"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." The Statue of Liberty (P.S. Please be so kind as to enter through the proper channels and in an orderly fashion)

Location: Arlington, Virginia, United States

Thursday, March 09, 2006

A Setback In The War On Terror: The Situation

I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East.

In order to win the war on terror we have got to strengthen our friendships and relationships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East.

President George W. Bush

In lieu of actually declaring war against Islam and launching a new Christo-fascist Crusade in the form of preemptive nuclear missiles flying towards Jihadist, Middle-Eastern strongholds and just being done with it (which is what we'd be inclined to do if the absurdly over-the-top accusations that we are mass-murdering war-mongers waging war against Islam and fighting a new Crusade were even half-true), the humanitarian and somewhat idealistic strategy to win the War on Terror consists of systemic restructuring and the sponsoring and support of customized constitutional governments to replace the removal of restrictive theocracies and constrictive despots (both of which, it is theorized, contribute to the social conditions that produce globally-destabilizing Jihadism).

After that Intervensionist policy was rubber-stamped "APPROVED" on the heels of 9/11, the U.S. military was post-haste sent overseas to remove the most entrenched and immediately-problematic regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq based on their pariah-status and our post-9/11 security concerns and interests .

The U.S. military is now used to aid in rebuilding the infrastructure, restructuring the government, and protecting the fledgling republics which have been seeded and are now sprouted and still growing.

Meanwhile, tightening diplomatic pressure is applied to the other states that have similar, pre-emption-inviting characteristics that Taliban Afghanistan and Baathist Iraq had but with less threatening postures (despite their posturings) and rewards have already been reaped, some incrementally, others more substantially (e.g. Egypt, Libya, Syria, etc.).

The endeavor, though difficult and complex (e.g. enemy "Jihadists" as a group are not necessarily birds of a feather, and are just as likely to kill each other if in the same room long enough over such issues as bloodlines to Muhammad), is striving to encourage, enable, and empower reasonable pro-democracy, and indigenous Islamic moderates (i.e. modern-minded Muslims) to run things in a fashion compatible--or at least not inimical-- with Western liberalism and interests.

For the more entrenched systems that haven't recklessly charged into the crosshairs with their actions or rhetoric, they are strongly recommended (in the kind of uncertain terms that keeps one guessing) that they start reforming on their own.

The Bush-hating "antiwar" movement has been vehemently against that transformational strategy from the get-go as it is traced back to the Neoconservative think tank's pre-9/11 "Project For A New American Century" (PNAC), which promotes the use of American diplomatic (i.e. financial and military) muscle to expedite needed change in the world's most turbulent and murderous hotspots (e.g. the "May-Your-Mother-Eat-Scorpions" Jihadist Middle East, which is intent on the destruction of, for starters, a key U.S. ally, engages in global pandemonium in the meantime, and just so happens to sit atop the largest known reserve of the civilized world's Number One energy resource: oil).

The post-9/11 promotion of such a strategy is railed against by the Leftist intellectuals in the "antiwar" movement as nothing but a call for Imperialism, and the Bush Era promotion of prominent minds from that think tank up to the Foreign Policy-making level within the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government (e.g. Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, to name two of the Most Wanted from there among the antiwar crowd) is Evidence A that Operation Iraqi Freedom is a fastball--if not a "curveball" (pun-intended)-- pitched for the purpose of Iraqi colonization for the sakes of American "corporatism," "militarism," and "Zionism."

That vociferous--and very annoying-- mindset is a Pandora's Box of calumnies and invectives from whence flew out such erratically flapping and now tiresome bats as "Misleader!" and "Liar-in-Chief!" and "War-Monger!" and "Blood-for-Oil!" and "Hail, Caesar!"

As that propaganda travels down the food-chain and infects the more unhinged and less sophisticated minds among the liberals at the blogging, grass-roots level of the Left, that already deranged dissent has devolved into intellectual depravities like: "Heil Hitler!" and "Crusader!" and "Christo-fascist!" and "Mass Murderer!" and "Prick!" and "Fucking asshole!" and "Anti-Arab/Brown-Skin Racist!" and so on.

Of course, as in the myth, just before Hope can fly out, the lid of Pandora's box is slammed shut (and hence the hopeless pessimism from that awful crowd).

Anyway, Republicus agrees with the administration's strategy that the best--and most humane--way to "win" the War on Terror (ultimately) is to work with and Westernize militantly Islamic cultures (to the extent possible) and have them become responsible members in good standing in the international community and honest brokers and players in the free market, and thus compelling them to marginalize--if not criminalize--the extremists who sabotage the progressive modernism and international intermingling.

Along the way, the United States will quite generously help them to adjust.

Towards that end, it is wagered that the mass of people in the Muslim world--given a real unfettered choice-- would vote for leadership that would work towards those goals (as translated down to the Arab Street as goals towards peace, civil rights, and a higher standard of living for all, as would emanate--and be enacted-- out of a reformed, constitutionally-underwritten political macrostructure driven by competitive, democratic politics).

However, given the crestfalling results of the recent democratic elections there, that could be a losing bet, and will ultimately determine the success or failure of Western intervention, and of the War on Terror itself.

Is the "Enemy" not, after all, radical extremist movements within otherwise civilized cultures, but a culturally endemic morbidity that psychologically enthralls the majorities of the civilian populations of the most troublesome nations and is extremely resistant to reformation?

If that's the case, democratization can offer no speedy remedy...

...although it does provide for more structural flexibility within an elastic Constitutional framework and a far greater opportunity for peaceful--albeit characteristically noisy-- popular change, however gradual.

Nevertheless, although it appears that there are many millions of Muslims around the world who subscribe to anything an Imam tells them, and many Imams who fervently promote Jihad, there already are plenty of other Muslim clerics and scholars who have denounced terrorism, and more seem to be stepping forward and slowly getting the coverage they deserve.

And the results of the democratic elections which had a backfiring effect were certainly not unanimous.

Thanks to the re-structuring which now prevents the underground imprisonment, torture, and execution of political opponents (though that form of politics is still evidently pursued by the Iraqi "Insurgents"), the losing parties of reform--both in the so-called Palestinian territory (come on; they're supposed to be Jordanians) and Iraq-- lived to politically fight another day and are still active in their respective nations and have indigenous bases of support to work with (as well as support from the West).

Also, there are several Muslim states that should serve as encouraging models by the virtues of their official denouncing of terrorism and demonstrable cooperation with the West in the War on Terror, their desire to live at peace with their neighbors, their cultural promotion of extra-Quranic education, and their ambition to participate in global free trade in an honorable pursuit of profit to feed their families and people and enrich--and modernize--their nation.

When the problem nations in the Middle East one day resemble such models in national character, the war is essentially won.

One such Islamic nation that has emerged into the modern world is the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

When President Bush made his "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" statement right after 9/11, the UAE stepped right up and said "We're with you!" and have since allowed our military ships and aircraft to be stationed there.


UAE is a committed ally in the war on terror. They are a key partner for our military in a critical region, and outside of our own country, Dubai services more of our military ships, than any country in the world.

President George W. Bush

That fact alone surely riles Jihadists mentalities--within as well as without the country-- and you can be sure that they're eager to disrupt the American-friendly government there via rabble-rousing, bombings, assassinations, and other obligatory forms of mayhem, but they haven't been able to, which says a lot for the effectiveness of the UAE's own anti-terrorist measures, the character of their culture, and their credibility as partners.

Recently, a UAE company, Dubai Ports World (DPW), had bought the rights to manage some terminal operations at six U.S. ports (after buying out the previous manager, the British Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Companyt, or P&O).

Contrary to any impression formed by the peddling of propaganda designed to tease out xenophobic, wartime paranoia (and not by the Bush Administration), DPW did not--and could not-- sinisterly "buy" its way into controlling ports of entry into the U.S. at such key locations as Philadelphia, Norfolk, Miami, New Orleans, Houston, Newark, and Baltimore.

The deal involved the management of some of the terminals in each of the ports.

Terminal operators are responsible for operating their particular terminal within the port. The terminal operator minds the area within the port that serves as a loading, unloading, or transfer point for the cargo. This includes storage and repair facilities and management offices. They can use their own cranes if they don't want to lease them from the port authority.

They're run by experienced professionals.

Well, you may be thinking, the Jihadist mind is not necessarily confined to the stereotypically-recognizable Medieaval-minded Ninja-like Jihadist, but can reside within the most aristocratic and educated professionals who know how to mingle in the commercial world and get their services hired in sensitive areas while patiently nursing a primary devotion to Jihad and ready to seize the opportunity to enable maximum carnage as their positioning allows, no?

Sure. And every once in a while ONE U.S. postal worker decides to go postal one fine day.

Or a U.S. marine decides to frag his Commander-in-Chief (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald).

Those are anomalies.

Well, aren't many of the shadowy, Ninja-like groups financed by "petro-dollars?"

Apparently, but what does that mean? It doesn't mean that they are directly paid by educated, oil industry executives but simply refers to their financing from somewhere within a country that has the oil industry as the main source of wealth (it certainly ain't tourism).

And such webbed connections are not ubiquitous and are usually spun by hostile regimes with unaccountability (not unlike oil tycoon Saddam's financial rewarding of Palestinian terrorists and his sponsoring of in-country terrorist training camps and very much like the oil-rich Iranians funding of the uber-terrorist group Hezbollah and their supplying of both terrorist manpower and equipment to Iraqi "insurgents").

To automatically assume that the UAE is--by default-- one of "them" is the result of the peddling of propaganda designed to exploit ignorance, tease out and flare xenophobic, wartime paranoia, and precisely those very misgivings.

Again, the strategy to win the War on Terror relies on established or cultivated trust in Arab partners--like those in the UAE (as well as in Iraq).

Well, still, one can ponder, it just takes one insider to allow, say, the import of a nuclear device, piece by piece...

Well here are some facts to consider before judging on the prudence-- or lack thereof--of allowing DPW to conduct business in American ports:

The Customs Border Protection (CBP) screens 100% of all cargo before it arrives in the U.S.-- using intelligence and cutting edge technologies.

CBP inspects all high-risk cargo.

The deal would not have changed the running operations of port security-- which itself had been criticized for inadequately searching through all the cargo coming in, but that has been addressed with the March 2005 Container Security Initiative (CSI).

DPW--like P&O --was already in compliance with current security programs, regulations and partnerships, including CBP, The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, The Business Alliance on Smuggling and Counterfeiting, The Megaports Initiative with the Department of Energy, and the CSI.

All P&O security arrangements would have remained intact, including cargo security cooperation, compliance with regulations regarding port facilities/terminals, foreign terminal operations within ports, and even the faces of the dockworkers would have remained familiar (Union rules and what have you--which, incidentally, and quite ironically, have raised the spectre of American mob involvement in both port operations and the recent political activity regarding them, putting the fear of the mob in the hearts of our brave congressman who think nothing of raising the righteous ire of the UAE and their supposed terrorist potentialities).

Dubai was the first Middle Eastern business entity to join the CSI.

As a result, CBP officers are working closely with Dubai Customs to screen containers destined for the U.S.

Cooperation with Dubai officials has been outstanding and a model for other operations within CSI ports.

Also, considering the size of our trade deficit, it doesn't hurt to get a sizable influx of foreign dough (they signed on to pay $6.8 billion) once in a while (especially from the Middle East which has recieved countless billions in aid and oil purchases).

And, once again, considering the strategy of winning the War on Terror, it doesn't hurt at all to nurture relations with Arab countries that want to do honest business with us.

But "Ah," it is suspected by 70% of Americans (according to a CBS news poll), "how 'honest' are they?"

The ruling emirs recognized the Taliban government, didn't they?

They blocked former-President Clinton's cruise missile hit on Bin Laden because he was in some hunting party with UAE royalty, didn't they?

Two of the 9/11 hijackers came from there, didn't they?

And they're not a democracy, but the very sort of unpopular regimes that are blamed--like Saddam's Baathist regime was-- for exacerbating the Islamist masses beneath their sway and inspiring Jihadism, are they not?

Yes to all of the above.

But they are not on the list of Terrorist Nations. How they feel they need to behave in their own neighborhood to maintain stable relations with their Muslim brethren-- and for their own security-- is their business.

What religion they choose to follow is their Right (as far as Americans should be concerned).

We are not waging war against Islam, as President Bush has repeatedly insisted.

We are waging war on Islamic terrorism.

The Anglican English were not fighting against Irish Catholicism, but the terrorism of the IRA.

The UAE have not been implicated in the sponsoring--or sanctioning, for that matter--of terrorist activity.

Furthermore, regarding the last question, there is very little to compare between the UAE regime and Saddam's brutal Baathist one.

They do qualify as one of those Muslim states that should serve as models by the virtues of their official denouncing of terrorism and demonstrable cooperation with the West in the War on Terror, their desire to live at peace with their neighbors, their cultural promotion of extra-Quranic education, and their ambition to participate in global free trade in an honorable pursuit of profit to feed their families and people and enrich--and modernize--their nation.

We need allies like them, and the greater share of interest they have in America's own interests, the better.

But there's that matter of the 70% of Americans who had strong misgivings...

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

That's Right. "Warrior."

Republicus must refer his readers to the blog of the It Girl-- the girl who's got it-- the Fair Irina (Miss Tsukerman to you, bub), at: (The Ignoble Experiment: Live Dangerously!).

A passionate young woman of unusually-high intelligence and quite serious (and often intensely so), the Fair Irina nevertheless has a playful side and entertains her readers with a cornucopia of light-hearted personality tests and invites anyone to indulge their curiousity.

Republicus took the latest one ( The Medieval Archetype Test) and was surprised at the results (which he is posting here as requested).

Republicus is sure his readers would agree that he is an artistic loverboy, and a magic man of sorts (some of the possible personality profiles), but he --also! heh--fits the profile of...


Warriors, like Kings, are often leaders because they possess the necessary mental abilities to hold such positions. Warriors see something they want and go for it. They don't hold back. They speak their mind. They don't sugarcoat. They don't fear. Like Lovers, they often have bad reps because they are misunderstood. They may come across as harsh, unforgiving, uncaring, or insensitive, but it is only because they are realistic and drive right to the core of the situation rather than beat around the bush.

The Warrior's complement is the thoughtful, artistic Lover

Well, okay. Republicus can live with that. ;)

Iran Plays Toughguy (Behind Bodyguards)

(AP Photo/Hans Punz)
(Associated Press )

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its disputed nuclear program.

"The United States has the power to cause harm and pain," Iran said a statement meant for delivery at the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation board meeting in Vienna on Iran's refusal to freeze uranium enrichment.

"But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll

note by Republicus: Whoa. Hold it right there. Did Iran just say "Bring it on?"

"Surely we are not naive about the United States' ... intention to flex muscles," said the statement. "But we also see the bone fractures underneath."

note by Republicus: Yes, Iran did say "Bring it on"!

This explains a lot about what has been going on (from the Iranian-backed violence in Iraq to the incitement of violence over the Dutch cartoons in the Arab street across the region): Iran thinks that the United States is "walking wounded"--with a fractured skeleton behind its rippling physique-- and is close to tipping.

It is wagering--like Bin Laden did--that the U.S. is "a paper tiger," if not by mettle (as Bin Laden misjudged), then, by now, of ability.

The highway of American history has plowed through and paved over the miscalculations of many sabre-rattlers as it stretches--untenuated--towards its manifest--and benevolent-- Destiny.

Others who lost the bet--to name a few-- include Great Britain, Mexico, Spain, the Kaiser's Germany, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Quadaffi's Libya, Noriega's Panama, the Soviet Union, Taliban Afghanistan, and Saddam's Iraq.

There are many reasons why Iran thinks that the United States may have reached a tipping point, and those will be discussed in a pending post, but one of the reasons that seems to encourage Iran's own gambit (ours is Iraq) is the belief--as pounded ad nauseum by antiwarriors for years and as supported somewhat in international polls-- that the U.S. is "hated" by the world over and is now isolated and, "in fact," attenuated, and ripe for plucking.

But that has always been nonsense. Such a mischaracterization--i.e. that President Bush is so wickedly inept (or incompetently evil) that the whole civilized world now hates us-- is simply part of the rabid Bush-Hating Left's WAY over-the-top propaganda that raises the volume of any sound made by the administration to a Spinal-Tapesque "11" (and hence every sound made cacophonically loud and unbearable).

Incidently, what helped fuel the charge that "Bush unconscionably offended our best allies and now the whole civilized world hates us" was, first of all, Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Treaty ("Ooo! How dare he?!?"), and then his head-butting and bowling over of the corrupt United Nations in order to get to Iraq.

Both of those "unilateral" actions angered--first and foremost-- anti-industrial/corporate environmentalists and those who desire globalization not with the United States at the vanguard (or at the very least as a primus inter pares), but under the auspices of the United Nations, which itself had been infiltrated by anti-Western Dictators and Jihadists, and was manipulated by such "allies" that were doing under-the-table business--in spite of the U.N.'s own resolutions!--with Saddam Hussein, namely: France and Germany.

Much of the Bush-Hating propaganda was rubber-stamped by those very camps (including anti-Western dictators and Jihadists).

But former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder-- a fierce critic of the Bush administration, an outspoken Hillary-supporter for '08, and one who warned the US to back away from the possibility of military action against Iran over its nuclear program-- was voted out of office (and is now a shill for an oil company!).

French President Chirac, for his part, threatened--on January 19-- to unilaterally launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests.

They've been Bushified.

They've come to their senses and are providing a unified front--with the United States at the vanguard, if not a primus inter pares-- against Iran's game of chicken.

France, Germany and Britain spearheaded the February 4 IAEA resolution and cleared rthe path for Security Council action, warning that what is known about Iran's enrichment program could represent only "the tip of the iceberg."

"Tip of the iceburg" is the same kind of talk you heard coming out of the Bush Administration vis-a-vis intelligence on Iraqi WMD.

They've come around, this time around.

"We believe that the time has ... come for the U.N. Security Council to reinforce the authority" (of the IAEA and its board), said a draft statement by the three European countries.

The shoe is on the other foot now (where it belongs), in regards to who's "isolated" and mistrusted by the civilized, Western world: It is Iran, not the United States.

Or is it?

Iran is not a mouse that's roaring, but the third-grade, playground punk that's behind two body-guarding sixth-graders:

"Stronger action may elude the council. Russia and China, which have Security Council vetoes, may use them to foil any resolution in that chamber that would meaningfully increase pressure on Iran, their political and economic ally." (GJ)

Interestingly, a re-alignment seems to be occuring that resembles the Cold War geopolitical configuration, with this difference: With an eye on a common rival for resources--i.e. the West-- and the long run, China and Russia may see the practicality of getting chummy (a relationship they failed to nurture and capitalize on during the Cold War) and counteracting what will be favored American access to Iraqi petroleum (and you can be damn sure that when Bush said that Iraqi oil will pay for the war, he meant it) by getting their very own pipelines into Iran.

Whatever is going on in the minds of geopolitical power-players, one thing is certain: Iran must not be allowed to cook uranium at this juncture.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Western Intellectual vs. Islamist Shiek

A Canadian buddy of Republicus (T.S.) is wont to find and share with your host excellent material you don't usually come across in the mainstream media.

(e.g. the sermon by the Palestinian shiek in the June 22, 2005 post "Saddam Had To Go" was provided by good T.S.)

On February 21, 2006, MEMRITV released a clip featuring an interview with Arab-American psychologist Wafa Sultan on Al-Jazeera TV.

During the interview, she debated Dr.Ibrahim Al-Khouli, who accused Sultan of being a "heretic" for attacking current aspects of Islamic society. Republicus has excerpts of that here.

Following that are a few excerpts from a debate with one Bin Mohammad that aired on Al-Jazeera TV on July 26, 2005.

The exchanges are very interesting and informative. It smashes some stereotypes while re-enforcing others.

What struck Republicus about Bin Muhammad's arguments were how uncannily similar they are to the "antiwar," Blame-America, Bush-hating Left's, from the hypocritical projections and inversions to the bewailing of the world's victimization at the hands of "imperial" America (with the obligatory reminders of the fate of the Native Americans, and the slavery of Africans as the proof in the pudding).

Republicus has noted the parallels between the antiwar rhetoric and the anti-American grievances of terrorists in past posts and has suggested a nexus between the two, i.e. that the Bush/America-hating, antiwar Leftists is reading from the same script that the Jihadists are reading from.

You decide:

Wafa Sultan: The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.


Host: I understand from your words that what is happening today is a clash between the culture of the West, and the backwardness and ignorance of the Muslims?

Wafa Sultan: Yes, that is what I mean.


Host: Who came up with the concept of a clash of civilizations? Was it not Samuel Huntington? It was not bin Laden. I would like to discuss this issue, if you don't mind...

Wafa Sultan: The Muslims are the ones who began using this expression. The Muslims are the ones who began the clash of civilizations. The Prophet of Islam said: "I was ordered to fight the people until they believe in Allah and His Messenger." When the Muslims divided the people into Muslims and non-Muslims, and called to fight the others until they believe in what they themselves believe, they started this clash, and began this war. In order to start this war, they must reexamine their Islamic books and curricula, which are full of calls for takfir and fighting the infidels.

My colleague has said that he never offends other people's beliefs. What civilization on the face of this earth allows him to call other people by names that they did not choose for themselves? Once, he calls them Ahl Al-Dhimma; another time he calls them the "People of the Book"; and yet another time he compares them to apes and pigs, or he calls the Christians "those who incur Allah's wrath." Who told you that they are 'People of the Book?' They are not the People of the Book, they are people of many books. All the useful scientific books that you have today are theirs, the fruit of their free and creative thinking. What gives you the right to call them "those who incur Allah's wrath," or "those who have gone astray," and then come here and say that your religion commands you to refrain from offending the beliefs of others?


I am not a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew. I am a secular human being. I do not believe in the supernatural, but I respect others' right to believe in it.

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: Are you a heretic?

Wafa Sultan: You can say whatever you like. I am a secular human being who does not believe in the supernatural...

Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli: If you are a heretic, there is no point in rebuking you, since you have blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran...

Wafa Sultan: These are personal matters that do not concern you."


Brother, you can believe in stones, as long as you don't throw them at me. You are free to worship whoever you want, but other people's beliefs are not your concern, whether they believe that the Messiah is God, son of Mary, or that Satan is God, son of Mary. Let people have their beliefs.


The Jews have come from the tragedy [of the Holocaust], and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling. Humanity owes most of the discoveries and science of the 19th and 20th centuries to Jewish scientists. Fifteen million people, scattered throughout the world, united and won their rights through work and knowledge. We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people. The Muslims turned three Buddha statues into rubble. We have not seen a single Buddhist burn down a mosque, kill a Muslim, or burn down an embassy. Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people, and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them.

Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up? How and why does he blow himself up in a bus full of innocent passengers?

In our countries, religion is the sole source of education, and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched. He was not born a terrorist, and did not become a terrorist overnight. Islamic teachings played a role in weaving his ideological fabric, thread by thread, and did not allow other sources - I am referring to scientific sources - to play a role. It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity. It was not [the terrorist] who distorted the religious teachings and misunderstood them, as some ignorant people claim.

When you recite to a child still in his early years the verse "They will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off" - regardless of this verse's interpretation, and regardless of the reasons it was conveyed or its time - you have made the first step towards creating a great terrorist...


Bin Muhammad: The guest from America asked how a young man could blow up a bus. If only she had asked how a president could blow up a peaceful nation in Iraq. How does a president help the arch-killer of occupied Palestine? Why doesn't she ask where Hitler was brought up - Hitler, who murdered 50 million innocent people? Why doesn't she ask where the people who dropped two atom bombs on Japan were educated? Who killed three million innocent Vietnamese? Who annihilated the Indians? Who has maintained imperialism to this day? Who waged the Spanish civil war, which exacted a toll of 600,000 in 36 months? Why don't we ask these questions? Who has over 15,000 nuclear warheads - Muslims or the non-Muslims? The Muslims or the Americans? The Muslims or the Europeans? We want an answer. Where was Bush educated - if education is really what makes a person a criminal?


Wafa Sultan: Murder is terrorism regardless of time or place, but when it is committed as a decree from Allah, this is another matter...


The Crusader wars about which the professor is talking - these wars came after the Islamic religious teachings, and as a response to these teachings. This is the law of action and reaction. The Islamic religious teachings have incited to the rejection of the other, to the denial of the other, and to the killing of the other. Have they not incited to the killing of Jews and Christians? If we had heard that a tribe in a distant corner of China has a holy book and religious teachings calling to kill Muslims - would the Muslims stand idly by in the face of such teachings?

The Crusader wars came after these Islamic religious teachings. When these Islamic teachings were delivered, America did not exist on the face of the earth, nor was Israel in Palestine...

Why doesn't he talk about the Muslim conquests that preceded all the wars he is talking about? Why doesn't he mention that when Tariq bin Ziyyad entered Andalusia with his armies, he said to his people: "The sea is behind you, and the enemy is in front?" How can you storm a peaceful country, and consider all its peaceful inhabitants to be your enemies, merely because you have the right to spread your religion? Should the religion be spread by the sword and through fighting?


Bin Muhammad: Who invented slavery in recent centuries? Who colonized the other - us or them? Did Algeria colonize France, or vice versa? Did Egypt colonize England, or vice versa? We are the victims...


I am not saying that killing innocent people is nice. I say that all innocent people should be protected. But at the same time, we must start with the innocent among the Muslims. There are millions of innocent people among us, while the innocent among you - and innocent they are - number only dozens, hundreds, or thousands, at the most...


Wafa Sultan: Can you explain to me the killing of 100,000 children, women, and men in Algeria, using the most abominable killing methods? Can you explain to me the killing of 15,000 Syrian civilians? Can you explain to me the abominable crime in the military artillery school in Aleppo? Can you explain the crime in Al-Asbaqiya neighborhood of Damascus, Syria? Can you explain the attack of the terrorists on the peaceful village of Al-Kisheh in Upper Egypt, and the massacre of 21 Coptic peasants? Can you explain to me what is going on in Indonesia, Turkey, and Egypt, even though these are Islamic countries which opposed the American intervention in Iraq, and which don't have armies in Iraq, yet were not spared by the terrorists? Can you explain these phenomena, which took place in Arab countries? Was all this revenge on America or Israel? Or were they merely to satisfy bestial wild instincts aroused in them by religious teachings, which incite to rejection of the other, to the killing of the other, and to the denial of the other. When Saddam Hussein buried 300,000 Shi'ites and Kurds alive, we did not hear a single Muslim protesting. Your silence served to acknowledge the legitimacy of these killings, didn't it?


What do you want from me? To speak evil of American society? I've never said that America is the eternal city of Plato, but I did say it was the eternal city of Wafa Sultan. The idealism of American society was enough to allow me to realize my humanity. I came to this country with fear.

Bin Muhammad: Along with the Indians? Along with the Indians? What was left of the Indians? What do you have to say about the Indians?

Wafa Sultan: Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492. America was founded in 1776, approximately 300 years later. You cannot blame America - as a constitution, a regime, and a state - for killing the Indians.

Monday, March 06, 2006

The Pro-Life Gauntlet Is Thrown Down

Monday, March 06, 2006

Associated Press

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds on Monday signed into law a bill banning nearly all abortions, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

Sunday, March 05, 2006

And Weaver Makes Three

Dennis Weaver, 6/4/1924-2/24/2006

Note: Republicus heard the news of Dennis Weaver's passing the day after he posted his farewell to Don Knotts and Darren Mcgavin in the February 26 post "Thank You, And Farewell," but Republicus made the editorial decision to let it go.

He felt that the posting of two popularly noteworthy deaths in one post followed by yet another would have made the vivacious blog begin to resemble an obituary column and inflict it with a somberness that would create too much drag as your bouyant host strives to lift the spirits of his people and dispel the melancholia of February during wartime (a war that has enough of its own bodycounts to overcome the impersonal anonymity of them).

However, while taking a Sunday morning stroll over to Amy's blog ( ), Republicus was pleasantly surprised to see that the lady also posted a tribute to Mr. Knotts and Mr. McGavin (in her February 27 post "You'll Shoot Your Eye Out").

An apparently left-leaning moderate on the same wavelength as Republicus, you ask?

Well what can you expect?

She was raised by Republicans. ;)

Anyway, in her commentary section, adena said: "You ever notice how famous people die in Threes? I'm just waiting for the 3rd."

And then Random Vixen said: "Dennis Weaver from Gunsmoke just dropped dead. There's the 3rd. "

Yes. And Republicus felt guilty for choosing to stay silent on his passing, and will now give the man his due:

Dennis Weaver was "an actor with a Midwestern twang who played stiff-legged Chester the deputy on 'Gunsmoke' and the cowboy cop hero in 'McCloud.'

He also shared the screen with a 600-pound black bear on 'Gentle Ben' and faced down a murderous big-rig in the early Spielberg movie Duel.

He excelled in high-school drama and athletics, and served in the Navy during World War II.

After the war, he enrolled at the University of Oklahoma and nearly qualified for the Olympic decathlon.

He later studied at the Actors Studio in New York.

Dennis Weaver died from complications of cancer at his home in Ridgway, in southwestern Colorado.

He was 81.