Bloodthirsty Liberal

Who you gonna believe Morey Ahmadamsterdam, or your own lyin’ eyes?

Following are excerpts from an interview with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which aired on Channel 1, Iranian TV on December 2, 2008.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: The events of 9/11 were dubious. They served as a pretext to attack Iraq.

[…]

[T]he operation in India was a savage terrorist operation, in which, according to reports, more than 200 people were killed. These people had nothing to do with events [in the region].

…

In my opinion, it must have been planned and carried out by people from out of the region. It is impossible for such acts to have been carried out by people living in the region – whether in Pakistan, India, or Afghanistan. Without a doubt, it was planned from outside.

Of course, he’s not the only one to say so—as we reported yesterday:

We have no doubt this was [the result of] a joint plan by Israelis, Americans and Indians - in other words, this was a joint plan by Western Zionists and Hindu Zionists; in it Israelis are directly involved, there is involvement of Mossad.

Hindu Zionists, hell; I blame the Unitarians. Those bastards are always up to no good.

You’d think after the butchery in Mumbai, Islam would be feeling at least a little chastened by the atrocities carried out in its name.

Well, Islam can’t speak, but its adherents can. Let’s have a listen shall we?

Following the Mumbai terror attacks, Pakistani security expert Zaid Hamid was interviewed by Pakistan’s News One television channel; in it, he accused “Western Zionists and Hindu Zionists” of planning the 11/26 Mumbai attacks. He also warned that if the Indians attack Pakistan, the war will be fought within India, not on Pakistani soil. The interview was telecast 24 hours after the Mumbai terror attacks began.

Zaid Hamid, a former mujahid who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s, is the founder of the Pakistani think tank BrassTacks.

“[If] they thrust a war on us, then the war will be fought on the other side of the border, on their side [in India], not within Pakistan Insha Allah…”

“This is not the 9/11 he [George W. Bush] was talking about [recently], but the Indians have themselves always wanted to orchestrate a 9/11, to create the same drama [9/11] in which they could include Americans and Israelis. We have no doubt this was [the result of] a joint plan by Israelis, Americans and Indians - in other words, this was a joint plan by Western Zionists and Hindu Zionists; in it Israelis are directly involved, there is involvement of Mossad.

Damned Hindu Zionists! If we’ve complained about them once, we’ve complained about them a thousand times.

Surely someone in Pakistan is sounding a more conciliatory note.

That would be a no:

Amid growing tensions between India and Pakistan following the 11/26 Mumbai terror attacks, Pakistani nuclear scientist Dr. Samar Mubarakmand spoke of the readiness of Pakistani missiles and of their capability to target Indian cities. Dr. Mubarakmand, who has steered the Pakistani nuclear program for the past several decades alongside disgraced nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, expressed his views during a talk show.

“Pakistan’s nuclear assets are in safe hands.

“Every Indian city is on the target of our missiles, and [Pakistan’s] atomic technology is better than that of India. [We] can fire the missiles at only 10 minutes’ notice…

Then geez, why’d you bother with the terrorists?

Cause it’s looking more and more like you did:

A week after the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Indian officials on Friday stepped up their efforts to draw a connection between the violence and Pakistani government agencies.

In New Delhi, a high-level source in the Indian government, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said India has “clear and incontrovertible proof” that an Islamist militant group based in Pakistan, Lashkar-i-Taiba, planned the attacks and that the group’s leaders were trained and supported by Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI.

Maybe we’d better look elsewhere in the Muslim world for a little sanity and contrition—both of which seem to be thin on the ground in Pakistan.

Egypt? Yeah right:

Following are excerpts from an address delivered by Egyptian cleric Hassan Abu Al-Ashbal, which aired on Al-Nas TV on November 27, 2008.

“Let me take this opportunity to address the leader of Europe, and the leader of America, who is the leader of the world, the recently elected Obama, who is the leader of the Byzantines - he is like the Byzantine leaders in the days of Prophet Muhammad.

“My message to him is threefold. First, I invite him to convert to Islam. This is the call of the Prophet and of Allah. Oh Obama - convert to Islam, and you will be saved. I hope that Allah will reward you twice: once for converting to Islam, and another reward for all those who will convert in your footsteps. If you want glory - you will find it in Islam. If you want honor - you will find it in Islam. In religions other than Islam there is utter humiliation, even if you are the president of the entire world.

[…]

“If you refuse to return to your [Islamic] origins, to the way Allah created you, withdraw your huge armies and military bases from the lands of the Muslims. Know that all your predecessors have ended up in the garbage bin of history, and that America’s black and bleak history in the land of the Muslims and the Arabs constitutes an evil omen for you, your predecessors, and your successors.

Just because the Reverend Jeremiah Wright sounds like he’s from the Nation of Islam doesn’t mean he’s a muslim, dude. And I’d watch your language about America’s “black and bleak history”. That’s racist hate speech.

Personally, I don’t recommend either one.

But to each her own:

A Virginia woman whose husband and daughter were gunned down in last week’s terror attacks in India says the attackers should be forgiven.

“We must send them our love, forgiveness and compassion,” Kia Scherr told reporters Tuesday of the Mumbai attackers, nine of whom were killed by Indian forces. “As Jesus Christ said long ago, they know not what they do.

“They are in ignorance, and they are completely shrouded and clouded by fear, and we must show that love is possible and love overpowers fear. So that’s my choice.”

You go ahead, sister. As for me, give me liberty and give them death.

Or as the country song has it:

God may forgive you (but I won’t)
Yes, Jesus loves you, but I don’t.
They don’t have to live with you,
Neither do I.
You say that you’re born again
Well, so am I
God may forgive you (but I won’t)
I won’t even try.

The greatness of our country is that we shelter people like Ms. Scherr from the reality of the world (a reality her husband and daughter discovered much to their distress and demise). But it takes the sacrifices of other people to allow her to live according to her beliefs. It is to them I send my love and compassion.

To the savages who committed these inhuman acts, I’d like to send the Marines.

It all looks so good; how’s a mindless killer to choose?

For purposes of self-justification, Azam Amir Kasab, the only terrorist taken alive in last week’s Mumbai massacre, offered that the murder of Jews in the city’s Chabad House was undertaken to avenge Israeli atrocities on Palestinians. Two other terrorists cited instances of anti-Muslim Hindu violence as the answer to the question, “Why are you doing this to us?” before mowing down 14 unarmed people at the Oberoi Hotel. And if dead terrorists could talk, we would surely hear Abu Ghraib mentioned as among their reasons for singling out U.S. and British hostages.

One suspects the terrorists spent far too much time listening to the BBC World Service.

Let’s hasten to add that by no means should the BBC alone be singled out. When it comes to terrorists and their grievances, nearly all the Western media have provided them with a rich diet on which to feed.

In the spring of 2005, Newsweek ran with a thinly sourced item about the Quran being flushed down a Guantanamo toilet. Result: At least 15 people were killed in Afghan riots.

Newsweek later retracted the story, which was the right thing to do but also, in its way, exceptional. Compare that to the refusal of French reporter Charles Enderlin and his station, France 2, to retract or even express doubt about his September 2000 report on Mohammed al-Durrah, the 12-year-old Palestinian boy allegedly killed by Israeli soldiers during an exchange of gunfire in the Gaza Strip — an exchange Mr. Enderlin did not witness.

…

Maybe Durrah was somewhere in the minds of the Mumbai killers. If not, there was no shortage of other Israeli “atrocities” for them to choose from, mostly fictitious or trumped up and all endlessly cited in Western media reports: the “siege” of Gaza; the 2002 Jenin “massacre”; the 1982 massacres (by Lebanese Phalangists) in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut; the execution of Egyptian POWs in 1967.

All these fables have real-world consequences, and not only for Israelis. In July 2006, an American named Naveed Afzal Haq ambled into the offices of the Seattle Jewish Federation and shot six people, killing one. One of the survivors testified that Mr. Haq “stated that he was a Muslim, [and] this was his personal statement against Jews and the Bush administration for giving money to Jews, and for us Jews for giving money to Israel, about Hezbollah, the war in Iraq.” Wherever did he get those ideas?

As it turns out, often from terrorist suspects themselves, offering their testimonials of Israeli or U.S. malevolence to a credulous Western media.

So the media is happy to repeat without comment the most outlandish justification of slaughter and genocide—and the terrorists cite those reports as justification for their slaughter and genocide. I guess that’s synergy.

Is this the same media that won’t let a belch by President Bush pass without a front page “analysis”?

The national question we ought to be asking ourselves is not “why do they hate us”, but “why do we hate ourselves”.

I don’t want to write it:

Mumbai doctors who examined the bodies of the victims of the Muslim terror massacre said the victims were tortured before being slaughtered.

“Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks,” a doctor who examined the bodies told the Indian news website Rediff.com.

“Of all the bodies, the Israeli victims bore the maximum torture marks.

“It was clear that they were killed on Wednesday. It was obvious that they were tied up and tortured before they were killed. It was so bad that I do not want to go over the details even in my head again,” he said.

Another doctor commented, “It was very strange. I have seen so many dead bodies in my life, and was yet traumatized. A bomb blast victim’s body might have been torn apart and could be a very disturbing sight. But the bodies of the victims in this attack bore such signs about the kind of violence of urban warfare that I am still unable to put my thoughts to words,” he said.

This isn’t getting much coverage, and it’s very, very upsetting. But I think it’s an important part of the story.

I remarked in another post that the victims (or one of them, anyway) were members of a sect that rejected Zionism and the state of Israel. I guess the terrorists were deaf and blind to such nuances.

Did I not read somewhere, by the way, that one of the terrorists stayed at the Chabad House shortly before the massacre, casing the joint? Pity he didn’t choke on the brisket.

Lest there be any doubt why Muslim terrorists would take it upon themselves to turn their backs on the Relgion of Peace and slaughter hundreds of innocent people.

The Great Satan made them do it:

If the Mumbai terror assault seemed exceptional, and shocking in its targets, it was clear from the Thanksgiving Day reports that we weren’t going to be deprived of the familiar, either. Namely, ruminations, hints, charges of American culpability that regularly accompany catastrophes of this kind.

Soon enough, there was Deepak Chopra, healer, New Age philosopher and digestion guru, advocate of aromatherapy and regular enemas, holding forth on CNN on the meaning of the attacks.

How the ebullient Dr. Chopra had come to be chosen as an authority on terror remains something of a mystery, though the answer may have something to do with his emergence in the recent presidential campaign as a thinker of advanced political views. Also commending him, perhaps, is his well known capacity to cut through all sorts of complexities to make matters simple. No one can fail to grasp the wisdom of a man who has informed us that “If you have happy thoughts, then you make happy molecules.”

In his CNN interview, he was no less clear. What happened in Mumbai, he told the interviewer, was a product of the U.S. war on terrorism, that “our policies, our foreign policies” had alienated the Muslim population, that we had “gone after the wrong people” and inflamed moderates. And “that inflammation then gets organized and appears as this disaster in Bombay.”

All this was a bit too much, evidently, for CNN interviewer Jonathan Mann, who interrupted to note that there were other things going on — matters like the ongoing bitter Pakistan-India struggle over Kashmir — which had caused so much terror and so much violence. “That’s not Washington’s fault,” he pointed out.

Given an argument, the guest, ever a conciliator, agreed: The Mumbai catastrophe was not Washington’s fault, it was everybody’s fault. Which didn’t prevent Dr. Chopra from returning soon to his central theme — the grave offense posed to Muslims by the United States’ war on terror, a point accompanied by consistent emphatic reminders that Muslims are the world’s fastest growing population — 25% of the globe’s inhabitants — and that the U.S. had better heed that fact. In Dr. Chopra’s moral universe, numbers are apparently central. It’s tempting to imagine his view of offenses against a much smaller sliver of the world’s inhabitants — not so offensive, perhaps?

Perhaps he has a point. Perhaps we could respond to this butchery by displaying the utmost submissiveness, writhing on our backs and exposing our throats.

Or-r-r-r, we could come in with our Doc Martens laced up and stomp the living [bleep] out of anyone and everyone associated with these swine. Ask Osama bin Laden, if you can find him and if you can understand him while he’s sucking that tea bag for nourishment, which he prefers.

When the victims of the Mumbai Massacre agree with the perpetrators—well, it’s kind of a messed-up world, innit?

The family of Aryeh Leibish Teitelboim, one of six people killed when the Chabad House in Mumbai was attacked by Islamist militants last week, has rejected Israel’s offer to hold an official memorial ceremony for him along with the other Jewish and Israeli fatalities.

The family has also said that it does not want Teitelboim’s coffin wrapped in an Israeli flag before it is boarded onto the plane in India later Monday, as those of the other Jewish and Israeli victims will be.

Teitelboim’s relatives and members of his Toldot Avraham Yitzhak community have also asked that his coffin not be included in the official ceremony which will be held upon landing at Ben Gurion International Airport.

Teitelboim grew up a member of the Hasidic Satmar sect and married into the Toldot Avraham Yitzhak sect — two communities which oppose Zionism and do not recognize the State of Israel.

Which was the same reason why the Deccan Poojahadin, or whatever they call themselves, attacked the Chabad House. Teitelboim is certainly entitled to his beliefs, but I wonder if he was looking around for a commando with Hebrew script on his helmet at the time of his demise.

Are you telling me that would not have been a welcome sight?

Oh God, spare me from media types frothing with indignation over terrorism. They sound the charge, then blare retreat and stab you in the back the moment things get messy.

The Taj is a fixture in the life of Mumbaikers (or Bombayites as we used to call ourselves). Last week, those memories came flooding back as I watched from New York, and saw the Taj hotel on fire.

The terror attack on Mumbai has been called India’s 9/11. For me there is another similarity; like 9/11, this attack hit close to home. My brother worked next door to the Twin Towers, at the World Financial Center, on 9/11 and he evacuated his office staff when the first plane crashed. I knew people who worked in the World Trade Center and some who died there. This time, the tragedy is also personal. My mother’s office is in the Taj hotel (she is the editor of the Taj Magazine). Luckily she was out of town on the day of the attack. My brother-in-law and niece, however, were in their apartment, which overlooks the Oberoi, the other hotel that was attacked. A dozen commandos took over their apartment, positioned snipers at the windows, and began giving and receiving fire. (My niece is keeping the bullets as souvenirs.) And as with 9/11, I know people who have died. The general manager of the Taj hotel, a young man, lost his family.

These kinds of events bring out the best in ordinary people. There are reports of hotel employees taking pains to get guests out of harm’s way, at risk to their own lives. Some of the freed hostages have told stories of the bravery of the Indian armed forces.

India’s 9/11, huh? So India will go after the perpetrators of this carnage, clean out the hornet’s nest whence they crawled, and generally try to change the conditions of the region that led to this barbarity.

And then India will be reviled, spat upon, deemed beneath contempt for its unilateral, thuggish response. It will be condemned in the UN, denounced in every diplomatic quarter, and humiliated with lies and slander in the world press—often by the same “journalists” who earlier encouraged their retribution.

That’s India’s 9/11.

Never mind that India has been living with 9/11s and 3/11s and 7/7s for decades now—and not just in Kashmir. It’s not India’s fault; it’s not even Pakistan’s, nationally speaking. The blame lies with the people who committed the crime, with the people who abetted them, with the people who stoked the hatred necessary to perform its atrocities, with the people who embraced them in their midst.

I’m guessing there are everyday people, religious leaders, and holy buildings involved—and I’m guessing which religion is implicated.

But I doubt the author would want to be associated with such an unpleasant accusation, so let’s leave it at that.