Posted on 10/31/2005 5:46:25 AM PST by SJackson
Are we winning the war against terror or more precisely, against the death-cult ideology of extreme hate that employs terror as one of its weapons? America, Britain and Israel have all committed significant sums of money to fight back militarily and to ensure civilian safety. However, we must fight another very hot war, one which will ultimately decide whether Western Civilization lives or dies. This is a war we are not winning and some argue that it is a war we have not yet even begun to fight.
I am talking about The Culture War, the war that must be fought to oppose the campaign of lies and propaganda that Islamists and western Stalinists launched against the West, beginning with Israel, arguably anywhere from forty to seventy years ago.
The Culture War is a very hot war: no prisoners are taken, no mercy is shown. And there are now penalties for trying to tell the truth about the danger of jihad or about the barbaric and pathological nature of militant Islam today. Indeed, if you try to discuss the Islamic religious and gender apartheid and its dangerous proliferation into Europe and North America (i.e. there have been honor killings in Cincinnati, St. Louis, Chicago, Jersey City, Toronto, as well as all over Europe and in the Muslim world), this is what will happen to you:
If you tell these truths in the Arab and Muslim world, you’ll be beheaded, probably tortured, certainly jailed, exiled if you are lucky. Many Muslim and Christian dissidents have suffered precisely this fate. There are no more Jews there, the Islamist Caliphate has rendered the entire Middle East Judenrein long ago. Try to say this in Europe and you might be butchered, as Theo Von Gogh was, or simply imprisoned in purdah, veiled, or threatened, forced to go into hiding, or honor-murdered as so many Muslim girls and women are.
Try to tell the moral tragedy that the United Nations represents, or the even greater tragedy that the word “Palestine” has come to represent objectively, and therefore in a non-politically correct way, on European and on North American campuses, or on the increasingly left-dominated liberal media airwaves, and you may not be shot on the spot, but you will be slandered and called a “racist” and a “fascist.” I have been called both.
If you are a North American intellectual, you may not be imprisoned or be-headed but you will be heckled, mocked, and shunned. You might need security in order to speak. If you’re a feminist, you will no longer be taken seriously as an intellectual, nor will you be “heard.”
Expose the permanent Intifada against Western Civilization and against the Jews and you will be sued and driven into exile, as Oriana Fallaci has been, or sued and prevented from traveling to certain countries, as Rachel Ehrenfeld has been. You will be sued and silenced in all those places where you were once published, even lionized. Dare to say that the torturer and genocidal tyrant, Saddam Hussein, is on trial today only because of America and Iraq’s sacrifice and their bold vision of democracy and you will be called a reactionary, a liar, a fool, and the worse epithet of all: a conservative.
Both Western leftists and Islamists brandish many tools against America and Israel in this war. Their first weapon is the systematic misuse of language. Mainstream and liberal newspapers write about “insurgents,” not “terrorists,” whom they describe as “martyrs,” not “killers, and as “freedom fighters,” not as “well educated evil men.”
Anti-American and anti-Israel demonstrators, who are clearly and visibly filled with hate and rage, are described as “peace activists.” Anti-Semitism is legitimized, while the slightest criticism of Islam is banned because of the disallowance of “Islamophobia.” Telling the truth has become an offense which is unprotected by free speech doctrines, which instead protect the telling of lies.
I was once held captive in Kabul, Afghanistan. I experienced, first-hand, what life is like in a Muslim country, one that has never been colonized by the West. I learned that it was both foolish and dangerous to romanticize Third World countries. And, I learned first-hand, that evil and barbarism exist a priori, and are not caused by western imperialism or colonialism or by the “Zionist entity.” It’s where I also learned to reject the doctrine of multiculturalism, that teaches that all cultures are equal, formerly colonized cultures even more so. This leads to isolationism and non-interventionism and condemns millions of civilians to Islamist torture, terror and genocide.
Although, to their credit, a handful of feminist activists and journalists have sounded the alarm, once America invaded Afghanistan, these very activists, all Democratic Party operatives, swiftly opposed the military routing of the Taliban. And why? Because the expedition had not been undertaken, apparently, with women in mind. It’s as if they did not think that bin Laden’s terrorism kills women too.
I hold the Western academy, including the feminist academy, which has been utterly Palestinianized, responsible for failing to expose and condemn the realities of Islamic gender apartheid. I know feminist graduate students who are busy “de-constructing” the veil, polygamy and arranged marriage as possible expressions of feminist or female power—no different than the bikini. None have congratulated President Bush on his excellent choice of Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State and none have given her the slightest credit for her pro-woman, pro-human rights and pro-Israel speeches.
The number of lies being told in the Western academy and among western activists are literally beyond belief. Here’s one: Mohammed was really great to women, especially to one Safiya bint Huyay whom he married—even though she was Jewish. Yes. But first he beheaded her father and her husband and exterminated her entire village. And then he forced poor Safiya to convert to Islam before he married her. This disinformation campaign leaves me speechless.
Our own intelligentsia—our professors—are so politically correct and so multi-culturally relativist, that they refuse to call “barbaric” the act of stoning a woman to death because she was raped or because she refused to marry her first cousin. Nor will they denounce subjecting women to genital mutilation and public gang-rape as “barbaric.” Nor did American media commentators who showed the Palestinian lynching of two Israeli reservists in Ramallah in 2000 describe the event, which they played over and over again, as “barbaric.”
The intelligentsia did not describe what was done to us on 9/11 as “barbaric” either. Indeed, I know American and European intellectuals who are convinced that America and Israel are the greatest barbarians of all, and that we deserved 9/11. According to Islamists and Western academics and journalists, Bin Laden is not an “Islamo-fascist." To them, President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon are the “Nazi fascists.”
And then there is that vast industry of Palestinian, Arab League and United Nations funded and distributed doctored footage and fake film massacres, fake gun battles, the faked death of Palestinian children at Jewish and Israeli hands. Our Islamist opponents have turned out this propaganda nonstop around the world.
As propagandists, they are far more sophisticated than Goebbels, and far more patient. We cannot afford to underestimate their skill at telling Big Lies. Islamists understood that if they funded madrassas in the East and Middle Eastern Institutes in the West, and if they funded the total Palestinianization of the United Nations and of every international human rights groups that in thirty to fifty years, they would have brainwashed generations to see things their way.
Islam is sacred -- it cannot be insulted. Imagined slights are as important as real slights. Lies have as much weight as the truth. Whether American military forces did or did not flush a Koran down the toilet does not matter. What matters is that Muslims thought they did. No penance is good enough to atone for this crime.
Millions of people have been systematically brainwashed against America, against Israel, against Jews, against women and against the western concept of truth, objectivity, truth-telling, and independent thinking. All are under siege.
We have a serious fifth column in our midst, one that has made common cause with Islamists against us, one that has been well funded by Arab oil billionaires for more than forty years. Now, George Soros too, a fifth column General who, for a variety of reasons, has actually been leading the cultural war against the West. They are fools—but they are dangerous fools. Do they think they will be spared because they are so politically correct? Do they think that they would enjoy the same freedom of speech in Mecca or Tehran that they enjoy in the West?
What must we do in the face of this tyrannical threat? We must rescue language. It must bear some relationship to the truth and morality. Everything is not relative. It is not all Rashomon. We must not allow our media or academics to continue to insist that Islam is not the problem, but that even if it is, that we cannot say so, lest we be deemed racist. We must teach the history of jihad against infidels, and the history of how infidels (Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians) were treated under Islam. We must insist that criticism of America and Israel be balanced, not pathological, obsessive and cult-like as it is now. We must insist on civility in public discourse. We must model it for the coming generations.
We must fund seriously a collective effort to combat vulgar lies and vilification, the propaganda against us which has brainwashed countless generations.
We need a War Room effort to counter the Big Lies. We need international radio and television channels to educate people. We need to teach people about intellectual diversity and tolerance.
This country has birthed two significant waves of feminism. We must now take that feminist vision global. We need our foreign policy to contain serious provisions about women’s rights abroad. Otherwise, democracy cannot and will not evolve or flourish in Muslim countries.
The way I see it, everything is at stake. This is a time when we must all be heroes. We must all stand up to evil in our lifetime. We must acknowledge that Islamist terrorism is evil and has no justification. We must teach this to our children. We must support Muslim and Arab dissidents in their fight against Islamic tyranny and gender apartheid. We can do this. We must do this. Otherwise, we will die, and our history and our values and our entire way of life will die with us. If we fail, we will betray all that we believe in as a free people.
The New Anti-Terror Laws in Australia
Anyone supporting the insurgency in Iraq or Afghanistan faces possible jail sentence
by Maz Bukhari
October 14, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
Anti-Terror Laws or “TERRORIST” Laws
Jail Term for ILL WILL & OBJECTORS
Anyone supporting the insurgency in Iraq, Afghanistan or any country where Australian troops are deployed could face a penalty of 7 years' jail under the new terrorism laws.
Control orders of unlimited duration, secret preventive detention, the monitoring of lawyers, and life imprisonment for funding terrorist organisations are also suggested under the new laws.
The draft legislation, disclosed by Greens yesterday, details the far-reaching security regime proposed by John Howard for "very dangerous and difficult and threatening circumstances" in the wake of the London bombings.
New sedition offences will put big constraints on anti-war protests, familiar since the Vietnam era, and come down hard on those advocating violence against any religious, national or political group.
Those charged with sedition can argue they were acting "in good faith" but it is unclear how the courts will interpret this.
The bill sets out new federal police powers to detain terrorist suspects for up to 24 hours, and up to 48 hours with the approval of a judge or magistrate. Suspects will get access to a lawyer to challenge the detention order in a court or complain of maltreatment
Police do not need to give suspects or their lawyers reasons for the detentions and can monitor lawyers. All conversations lawyers have with their clients must be in English or translated into English for the police. Police are prohibited from questioning the detainees but that ban does not apply to ASIO officers.
Last month the states agreed to allow extensions of up to 14 days for detentions when a terrorist act is believed imminent. The suspect must then be released if no terrorist act occurs.
Detentions are secret but suspects are allowed to contact a family member or employers to say they are safe but, "not able to be contacted for the time being". If they disclose the detention they can be jailed for up to five years.
Under the bill, the Government can apply to a court for control orders on terrorist suspects who have not been charged. These orders include house arrest, preventing them using the telephone or internet and restricting their social contacts and work opportunities. Suspects can also be fitted with tracking devices.
The suspect's lawyer can be shown the control order but not necessarily the evidence or reasons behind it.
The orders can last up to 12 months and can then be renewed any number of times.
Persons under control orders may be given "counselling or education" if they agree.
The bill does limit to three months control orders on those aged between 16 and 18.
Also contained in the legislation are wide-ranging search powers that will compel the production of any documents relating to "any serious offence", regardless of any laws protecting privacy or legal privilege.,
The new laws are to be debated this month, after the Labor premiers agreed to their broad outline at the recent terrorism summit in Canberra.
The proposed laws have been strongly criticised by human rights lawyers and some Muslim leaders, who have described them as draconian.
Sweeping new anti-terror laws include a plan to jail people for up to seven years for promoting feelings of "ill will" or hostility between different groups that would threaten the peace.
As John Howard yesterday defended the measures, the federal Government was angered by ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope's decision to publish the 107-page draft bill on his website.
Surprising legal experts with the scope and definition of terrorist acts, the laws would also make it a criminal offence to support a terrorist act, directly or indirectly.
However, elements of the terrorism advocacy provisions are expected to be watered down after a backbench revolt over the draconian laws...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUK20051014&articleId=1079
"However, elements of the terrorism advocacy provisions are expected to be watered down after a backbench revolt over the draconian laws..."
The Leader of the Opposition has since stated his complete agreement with our needs for greater security. Some small 'adjustments' will be agreed to - but on the whole, we expect this Bill to pass through Parliament.
WHOOOOHOOOO!!!!!
SEDITION!
WOW. If that went into effect here....all the liberals would be in jail!
LOL! I thought that to myself but wanted to give you the opportunity to make that observation.
Wouldn't that be great?
Remember, from little acorns, big oaks grow.
Then there's the Aspens... ;o)
Great bedtime reading. ;*/
Ohhhh, what I wouldn't give to see this put into effect here!
It's not enough that we have the Islamo-fascist trying to destroy this Country....we have to contend with the enemy from within...the liberals and the MSM. Amazing, I can't tell the difference between the islamo-fascists and the pinko's.
you mean the aspens that turn red in the fall in clusters because their roots are connected?
"...the laws would also make it a criminal offense to support a terrorist act, directly or indirectly..."
So, that smarmy, filthy nightshirt-wearing cleric who said on camera that he thought Osama was a great man for organizing the 9/11 attack - that piece of disgusting 'humanity' - he's got two choices; keep his mouth shut or spend a whole lot of time behind bars.
(Mind you, I think many will simply go back to their hell-holes in the ME, or heaven forbid, attempt to migrate to the US!)
Yep, you got it! You know, those aspens are now "covering" the ground?
(Mind you, I think many will simply go back to their hell-holes in the ME, or heaven forbid, attempt to migrate to the US!)
Are you kidding? Attempt to migrate? They will be welcomed here with open arms. Supported by the Government they will continue to build mosques and train terrorists and...well, you know where I'm going with this.
Then follows that sentence with...
Mainstream and liberal newspapers write
Call me crazy, but according to the definition of the word, our newspapers and media ARE NOT mainstream.
SYLLABICATION: main·stream
PRONUNCIATION: mnstrm
NOUN: The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity.
ADJECTIVE: Representing the prevalent attitudes, values, and practices of a society or group: mainstream morality.
Let's begin by taking back the use of the language. We can refer to the media, the press, periodicals etc. without prefacing the word with "mainstream."
we have to contend with the enemy from within...the liberals and the MSM.
You are absolutely correct Jan.
I can't tell the difference between the islamo-fascists and the pinko's.
I know just what you mean. So far we do still have our heads attached to our necks/shoulders, though. Let's give credit where it's due. ;*)
Great point! Would you say the media, both TV and newspaper, for the most part are just tools for the Democratic party?
So far we do still have our heads attached to our necks/shoulders, though.
True...those "peaceful", loving pinko's would NEVER "intentionally" cut your heads off...but they sure set it up to have EIGHT police cars respond to your counter-protest! Lucky for you there weren't any trigger happy policemen responding that night!
'Let's begin by taking back the use of the language. We can refer to the media, the press, periodicals etc. without prefacing the word with "mainstream."'
Point taken. I am prepared to make a correction and never use the word 'mainstream' again, it's just a habit.
'Twould be nice to coin a replacement that really catches on. Any ideas?
Yes...demonRATS, commies, socialists, terrorists - who can tell them apart. The answer is still a resounding YES!
those "peaceful", loving pinko's would NEVER "intentionally" cut your heads off...
LOL!!! That is why I don't get to close to them - one never knows what they may do "unintentionally" ;*)
I use MSM because we all know what that means!
Great idea, Fred. We need a replacement...
OK, justanobody, you always have great ideas that I love to plagiarize ;o)
WooHoo! One down and millions to go!
coin a replacement that really catches on. Any ideas?
Well, Tony Snow uses "Has Been" media, HBM. Many have used "Lamestream" media, LSM. I've heard the terms Old, Dinasour, Treasonous...
Presstitutes, Media Whores etc have been used to refer to the "reporters"
Anything strike your fancy. Other suggestions?
How's this?
Enemy + Media = Enemedia.
On the up side, if we share a brain, it is not really plagiarism, is it? ;*)
I like it!!!
Think it might be confused with Enema + Media? LOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.