:08 am

  2. I noted this article along with an article by Glick and posted a link to it here on Israpundit last Friday ( http://www.israpundit.com/2006/?p=4513 ). I was a little surprised no one had anything to say about it.

    Syria more than likely has WMD via Saddam. Saddam and Assad were establishing closer ties before the US invasion of Iraq and if Saddam would send his jets to Iran (who was a foe) for safe haven before the Gulf War in ‘91, why would anyone think he would not do the same with WMD to Syria?

    Satellite photos showed lines of trailers heading to Syria before the invasion and Israeli intelligence confirms this also.

    I think you are either very naive or hooked on an agenda if you think this is not at least a possibility.

    Thanks, for bringing this up again Ted, Iraqi WMD are going to some up somewhere someday. I hope it is not when they are being used.

    Comment by RandyTexas UNITED STATES — April 24, 2007 @ 12:57 pm

Hillary’s Open Borders Disgrace

Hillary’s Open Borders Disgrace
By John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 24, 2007

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s position on illegal immigration is an unmitigated disgrace, and American voters ought to be aware of it.

Last Thursday Mrs. Clinton appointed an individual named Raul Yzaguirre, identified as a “Hispanic civil rights activist,” to co-chair her presidential campaign and to direct her outreach efforts to Hispanic voters. Proud to have an opportunity to help the Senator’s cause, Yzaguirre beamed: “Hillary Clinton has spent more than three decades advocating on behalf of those who are invisible in
America. Not only is she the most experienced and qualified candidate to be president, Senator Clinton has the ability to bring people together to get results and move this country forward.” 

Let’s take a look at the man who spoke these words, and who was entrusted by Mrs. Clinton to fill one of the most vital positions in her campaign.

For fully three decades, from 1974 to 2004, Yzaguirre served as President and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, an organization that:

·        views the
United States as an irredeemably racist nation

·        favors racial and ethnic preferences for minorities in the workplace and in higher education
·        supports open borders and amnesty for all illegal aliens
·        supports the DREAM Act, which is designed to allow illegal aliens to attend college at the reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents
·        advocates “reform” that would give illegal aliens full access to taxpayer-funded health care services
·        characterizes any reduction in government assistance to illegal border-crossers as “a disgrace to American values
·        supports access to driver’s licenses for illegal aliens
·        supports voting rights for illegal aliens
·        opposes the Aviation Transportation and Security Act requiring that all airport baggage screeners be
U.S. citizens

·        opposes the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act, which would empower state and local police to enforce federal immigration laws
·        opposes the REAL ID Act, which requires that all driver’s license and photo ID applicants be able to verify they are legal residents of the
United States
, and that the documents they present to prove their identity are genuine.

At many of the “pro-immigration” rallies that NCLR members have attended in recent times, their signature slogan has been: “La Raza unida nunca sera vencida!” (“The united [Hispanic] race will never be defeated!”)

All of the foregoing views are Yzaguirre’s as well. Every single one of them.

While heading NCLR, Yzaguirre also condemned groups (such as the organization US English) that call for English to remain the primary language spoken in the
United States. “US English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks,” he said.

In 2001, NCLR formed focus groups to study how the American public felt about the word “amnesty” vis a vis immigration policy. After the focus groups reported that the public’s reaction was extremely negative, Yzaguirre advised then-Mexican President Vicente Fox to avoid using the term ever again. He urged Fox instead to employ such euphemisms as “regularization,” “legalization,” “normalization,” “permanence,” “earned adjustment,” and “phased-in access to earned regularization.”

In Yzaguirre’s view, illegal aliens are best described as “hardworking people who are paying taxes, who are helping this economy.” “They are benefiting you and I,” he adds. “They’re making it possible for you to send your grandmother to a nursing home to get taken care of.…[T]hey are creating jobs, not taking away jobs.” About the enormous social, political, and economic costs that illegal immigration imposes on American society, he is silent.

Yzaguirre opposes the imposition of sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants, claiming that such policies create “massive levels of discrimination against Hispanics.”

In fact, Yzaguirre rejects the very use of the term “illegal.” “Why are we calling them illegals?” he asked Pat Buchanan during a 2001 debate. “If you [are] calling them illegals you’ve got to call every employer an illegal, every consumer an illegal, everybody who hires them an illegal. Let’s — if you are going to paint somebody with that brush,…let’s be equal about it. You are talking about a police state.…Draconian steps that would create a police state based on fear-mongering.” He then told Buchanan that modern day illegals “did same thing that your ancestors did.” When Buchanan replied that his forebears “came here legally,” Yzaguirre retorted: “What’s the difference? You can change the laws?”
In 2004 Yzaguirre characterized the Border Patrol’s arrest of illegals in a number of southern
California communities as “a clear assault on civil rights in an area with a sizable Latino population.”

While heading NCLR, Yzaguirre also condemned groups (such as the organization US English) that called for English to remain the primary language spoken in the
United States. “US English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks,” he said.

Notably, Yzaguirre is not the only open borders advocate who has joined Hillary Clinton’s campaign this year. Last month, the New York Senator also welcomed former National Council of La Raza Chairman Jose Villareal aboard her express train to the White House. Villareal has served Democrat candidates and office-holders before. He was an aide to President Bill Clinton, a fundraiser and campaign co-chair for John Kerry in 2004, and the treasurer of Al Gore’s 2000 presidential bid.

The issue of import here is not Raul Yzaguirre’s or Jose Villareal’s unmistakable desire to dissolve
America’s borders and to welcome all current illegal aliens as new
U.S. citizens and voters. The issue of import is that Hillary Clinton, who wishes to get your vote for President of the
United States, has willfully selected these individuals to work for her campaign. She knows exactly who they are and what their agendas are.

Consider very thoughtfully what these selections say about Mrs. Clinton.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

The Media’s War on Israel

The Media’s War on Israel
By Mitchell Bard
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 24, 2007

When Israel retaliated against Hezbollah during last summer’s war, it was forced to fight two battles: one against the Lebanon-based terrorist organization, and one against a hopelessly biased global media. The first serious study of the media’s behavior throughout the conflict has confirmed this impression. The study, released in February and titled “The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media As A Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict” (pdf.), was written not by a partisan watchdog organization that would be expected to arrive at these conclusions; rather, it was produced by a respected journalist, Marvin Kalb, a senior fellow at Harvard’s Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

In meticulous fashion, Kalb details how the press allowed itself to be manipulated by Hezbollah. He also records the mistakes made by Israel in trying to manage coverage, points out several of the outright distortions that were widely reported, and analyzes the impact of the digital media and the fundamental disadvantage a democracy such as Israel faces in a public relations battle with a non-democratic state or terrorist organization.

As Kalb observes, Israel is automatically at a disadvantage in any conflict because it is an open society. “During the war,” Kalb notes in the study, “no Hezbollah secrets were disclosed, but in Israel secrets were leaked, rumors spread like wildfire, leaders felt obliged to issue hortatory appeals often based on incomplete knowledge, and journalists were driven by the fire of competition to publish and broadcast unsubstantiated information.” He adds that Hezbollah was able to control how it was portrayed to the world and could therefore depict itself as “a selfless movement touched by God and blessed by a religious fervor and determination to resist the enemy, the infidel, and ultimately achieve a ‘divine victory,’ no matter the cost.” (Of course, no mention was made of Hezbollah’s dependence on Iran and Syria.)

Perhaps the most serious charge made by the media throughout the war was that Israel was indiscriminately targeting civilians. Groups such as Human Rights Watch made the allegation, which was then publicized uncritically by reporters. Although Israel underscored that it was Hezbollah that was using civilians as shields, the media relied on the allegations of Kenneth Roth, the executive director of HRW, who charged, falsely, that Israel’s military showed “disturbing disregard for the lives of Lebanese civilians.”

Kalb notes that reporters should have been aware that Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, had said before the war that Hezbollah fighters “live in their [civilians’] houses, in their schools, in their churches, in their fields, in their farms and in their factories.” Early in the war, indeed, reporters did note that Hezbollah started the war and casualties were a consequence of the fighting, “but after the first week such references were either dropped or downplayed, leaving the widespread impression that Israel was a loose cannon shooting at anything that moved.”

Kalb produces statistics that clearly show the anti-Israel bias of the Arab press. To be sure, it is not surprising that 78 percent of the stories on Al-Jazeera would label Israel as the “aggressor.” Western news services, however, would be expected to show some semblance of balance. Such was not the case. For example, the BBC ran 117 stories on the war, 38 percent of which depicted Israel as the aggressor. Only 4 percent of BBC reports placed the blame for the conflict on Hezbollah. Most media stories drew a disturbing moral equivalence between the warring sides, suggesting that Israel and Hezbollah were equally to blame.

In Kalb’s assessment, American network coverage of the war was more intense than at any time since the 1991 attempted coup against Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. Of these stories, however, more than half focused on Israeli attacks against Lebanon. With the exception of Fox News, Kalb writes, “negative-sounding judgments of Israel’s attacks and counter-attacks permeated most network coverage.” Similarly, he reports that Israel was depicted as the aggressor nearly twice as often in the headlines of the New York Times and Washington Post and three times as often in photos.

Israel was repeatedly criticized for alleged attacks on UN troops in Lebanon. Meanwhile, Kalb notes that the “impartial” UNIFIL web site published information about Israeli troop movements while no such information was posted regarding Hezbollah’s military activities. Kalb also reiterates what media watchdogs knew all along, but journalists rarely admitted: that the media’s access to stories in Lebanon was strictly controlled by Hezbollah:

Foreign correspondents were warned, on entry to the tour [of a southern Beirut suburb], that they could not wander off on their own or ask questions of any residents. They could only take pictures of sites approved by their Hezbollah minders. Violations, they were told, would be treated harshly. Cameras would be confiscated, film or tape destroyed, and offending reporters never again allowed access to Hezbollah officials or Hezbollah-controlled areas. Kalb compared the terms to that of the Soviet era and said that only CNN’s Anderson Cooper described the ground rules that Hezbollah imposed to try to control the story. Kalb says “all of the other reporters followed the Hezbollah script: Israel, in a cruel, heartless display of power, bombed innocent civilians. Casualties were high. Devastation was everywhere. So spoke the Hezbollah spokesman; so wrote many in the foreign press corps.

Cameramen didn’t need permission to film devastation, but they were warned against taking pictures of Hezbollah terrorists. “The rarest picture of all,” Kalb observes, “was that of a Hezbollah guerilla. It was as if the war on the Hezbollah side was being fought by ghosts.” The Herald Sun of Australia also published equally rare photos showing Hezbollah preparing to fire rockets from civilian neighborhoods, the type of visual evidence that, if widely disseminated, could have quickly discredited the inaccurate reports of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Reporters always want more access to the war and the decision makers involved, so it is not surprising that many complained about restrictions placed on them by Israel. Kalb reports, however, that reports were filled with interviews with Israeli troops, generals and officials and that “the depth and breadth of the coverage seemed to belie the common complaints about access.” By contrast, he notes, “Hezbollah provided only limited access to the battle field, full access to an occasional guided tour, and encouraged visiting journalists to check its own television network, Al-Manar, for reports and information about the war.” Kalb adds, “Al-Manar was to Hezbollah what Pravda was to the Soviet Union.”

The discovery of doctored photos used by major media during the war was a major embarrassment and Kalb skewers the press for its misuse of photographs. In addition to several frequently cited examples, he mentions a photo of a southern suburb of Beirut that appeared in the New York Times that the Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief Steve Erlanger later admitted was out of context. The Times used a satellite photo showing the destruction of a Beirut neighborhood that gave the impression of massive devastation throughout the city, but a larger photo of Beirut would have shown that the rest of Beirut was undamaged.

Nothing in Kalb’s report will come as any surprise to media critics or Israel’s supporters. What is shocking is that these well-documented abuses have continued for so long without the media itself taking corrective measures. The report should be required reading for journalism schools, not to mention working reporters. The serious maladies Kalb describes must be fixed if the media is to expect the public to have any confidence in its reporting.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.