Bridges of Islam County: A Love Story

Gee, I wonder what's on television today. I'd like to learn all about Islam. I hear that it's the Religion of Peace. Hmmm. Let's see, there's the multi-culti station called Bridges, all about mutual understanding and how nice is Islam. That should perk me up and make me feel all worm and furry about Islam.

Let's click here to see what's up: http://www.bridgestv.com/

"This website is temporarily down for maintenance."

Oh heckeroonies! I remember now. The owner just beheaded his wife.

Looks like the Islamic Cooking Show for this guy. "Halal butchering." Sounds delightful.

Walk on the Wild Side: Vancouver.

Here's the city at it's most raw, most dangerous, most thrilling. For this I escaped the idiocy of rural living. I took a walk, and this is what I saw.

In my search for the soul of the city, I saw school busses playing hookey.


I saw a warehouse in which boxes and bales and barrels brought from all points of the world came to rest on shelves so men could break them down into parts and parcels to mete out to the masses, goods and favors.

I delved deep into the vortex of the city, finding in my journey an abandoned cement mixer.

This high wuthering height of Humanness, so far from the storm blasted heath of my youth, it makes me proud that we withstand.

It's adventurous, it's dangerous, its a Dag Day in the big city, I do think so.

The Brilliance of Islam

Modernity gives the world the automobile, and the Jihadi gives the world the car bomb.

U B U 2 U

Even now in the middle of a very long and eccentric life I find myself sometimes wincing and grimacing over the unbidden rise of memories from random experiences that just won't go away in spite of whatever discipline I use to keep them away. Some ugly memories are scars that won't fade. One such nasty memory is of a repulsive young woman at a dance hall whose tee-shirt bore the caption: "I wouldn't wanna be you."

I can appreciate the idea of not wanting to be you. Regardless of who I might be, I'd rather be me than not. I don't want to be you. Fair enough. But I don't want you not to be you. Islam, for all its obvious faults, at least understands that no one is ever going to be the Perfect Man, he being, according to Islam, Mohammed, not to be repeated, only imitated. Islam, for all its totalitarianism, doesn't attempt to make anyone into the kind of person "we all should be." Islam settles for orthopraxy, for outward ritual behaviour. For the totalitarian Leftist, this is not enough. He not only rejects you as you but demands that you conform to his vision of the Ideal Man as you. It's one thing not to want to be me; but it is something creepy to not want me to be me. That's me The Individualist writing. I value Privacy. Muslims and the Left value Publicity. No, I wouldn't want to be you, but that's not a problem for me. It is a problem for the communitarian.

For the communitarian, the idea of Another not being a conformist in all ways, body, mind and soul, is an outrage against Nature. Communitarians, Statists, Muslims, collectivists of all sorts, they hate individuals and individualism. Usually this is of no concern to most of us. Unfortunately, there is a growing movement of middle-aged hippies in government and areas of social control, e.g our universities, who are fanatical in their drive to make all others "not themselves." We must all be One.
I'm rereading Matthew Arnold today. I read Arnold as a young man, ( not, at the time, realizing that in the doing I was preparing myself for marriage in middle-age,) from a sense of duty rather than passion. Today, for me, he raises the question of the benefits of Culture, by which he means High Culture of the mid-Victorian era. He writes of others as in need of the education they lack, an education which makes their philistine lives "hole and corner." Like most people, he doesn't like people not like himself. He writes of others: "Consider these people, then, their way of life, their habits, their manners, the very tones of their voice; look at them attentively; observe the literature they read, the things which give them pleasure, the words which come from their mouths, the thoughts which make the furniture of their minds; would any amount of wealth be worth having with the condition that one was to become just like these people by having it?"1.

Good grief! Would I want to be a man like him? Not for all the money on Earth. Wouldn't even want to be Elvis. Nor does Arnold, for all his obnoxious snobbery, intend anyone to think others should be him or like him. In that he is ultimately far superior to the average Leftist. Arnold's snobbery begins and ends with himself. He did not kill anyone in a futile and hubristic attempt to make a New Man. Such cannot be said of the Death Hippies who today rule our many nations of Modernity, lands of Sweetness and Light, where ignorant Leftards clash on sight.

Who then is the Humanist? He who doesn't want to be you is probably fine with not being you. He who doesn't like you is probably fine with that too. It is he who doesn't want you to be you who is the man we must not tolerate. I wouldn't be someone else for all the money on Earth. Nor would I want to make another not himself even if that someone is someone I'd gladly hang from a lamp-post. People have rights, innately, and the most basic right is to be their own Lords. Sometimes others are so disgusting I can't shake the horror of the vision of them; but that's my problem, not theirs. I can live with it. Can our collectivist Culture Curators? Can we live with them?

1. Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1869; rpt. revised 1933 and19 50; p. 52.

In a famous speech in 1961, Che Guevara denounced the very "spirit of rebellion" as "reprehensible."

"Youth must refrain from ungrateful questioning of governmental mandates" commanded Guevara. "Instead, they must dedicate themselves to study, work, and military service." And woe to those youths "who stayed up late at might and thus reported to work [government forced-labor] tardily."

"Youth," wrote Guevara, "should learn to think and act as a mass." "Those who chose their own path" [...] were denounced as worthless "lumpen" and "delinquents." In his famous speech Che Guevara even vowed, "to make individualism disappear from Cuba! It is criminal to think of individuals!"
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/arti...

Day Against Anti-Semitism and Terrorism (DAAT): April 19

We've considered organizing a demonstration in support of Geert Wilders of the Netherlands to take place in late April of 2009 to make clear that the Modernist element of our nations are determined not to allow the further erosion of our civil liberties. Below we see that Howard Rotberg is organizing a demonstration against jihad and Left dhimmi fascist anti-Semitism on 19 April 2009. These issues are one and the same. So too are numerous other issues that relate to fascist encroachments into the world of Modernity. Below is Howard's call, as printed by Truepeers at Covenant Zone, for a demonstration. We'll follow this with up-dates as they progress:

Day Against Anti-Semitism and Terrorism (DAAT): April 19: March for Israel and Freedom: Change the narrative on the streets

Important news from Howard:
Day Against Anti-Semitism and Terrorism (DAAT) - April 19, 2009 « Howard Rotberg: Second Generation Radical:

This year Yom HaShoah, or Holocaust Remembrance Day, falls on April 21, 2009.

The obscenity of Durban II - a hatefest of anti-Semitism in the guise of an anti-racism conference is scheduled right on Yom HaShoah, taking place from Aprtil 20 to 24 in Geneva.

I wrote about Durban I in my novel The Second Catastrophe and compared it, in its historical significance to the Wansee Conference during the Shoah.

There has been a severe increase in Islamic anti-Semitism following Durban I, which of course helped legitimize it.

Recent marches, supposedly in protest of the Gaza War have shown the anti-Semitic taunts, slogans and signs by the Muslim and leftist participants.

The internet is full of videos, and articles, about the horrible things being said and shouted at Jews, and the inevitable spill over into violent attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions.

The United Nations, of course, is not a solution, but in fact is a major part of the problem.

European nations, so disgraced by their actions and non-actions during the Shoah, today with Muslim populations ranging from 5% to 40%, see nothing wrong with the most hateful anti-Jewish speech and actions emanating from disaffected demographics, both Muslim and non-Muslim.

It is clear that the greater the Muslim population is in Europe, the more hostile life becomes for Jews. Many French Jews are convinced it is time to leave. English Jews are frightened.

As Barack Obama says one of the main themes of his Presidency will be to show the Islamic world how much America "respects" it and wants a "partnership", now is the time for Jews and their friends, worldwide, to stand up and say no to respect of anti-Semitic attitudes and actions. The Holocaust denial, and the use of Arab education systems, media and clergy to spread anti-Jewish sentiment is unacceptable.

We must demonstrate our view that this is unacceptable.

We must demonstrate on April 19, 2009, and show the world that we support the right of Israel to live in peace and not be threatened with genocide by Iran or its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah.

We must demonstrate and show Obama that respect is given to those who "earn" respect; otherwise the attempts at respect are misinterpreted as weakness and submission to the alien values of Islamist supremacy.

This year as Iran closes in on the completion of its development of nuclear weapons that it has pledged to use against Israel, and as Israel is the one country in the world that is chastened for defending its citizens against terrorism and bombing directed solely at civilians, it is time to ACT!

Our intentiion is to mobilize hundreds of thousands of people world wide to take to the streets in solidarity with the world's Jews including the nearly six million Jews of Israel. We must not allow another six million to perish.

We shall soon have a web site up and running devoted to the organization of this important event. We solicit the support of every human being who recognizes that the Jews of this world have always sought to improve this world. The contributions of the Jews to this world are out of all proportion to our numbers.

Now is the time to demonstrate, before it is too late.

NEVER AGAIN means that at the very least we should march on April 19th and show the strength of our numbers and the strength of our morality.

Moral equivalency, cultural relativism, and political correctness is EVIL. The world must choose - life over death, peaceful co-existence over genocide, goodness over evil.

April 19th is the time that the average Canadian and American can stand up for what is right and voice his or her displeasure with what is so obviously wrong. We are not "racist" in our attitudes on Muslims, but neither are we so racist against Jews that we shall tolerate blatant acts of anti-Semitism and incitement by Muslims.

Acts by a liberal democracy to protect its civilians from murder by totalitarian entities are NOT equivalent to acts by totalitarians against their own people and neighbouring civilians. Those who claim such equivalency are perverse.

To the Muslims --come join us in our peaceful country, but only if you reject violence and racism against Jews, only if you reject terrorism and suicide bombing, and only if you can stand strong against the minority in your religion that is seeking to impose a fundamentalist and supremacist agenda to defeat Western liberalism, instead of participating in it.

March with us in the most important demonstration ever to ensure that our children and grandchildren will live in freedom and dignity.

These demonstrations are NOT against individual Muslims but only against totalitarian entities in the Middle East, and those confused Muslim spokesmen in North America who seek to impose alien values on a liberal democratic society.

Howard also notes:

Farewell, dear readers, as I leave you with nearly 170 posts from last August, many containing essays of mine.

The shunning of my work by the mainstream Jewish organizations continues.

The situation for Jews continues to deteriorate. I somewhat naively felt that my writing and my ideas could make a small difference in this terrible world.

But in our world, it is marketing, it is images, it is sound bites, it is PR that rules....

And so, as I take up the position as Chairman of the April 19, 2009 Day Against Anti-Semitism and Terrorism, I feel that I moving on to another stage in the battle; and make no mistake, a battle it is.

We shall take to the streets; we shall be peaceful, we shall be non-racist, we shall be respectful of all laws and regulations, but we shall be in the public eye, we shall be in the "face" of the public; and we shall get our message across - anti-Semitism in the guise of anti-Israelism is wrong and is unacceptable. Those who use double standards against Israel will be exposed. Those who think that freedom of speech is only a one-way road will be overcome; those who come to America to create sharia law and isolation and ghettos of jihadist militancy shall be addressed.

This is the natural evolution of my thinking as a Second Generation Radical.

Never again.

Reprinted from Truepeers at Covenant Zone.

Diane Francis, National Pravda

I was buying a copy of Pravda one morning and as I took out my money to pay for it, an old peasant woman leaned over and spat on my paper. I tried to swap it for a clean copy but the shop clerk wasn't having any of that. I was stuck with it.

Diane Francis, "Newspapers: rescue us too," National Post. 29 Jan. 2009.

[....]

The media business model has been imploding globally and the fallout has grave ramifications for democracy, business transparency and, selfishly, grave impacts for those like me who practice journalism.

The old model has been that news, both print and broadcast, is subsidized by advertisers who want to peddle their wares to our readers or viewers. Now the audience is fragmented across the Internet and other media platforms, a negative factor in addition to the current credit crunch.

Every network and newspaper in the world is suffering. So we all are casting about for a better business model while fighting to keep our audiences and advertisers happy.
[....]

While over-stated, there is some concern in journalistic quarters, such as those I occupy, about this higher purpose or the protection of democratic freedoms.

There is some validity to this anxiety. Frankly, specialty channels, reality TV and the blogosphere are very entertaining but they are hardly bastions of our freedoms, values nor are they purveyors of facts that have been well-tested and curated by professional content-providers who occupy editors' and producers' chairs.

All of which has led me to conclude that perhaps, for a change, France may have come up with the absolutely best business model for my business: Nicolas Sarkozy has given France's newspapers a €600 million subsidy over three years—including a free subscription for every 18-year-old Frenchman—on top of the €280 per year it gives them now. He's also directed governments to step up their advertising.

Britain is considering similar measures for regional papers and there's talk even in the U.S. Meanwhile, Canadian taxpayers support the CBC and perhaps should prop the rest of us up too.

Just kidding? Only sort of.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/francis/default.aspx

Somehow someone who wrote this opinion piece above seems to like the idea of a hostile public being forced to pay for state-sponsored propaganda. Nice trick if one can get away with it. Ah, some do. As Ms. Francis points out, it happens even in Canada. Here's my point: If I have to buy the Canadian version of Pravda, please don't spit on it. I use it wrap my lunch in.

Obama-Rama: Come Moonwalk with Me

Obama is our First! Black! President! That is so special. I feel special. Oh, heck, I'm just going to say it right out loud, even if people look at me funny: "We're all special now." There. I wrote it down and I feel empowered. I no longer see myself as a Black Woman in a White Man's world. I see myself as a poverty-stricken version of Oprah! I know that you too are wondering, "Huh?" Yes, I know, but it's not a matter of making sense. It's how you feel about yourself, and I mean deep down. I feel ... empowered. It's all thanks to watching Obama-Rama. I can now walk through a burning bakery without stopping to fear the calories in a sack of doughnuts. I love myself and my new-found power to be just me, 'cause I'm special. And so are you. So is Obama. He's the One. Let us moonwalk with him.

Obama said.... Well, I don't really know what he said. It's not important, though, is it? He's so cool. He inspires me.

When I think of Obama, I feel the power. That makes me special. I feel like a twelve year old with a forged voter card in an ACORN office. I feel like I can do anything. I fell sharing and caring and stuff.

No; actually, I feel like Obama, feel like clenching my fits and telling all the wankers on Earth who voted for me to give me tons more money and more adulation, since the last wave has left me feeling a little under-loved. I feel like feeling the power to crush the skulls of those who didn't vote for me. I feel like walking all over people who like Sarah Palin. I feel inspired. It's all due to Obama. He transcended everything. He could pump the air with his fists! So could YOU!

Yes, You Can!

You just have to BELIEVE!

Put aside all that negative energy and FEEL THE POWER.

Power to Obama. He's the one. You are the other one.

Obama, Obama, fee fie foe fama.

Obama!

Banana famma, fee fie foe famma.

Obama-rama!

Is it any wonder He can stop the oceans from rising? He's the One.

Come Moonwalk with me. Come moonwalk with Obama.

He's BAD!

Because I'm bad, I'm President bad.
Cause I run UPT.
(Bad bad-really, really bad)
You know I'm bad, I'm President bad.
You know it.
(Bad bad-really, really bad)
You know I'm bad, I'm President bad.
Cause I run UPT, you know.
(Bad bad-really, really bad)
And the whole world has to
answer right now
Just to tell you once again,
Who's bad...

Well, you know who's bad. Obama Bad.

I never liked Obama till I realized he will be a Bad President. Now I get it. Now I feel special. We can transcend everything together.

I'm only worried about one thing, and that is the toll it'll take on Obama and his major Rama. The job tends to age men rapidly. But I think Obama is so special that he'll look just great in spite of my worries. I think he can transcend Race and Sex and Nature. He can be the man he wants to be. He'll look fine. And so will the nation.

Thanks, Obama. We love you!

A gentle reminder that my book, An Occasional Walker, is available at the link here:

http://www.amazon.com/Occasional-Walker-D-W/dp/0987761501/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331063095&sr=1-1

And here are some reviews and comments on said book:

http://nodhimmitude.blogspot.com/2012/04/dagness-at-noon.html

Luck of the Handsome Draw

Writing or speaking ill of Osama Barka is a dangerous occupation in this day and time. Luckily, few people are inclined to add any criticism of the man to the world's media. Otherwise, our prisons and cemeteries would be over-flowing. Can't have that.

Thomas Lifson, "Fawning media embarrasses itself," American Thinker. Jan. 2009

New US President Barack Obama is too good-looking to provide inspiration for cartoons in the same way former president George W Bush served as fodder for some of their most biting commentary, a caricaturist says.

"It's never a gift for a caricaturist to draw a handsome man," said Pierre Kroll, from Belgium, which prides itself on its comic book culture, including Tintin.

Full comment at: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/fawning_media_embarrasses_itse.html

Someone forgot to let people know that his wife is too good-looking to caricature. No doubt word will get out soon.

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Mumbai Massacre

For three days in late November, 2008, Muslims terrorists murdered Indians in Bombay with near impunity, the Indian forces incompetent and seemingly unmotivated enough to bring this outrage to a full stop. Ten well-trained Islamic commandos attacked the people of one of India's largest cities, and in fact, one of the world's largest cities, ten men, and they killed hundreds, taking time to torture some of them. Ten killers in a city of many millions. Ten men. Ten Muslims. Ten commandos. It illustrates the old saw," Show me one thousand men who are not afraid to die, and I will show you one hundred men who will rule the world."

There was no attempted take-over to the Indian government in the attack on Bombay. In many ways it had nothing to do with killing people either. The attack wasn't even to prove in the objective world that Islam can kill at will. This attack was more than anything else a show of Indian humiliation. It showed the world, particularly the Muslim world, and specifically the Muslims of Pakistan, that the Indian people, the Hindu people, are powerless to stop a grand attack on Hindus by fewer than a dozen Muslims. The exercise proved to the Muslim world, to Pakistani Muslims, that Hindu Indians are contemptible beings who can be killed without fear of retribution. It might not be the final lesson to be learned from this incident. That we shall see in the course of time.

When people claim that not all Muslims are terrorists, (even though nearly all terrorism is Islam-motivated today,) what, if anything, does it mean? Does it mean that most Muslims are not involved in or complicit in jihad? Or does it mean that bin Laden is correct by implication about Muslims when he states that to vote for American politicians is to negate ones neutrality? Does it mean that by contributing to the tax-base of a military nation that supplies a nation's military ventures that one is complicit in military actions that nation commits? And if so? If passive support of a cause is still support, is one supportive? And what of it? Here's what bin Laden has to contribute:

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us .... So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.

(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.

(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

Osama bin Laden, "Letter to America: Why we are fighting you."

Why are Muslims world-wide fighting the world-at-large? Could it be that they are motivated to fight? Motivated by the poligion of Islam? What would make that strange?

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty Allah, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah." [Qu'ran, 9:36]

Osama bin Laden, "Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders," World Islamic Front Statement. 23 February 1998.

According to orthodox Islam as set out by Mohammed in the Qu'ran, by ibn Ishaq in the Sira, and Bukhari, et al, in the ahadith, and according to the tradition of the four mahadab of accepted Sunni scholars for over 1,000 years, jihad is essential for the right practice of Islam. Against whom? Against all. For the Hindu, then, it's a question of complicity. It's also a matter of passivity. Even trained professionals are useless in combat if they have no motivation. Muslims are motivated. Hindus? In the first of the following pieces we see ineptitude on the part of Indian paramilitary officials. Are they so excluded from the system of which they are ostensible parts that they do not have even the minimal concerns of average citizens? Are the state's armed forces so alienated from the state as employees that they have no interest even in the security of their own lives? If so, in what way are they responsible for anything beyond feeding themselves? Bin Laden and his fellow jihadis kill them regardless.

While searching through a mound of about 150 bags, which police believed were left by the dozens of victims in the Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus station, an officer found a suspicious-looking bag and called the bomb squad, said Assistant Commissioner of Police Bapu Domre. Inside were two 8.8-pound (4-kilogram) bombs, which were taken away and safely detonated, he said.

After the attacks [i.e. four days later], police found unexploded bombs at several of the sites, including two luxury hotels and a Jewish center.

It was not immediately clear why the bags at the station were not examined earlier. The station, which serves hundreds of thousands of commuters, was declared safe and reopened hours after the attack.

The discovery has added to increasing accusations that India's security forces missed warnings and bungled its response to the Nov. 26-29 attacks.

Indian navy chief Sureesh Mehta has called the response to the attacks "a systemic failure." The country's top law enforcement official has resigned amid criticism that the 10 gunmen appeared better coordinated and better armed than police in Mumbai
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hz0C0SXcxgP0NxzlqGA_EI57FBkQD94RM9E80

I raise this in light of the Hindu nationalist entities such as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS.) If the Hindu populace is so alienated by political acts from the natural state, do the people have any legitimate reason to retain a loyalty to the Brahmin class of elitist rulers. Obviously, if this is really the case, few other than the Brahmins would care. Of those few?

According to bin Laden and what he cites as canonical Islamic fiqh, as legitimate Islamic jurisprudence, unassailable according to majority traditional Islam throughout Islamic history, all kuffar, and especially polytheists, mushrikin, such as Hindus, are culpable in the crime of kufr. It is imperative, fard ayn, upon the practicing orthodox Muslim to either kill or convert the polytheist. If it is imperative for Muslims, what imperative do Hindus face when they don't have the motivation to defend themselves from death at the hands of Muslims? If the Brahmins of the Indian elite have so demoralized and emasculated the Hindu people, and if they are still culpable for supporting the non-Islamic state, as bin Laden claims, then what are they to do? Must they simply wander around listless and passive till they are converted or killed?

Mumbai photographer: I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera. Armed police would not fire back

Jerome Taylor talks to the photographer whose picture went around the world

Saturday, 29 November 2008

It is the photograph that has dominated the world's front pages, casting an astonishing light on the fresh-faced killers who brought terror to the heart of India's most vibrant city. Now it can be revealed how the astonishing picture came to be taken by a newspaper photographer who hid inside a train carriage as gunfire erupted all around him.

Sebastian D'Souza, a picture editor at the Mumbai Mirror, whose offices are just opposite the city's Chhatrapati Shivaji station, heard the gunfire erupt and ran towards the terminus. "I ran into the first carriage of one of the trains on the platform to try and get a shot but couldn't get a good angle, so I moved to the second carriage and waited for the gunmen to walk by," he said. "They were shooting from waist height and fired at anything that moved. I briefly had time to take a couple of frames using a telephoto lens. I think they saw me taking photographs but they didn't seem to care."

The gunmen were terrifyingly professional, making sure at least one of them was able to fire their rifle while the other reloaded. By the time he managed to capture the killer on camera, Mr D'Souza had already seen two gunmen calmly stroll across the station concourse shooting both civilians and policemen, many of whom, he said, were armed but did not fire back. "I first saw the gunmen outside the station," Mr D'Souza said. "With their rucksacks and Western clothes they looked like backpackers, not terrorists, but they were very heavily armed and clearly knew how to use their rifles.

"Towards the station entrance, there are a number of bookshops and one of the bookstore owners was trying to close his shop," he recalled. "The gunmen opened fire and the shopkeeper fell down."

But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."

As the gunmen fired at policemen taking cover across the street, Mr D'Souza realised a train was pulling into the station unaware of the horror within. "I couldn't believe it. We rushed to the platform and told everyone to head towards the back of the station. Those who were older and couldn't run, we told them to stay put."

The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article14086308.ece

Most people do what most people do. Most people do so passively. We see in the Bombay incident that even the police are passive. We see too that ten motivated and highly trained men can effectively massacre hundreds of people in a major world city with near impunity for three days when they are pitted against hundreds or thousands of ill-trained and unmotivated opponents.

Jeff Brown emails:

Having a lot of people in a group carrying would increase the odds of having an armed person who is willing to engage the terrorists. This would not only provide resistance but also spur others, i.e., frozen police officers, to engage. In an emergency, the first person to engage is the catalyst to move the crowd from onlookers frozen by indecision to action, either to provide assistance or in situation such as Mumbai, to confront.

[....]

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/28582/

When we mention the RSS we hear the usual tiresome canard, "They're all fascists." A pointless and silly complaint. The Hindu nationalist parties are the few activist resistance movements on the sub-continent that comprise non-Muslims. They are, in proportion to the population, a small membership. How many activists can we expect from a Hindu nationalist movement in conflict with the genocidal movement of Islam?

Finally, below, I reprise an old piece that is still relevant today.

We mostly scoff at "arm-chair warriors," sloughing them off as day-dreamers and fools. We read of the brave exploits they would perform if only they could. I'd like to look briefly at those who are out of the arm-chair and in the position to act, who are required to act.

Knowing where bin Laden is will not do us any good at all unless we have men and women who will take it upon themselves to rid us of that beast. And who will those men and women be? Not you or I, I'm sorry to say. Those who will act will be the few of the few. Aside from my anecdotal experiences which back up the following, I'll rely here on the published work of Joanna Bourke, An Intimate History of Killing. London: Granta, 1999. (For further information on this topic one may go to Google: "Killology.")

Most soldiers do not kill their enemies. They don't generally even fire their weapons.

"...no matter how thorough the training, it still failed to enable most combatants to fight. During the First World War, it was commonly believed that only 10 per cent of soldiers could be called brave and many military commentators deplored the 'live and let live' principle. [Bourke: p.73.]

During the Second World War,... no more than 15 per cent of men had actually fired at enemy positions or personnel...it would have been possible for 80 per cent of the men to have fired and nearly all men were (at some stage) within firing distance of the enemy. To be counted as a 'firer,' a man would only have had to fire his weapon or lob a grenade 'roughly in the direction of the enemy' once or twice." [Bourke: p.75.]

For all the writing back and forth here about how we are or are not violent and fascistic and hate-filled, when the crunch comes, few if any of us would act any differently in the face of our enemies than did soldiers in WW1, WW2, and the war in Viet Nam, as covered in the book above.

What does this say about us as anti-jihadists? I'll venture that of the 15 per cent of us who think of ourselves as badass guys only 15 per cent of those would ever pull the trigger on bin Laden. And ask yourselves just how many rounds would actually hit the man? We leave these things to professionals for good reason: most of us couldn't shoot a man face-to-face even if he were shooting at us.

"Marshall found that there were some men who identified targets yet did not shoot, and there were other men who were under attack yet did not attempt to use the weapons to retaliate or in self protection. Furthermore, passive troops were not 'green' troops." [Bourke: p. 76.]

The most remarkable thing about the IDF wasn't their professionalism, which most Western soldiers possess to the nth degree, it was their ability to remain Human in the midst of war, to kill the enemy without devolving into animalistic hatred even in the smoke and shock of battle. The enemy, on the other hand, were indistinguishable from maniacs, crazed and screaming, one going so far as to rush head-long into a burning building in search of a phantom. I'm sorry to admit that I'm the only one who laughed.

All the violent words that splash down these columns are so much nothing. There might be a will to triumph over our enemies, but it's passive. That's not a condemnation of our readers. We do not want to be soldiers in the field. If we were, chances are we would not fire our weapons at men who are much like us. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

"The passive 75 per cent of men would generally remain passive. But...even those soldiers who did not fire were crucial to the battle: their presence was essential for morale. Active combatants were too busy fighting to notice what their comrades were (or were not) doing. In fact, it was the presence of passive soldiers which enabled active soldiers to continue fighting. They contributed their weight to the mass of the attack, even if they contributed little to its velocity." [Bourke: p.87.]

What is the serious objection to killing an individual in a crowd, HAMAS co-founder Yassin, for example? The message is clear and precise. One man is responsible for his actions, and that man is dead. Our opponents would set off a car bomb, killing at random, and call it good. Allah is responsible for that action, and the group understands the irrationality of it in its own terms. Our experience in Jugoslavia is contrary: we fired laser-guided missiles from the aether. The average Serb has to this day no idea why that happened. Jets were long past the target before they were seen, and then the fires were raging long since. That speck brought death! There was no sense of who did that or why, because one cannot hate a speck, only an idea one might associate with that speck. And since there is no way to fight a speck, it isn't a defeat no matter how badly one is beaten, for no speck is viable as an enemy. It has no meaning whatsoever. The science of war loses wars because there is no art to war by machines, and there is therefore no enemy to lose to.

If we are to win any war against any enemy, we must have men on the ground, face to face with our enemies so they can see us and fight us man to man till one man is still standing. We will not win any war until the enemy is in the dust begging not for mercy but crying out: "I am you!" When that defeated man sees my face and knows I'm the better man, then he will not be defeated but he will be my ally. When I beat a man who beats a woman, I must beat him till he beats men who beat women. He will do that when he is me and mine. I cannot make him one of mine from inside a tank. I can do that by beating him man-to-man so he knows who I am and what I do. Killing a murderer doesn't make me a murderer, it makes his survivors moral.

Who among us will take up arms and fight man to man against bin Laden? Who will run the man down and kill him face to face? Who will stand with bin Laden's head in hand and say to his former followers: "Now you work for me!"

May 13, 2005

I ask whether we should support Hindu nationalism in its struggle against Islamic imperialism and genocide against the Hindu people. It seems clear that the state forces of India are not capable by nature or training to defend the nation from jihad. Perhaps the Hindu people themselves will find the motivation required to save their own lives rather than waiting for the state to do so. Is that worth supporting? Or will the Indian people continue to suffer the humiliations of Muslim assaults until India, cowed, is reconquered by the Mughals?

Big Boom Bombay

I often can't tell the difference between David Duke of Stormfront and his evil twin, the former mayor of London, Red Ken Livingstone. Here I face the same problem looking at the works and wonders of "anti-war" Leftist, Justin Raimondo and a gaggle of Muslims. You tell me.

Justin Raimondo, "The Meaning of Mumbai: South Asia, the new arena." Behind the Headlines. 3, Dec. 2008

The Mumbai massacre comes at a time when the U.S. is about to switch battlefields in its avowedly "generational" war on terrorism, from the Middle East to South Asia. As we move our forces eastward into Afghanistan and, inevitably, Pakistan, the events in Mumbai light up the geopolitical landscape like lightning at midnight, prefiguring a new and even bigger quagmire than the one we're supposedly leaving behind in Iraq. Forget the differences between Sunnis and Shi'ites. That's so yesterday. What we're dealing with now, in the Pakistani-Indian rivalry, is a true war of civilizations, pitting Muslims against Hindus.

India's 9/11: that's what they're calling it, and the pattern fits in certain ways, particularly when it comes to forewarnings.... In the case of Mumbai, however, the warnings were quite specific: the Indians were apparently informed that an attack from water-based terrorists on Mumbai hotels – including the Taj Hotel, where much of the action took place – was imminent. The most telling detail is no doubt the fact that the Indian police simply ran for cover, although what this tells us is hard to believe. Can it really be true that so specific a warning could have been ignored?

[....]

The effect of the Mumbai massacre on Indian politics is another likely analogy to 9/11, which gave the neocons power and catapulted the worst warmongers to the very top of the national security bureaucracy. In the case of India, where voters will soon go to the polls, we are apt to see an electoral victory for the most militantly nationalistic and chauvinistic political movement in the country, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

[....]

The pressure to cement an Indo-American alliance has been growing for quite some time and is slated to accelerate. India's special relationship with Israel, for one thing, is second only to our own. For another, President-elect Obama's promise to escalate the war in Afghanistan and even spread it into Pakistan is congruent with the plans of India's War Party, which is waiting in the wings to take the reins and confront Islamabad.

[....]

As bad as George W. Bush was, he never messed up that badly. One can almost hear the collective sigh of relief now that we are approaching the day when an easily-manipulated ignoramus is no longer in charge of American foreign policy. What may be even more dangerous, however, is a very smart president who thinks he and his advisers know more than they actually do.

The strategic shift in the balance of U.S. military forces in the region, away from Iraq and eastward to Afghanistan and Pakistan, seems almost to have been conceived in order to confirm the complaints of the anti-American forces in the region that the U.S. and its allies have launched a crusade to eliminate Islam from the map. From this perspective the pattern is clear enough: having exhausted their efforts in Iraq, now the West strikes from a different direction, in alliance with India. At the geographic center of it all, you'll note, sits Iran, which can look forward to being surrounded on both sides.

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13848

We get this bit of brilliance from the Muslim site Sahilonline: Reflection of the Truth: "Terror attack planned by RSS and allies?"

The dastardly Mumbai terror attack of November 26 & 27, has claimed the lives of over 125 people and injured scores more. This terror attack in our analysis has been planned & orchestrated by the Sangh Pariwar and its allies within the security apparatus to counter the investigation of the ATS led by Hemant Karkare, so as to nullify and divert attention from the true face of BJP-RSS Parivar's involvement in fermenting terror attacks in the country.

The basic aim was to totally subvert every attempt by the ATS (Anti-Terror Squad) that was undoubtedly uncovering the nefarious terrorist cells within the various branches of the Sangh Pariwar as well as their RSS abettors & sympathizers within the army, IB, RAW and the entire security apparatus. The Mumbai terror attacks will thus draw away attention, as well as serve to justify the terrorist activities of the Sadhvi Pragnya's and the Purohit's and further lend to their glorification. ...

http://www.sahilonline.org/english/news.php?catID=voice&nid=4133

Amaresh Misra, "Mumbai Terror Attack: Further Evidence Of The Anglo-American-Mossad-RSS Nexus," Countercurrents.org. 03 Dec. 2008

Now who has the last laugh? That is the question; I only have pity for those who cannot see reality and who were so glib to buy into what the media and political troubleshooters were saying about the Mumbai terrorist attacks.

Consider this:

As a BBC report notes, at least some of the Mumbai attackers were not Indian and certainly not Muslim.Pappu Mishra, a cafe proprietor at the gothic Victorian Chattrapati Shivaji Terminus railway station, described "two sprightly young men dressed in black" with AK47s who were "foreign looking, fair skinned."Gaffar Abdul Amir, an Iraqi tourist from Baghdad, saw at least two men who started the firing outside the Leopold Cafe. "They did not look Indian, they looked foreign. One of them, I thought, had blonde hair. The other had a punkish hairstyle. They were neatly dressed," Amir told the BBC.

[....]

This afore-mentioned report appeared on the BBC, a news agency which pro-west, Muslim-haters and all NRIs love to see. NOW I ASK THESE PEOPLE: why are you adopting double standards? Now a BBC report is incovenient because it militates against your idea of what happened in Mumbai?

[....]

According to Andrew G. Marshall, the ISI "has long been referred to as Pakistan's 'secret government' or 'shadow state.' It's long-standing ties and reliance upon American and British intelligence have not let up, therefore actions taken by the ISI should be viewed in the context of being a Central Asian outpost of Anglo-American covert intelligence operations."The presence of "foreign looking, fair skinned" commandos who calmly gunned down dozens of people after drinking a few beers indicates that the Mumbai attacks were likely the work of the Anglo-American covert intelligence operatives, not indigenous Indian Muslims or for that matter Arab al-Qaeda terrorists. The attacks prepare the ground for the break-up of Pakistan and the furtherance of destabilizing terrorism in the Middle East and Asia. The Mumbai attacks had little to do with India or the relationship between Muslim Pakistanis and Hindu Indians."Pakistan's position as a strategic focal point cannot be underestimated. It borders India, Afghanistan, China and Iran," concludes Marshall. "Destabilizing and ultimately breaking Pakistan up into several countries or regions will naturally spread chaos and destabilization into neighboring countries. This is also true of Iraq on the other side of Iran, as the Anglo-American have undertaken, primarily through Iraq, a strategy of balkanizing the entire Middle East in a new imperial project." (See Marshall's Divide and Conquer: The Anglo-American Imperial Project.)

Now I ask specifically: WHO HAS EGG ON THE FACE? MY DETRACTORS OR ME?

Andrew Marshall is a respected author; he is clearly saying here that terrorists looked like Anglo-American covert operatives and that the entire Mumbai operation was an attempt by Anglo-American forces to destabilize India and push it further into the Israel-US orbit.

[....]

One Police officer who encountered the gunmen as they entered the Jewish Center (Nariman House) said the attackers were white. "I went into the building late last night" he said. "I got a shock because they were white. I was expecting them to look like us. They fired three shots. I fired 10 back".

The Nariman House affair brings the Mossad angle to the fore. Two of the `hostages' killed in the Narimam House were identified as Rabbi Gabreil Holtzberg and his wife Rivka. They ran the center as spokespersons of the Chabad Lubavitch movement.

Now the Chabad movement is one of the many sects within Israel and Judaism. But of late it has come under the Zionist influence. Now what is Zionism? A brief digression would suffice: Zionism is the political ideology of racist Jews, just like Hindutva is the political ideology of a section of `race conscious' Hindus. Just as a majority of Sanatani Hindus have opposed Hindutva, a majority of Jews oppose Zionism and its fascist-anti-religious tone.

[....]

http://www.countercurrents.org/misra031208.htm

I calls 'em Left dhimmi fascists when they do as Raimondo do. To my own eye, they're all the same, except some are invested for better reasons than others. At least Muslims are Muslims. Being a dhimmi is something that the good sense of eludes me.Maybe there's a thrill in being a boy-bitch for a psycho that I just don't see. Justin, please don't tell. I have only so much patience.