The UN Human Rights Council, An NAACP Favorite, Condemns Israel

 

TEAR DOWN THIS WALL 

March 22, 2012

THE INDEPENDENT SENTINEL

By Sara Noble 

To further my point about the NAACP betraying their nation by referring our Voter ID laws to the UN Human Rights Council [NAACP At Their Worst], I have included a story about the absurdity of the Council itself, which is made up of such human rights violators as China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia et al.

They have condemned Israel with five resolutions.

The moral equivalence being drawn between voter ID laws, Jews building in their own country, and nations that slaughter baby girls, don’t allow women to vote, and commit genocide is truly irrational and unacceptable.

The U.S. should fight the UN hypocrisy and not placate them or hand over US internal issues to them. I don’t care what Iran thinks or what any of them think and I don’t believe a word of what they say. They have an agenda and it is consistently anti-US and anti-Israel.

UN Watch: GENEVA, March 22 – The 47-nation UN Human Rights Council today adopted five resolutions condemning Israel, including one that creates a new “fact-finding mission” into alleged Israeli violations relating to settlements, a mandate the UN estimates will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. For full texts and voting results click here.

“On the same day that the UN Human Rights Council severely watered-down a text allowing Sri Lanka to determine what advice it receives from the UN—and after the council ignored our own proposed resolutions for victims of abuses in China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe—the session directed half of all its condemnatory resolutions against one single state, Israel,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.

“Sadly, the council remains partisan, selective and politicized, and is failing its founding mission to defend the world’s victims of human rights violations.”

“The council’s new fact-finding mission on settlements–whose co-sponsors include Syria and Iran–is a fraud, with the guilty verdict determined in advance. The egregiously one-sided resolution omits any mention of officially-sanctioned Palestinian terrorism, rocket fire targeting civilians and incitement to hatred, anti-Semitism and genocide.”

“The PA and the Arab and Islamic states sponsoring the text know full well that Israel will not legitimize this latest kangaroo court, and are therefore acting with the intent to subvert, rather than advance, any prospect of a bilateral negotiated peace agreement and mutual reconciliation.”…

________________________________

Note:  And from The UN Watch:

UN’s discredited HRC creates “Goldstone II,” new investigation against Israel

GENEVA, March 22 – The 47-nation UN Human Rights Council today adopted five resolutions condemning Israel, including one that creates a new “fact-finding mission” into alleged Israeli violations relating to settlements, a mandate the UN estimates will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. For full texts and voting results click here.“On the same day that the UN Human Rights Council severely watered-down a text allowing Sri Lanka to determine what advice it receives from the UN—and after the council ignored our own proposed resolutions for victims of abuses in China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe—the session directed half of all its condemnatory resolutions against one single state, Israel,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch.
“Sadly, the council remains partisan, selective and politicized, and is failing its founding mission to defend the world’s victims of human rights violations.”
“The council’s new fact-finding mission on settlements–whose co-sponsors include Syria and Iran–is a fraud, with the guilty verdict determined in advance. The egregiously one-sided resolution omits any mention of officially-sanctioned Palestinian terrorism, rocket fire targeting civilians and incitement to hatred, anti-Semitism and genocide.”
“The PA and the Arab and Islamic states sponsoring the text know full well that Israel will not legitimize this latest kangaroo court, and are therefore acting with the intent to subvert, rather than advance, any prospect of a bilateral negotiated peace agreement and mutual reconciliation.”

and, response from Israel:
Israel Won't Cooperate with UNHRC's 'Goldstone 2'

Diplomatic source: Israel will not cooperate with the UNHRC's “fact-finding mission”, won't legitimize an illegitimate body.

By Elad Benari

First Publish: 3/23/2012, 6:12 AM

ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addresses the Knesset

Israel news photo: Flash 90

Israel announced on Thursday night that it would not be cooperating with the United Nations Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) new “fact-finding mission” to investigate alleged Israeli violations relating to communities in Judea and Samaria.
An anonymous diplomatic source toldArmy Radio following the UNHRC’s announcement on Thursday, that Israel would not cooperate with the mission, saying that Israel “will not give legitimacy to a body that is not legitimate.”
Earlier, the 47-nation UNHRC adopted five resolutions condemning Israel, including one that establishes the mission. The vote was 36 in favor, 1 against (U.S.) and 10 abstaining.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was quick to issue a statement denouncing the UNHRC. “This is a hypocritical council with an automatic majority against Israel. This council ought to be ashamed of itself," he said.
"Until today, the council has made 91 decisions, 39 of which dealt with Israel, three with Syria and one with Iran," the prime minister noted. "One only had to hear the Syrian representative speak today about human rights in order to understand how detached from reality the council is. Another proof of its detachment from reality came last week when it invited before it a representative of Hamas, an organization whose ideology is based on the murder of innocents.”    
Earlier this week, the Palestinian Authority announced it plans to approach the UNHRC and ask it to investigate the ‘Israeli crimes’ in Judea and Samaria.
The PA’s Foreign Minister, Riyad al-Malki, said the PA would ask the UNHRC to appoint an international fact-finding commission “to come to the occupied Palestinianterritory to witness first hand the illegal Israeli practices violating Palestinian people’s rights.”

Obama: The Affirmative Action President

 

August 18, 2011

AMERICAN THINKER

By Matt Patterson
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?


Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.  He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator. 

And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor.  It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president? 

Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin.  Podhoretz continues:

And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action.  Not in the legal sense, of course.  But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves. 

Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back.  Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow.  Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action.  Yes, racist.  Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is.  And that is what America did to Obama.

True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be?  As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate.  All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary.  What could this breed if not the sort of empty  narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?

In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character.  Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed.  The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all.  Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character?  Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles.  Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess.  It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence.  But really, what were we to expect?  The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?

In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job.  When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense.  It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office. 

But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while.  And really, isn't that all that matters these days?

See also: The Era of Confronting Obama at Public Events

Update:

Author's Note.  A lot of readers have written in asking me how I came to the conclusion that Obama was an unremarkable student and that he benefited from affirmative action.  Three reasons:

1)  As reported by The New York Sun: "A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors..."  In spite of not receiving honors as an undergrad, Obama was nevertheless admitted to Harvard Law.  Why? 

2)  Obama himself has written he was a poor student as a young man.  As the Baltimore Sun reported, in:  

"'Obama's book 'Dreams from My Father,'....the president recalled a time in his life...when he started to drift away from the path of success. 'I had learned not to care,' Obama wrote. '... Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.' But his mother confronted him about his behavior. 'Don't you think you're being a little casual about your future?" she asked him, according to the book. '... One of your friends was just arrested for drug possession. Your grades are slipping. You haven't even started on your college applications.'"   

3)  Most damning to me is the president's unwillingness to make his transcripts public.  If Obama had really been a stellar student with impeccable grades as an undergrad, is there any doubt they would have been made public by now and trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times as proof of his brilliance?  To me it all adds up to affirmative action.  

The NY Times "Leaks" of "Top Secret" Information - Designed to Pressure Israel

 

LOVE OF THE LAND

Zalman Shoval..
Israel Hayom..
22 March '12..

Diversionary war games

It appears that the U.S. government has made a decision, oddly timed to coincide with the IDF chief of staff’s visit to Washington, to increase the pressure. Not necessarily on Iran, mind you, but on Israel. The aim of this pressure is to limit Israel’s freedom to act against the Iranian nuclear threat. The method: periodic leaking of supposedly top secret information to The New York Times.
 
This time the leak pertained to war games, or a “classified war simulation held this month to assess the repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran.” The conclusions of this simulation were that “the strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States and leave hundreds of Americans dead.”

The newspaper quoted, though indirectly, Gen. James Mattis, the commander of the United States Army's Central Command, as having said that an Israeli strike was “likely to have dire consequences” affecting the U.S. military and the entire region.

The New York Times did concede that the conclusions of this particular simulation were not “the only possible outcome,” but stressed that (and presumably this was the aim of those who leaked the story) the conclusions of this exercise would “give stronger voice to those in the White House, Pentagon and intelligence community who have warned that a strike could prove perilous for the United States.”

According to the sources cited in the article, any Israeli offensive would only delay the Iranian nuclear bomb by two years at most, and an American attack would only delay the Iranians by an “additional two years.” In other words, these sources believe that it is next to impossible to fully block the Iranian nuclear effort, and therefore it would be best simply to accept it. They are urging a policy of containment – precisely what U.S. President Barack Obama declared he wouldn’t do in his AIPAC speech earlier this month.

Prior to this leak, The New York Times ran another article that also addressed the futility of a military attack in Iran, citing exactly the same reasoning – the short delay that would be achieved in Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon. This opinion was presented as relying on the assessments of the Israeli Mossad, which, as they would have it, has become convinced that the American trepidation is a more appropriate position than the "warmongering" attitude in Jerusalem.

All this raises alarming questions regarding the U.S.’s attitude toward a possible military strike on Iran, and on how determined the U.S. really is to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear power. Presumably, Iranian leaders are gleefully reading these New York Times leaks and coming to the same conclusion.

Without doubting the sincerity of Obama’s declarations, one is allowed to wonder what he meant when he said that he has “a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” when in reality, voices in Washington are saying the opposite. One gets the impression that the emphasis on American victims (as a result of an Israeli strike) is designed to stir hostility among the American public, just like Israel and the Jews were slandered not too long ago and made to look like it was us who dragged the U.S. into a war in Iraq.

Israel is the last country that can be accused of not knowing the dangers of war. There is no one who hopes that diplomatic measures will stop Iran’s nuclearization more than Israel. Despite this overriding desire, Israel could put Obama’s declaration – that “Israel must always have the ability to defend itself, by itself, against any threat” – to the test. It may also force the U.S. to prove its mantra that “Israel’s security is sacrosanct.”

Link: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=1607

Peter King warns: Hezbollah agents in U.S.

 

By MJ LEE | 3/21/12 9:12 AM EDT

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) warned Wednesday that there are hundreds — maybe even thousands — of Hezbollah agents inside the United States capable of launching a terror attack if U.S.-Iran tensions continue to escalate

“The American intelligence community … believes we are very much at risk for an attack by Iranian operatives, which would be Hezbollah, that is a terrorist-trained force in this country. It really is the ‘A’ team of international terrorism — far more sophisticated than Al Qaeda,” the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee said on CNN’s “Starting Point.”
King, whose committee is holding a hearing Wednesday to “educate” Americans and members of Congress about the threat of Iran, explained that Hezbollah has had agents and operatives inside the U.S. for many years for the purpose of fundraising and recruiting.
And while the conventional wisdom until recently has been that they were not necessarily stationed in the U.S. to carry out terrorist attacks, the Republican congressman warned Wednesday that especially given the recent tension between Israel and Iran, as well as questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear aspirations, a scenario in which Hezbollah agents mobilize an attack remains a real possibility.
“We do know that a number of them have been trained as terrorists, so the question is,how quickly they can be made operational, and would they carry out an attack?” he said. “We estimate it to be at least in the hundreds, maybe the thousands of Hezbollah agents here in this country. And again, especially if things intensify between Israel and Iran, between the United States and Iran, could Iran take preemptive action in this action through Hezbollah?”
King cited a murder plot allegedly directed by the Iranian government to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. last year as a further warning sign of the potential threat that the country poses to Americans.
And if Israel attacks Iran, the congressman warned that the U.S. could certainly “find itself implicated or involved” in the crisis.
“Having said that, I don’t think we can rule out an Israeli attack,” King said. “ I think we have to keep all the pressure out there. … The fact that there can be complications is not a reason why Israel shouldn’t do it or we shouldn’t do it. We have to make sure whatever we do that it is going to work … and realize that Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon.”
Wednesday’s congressional hearing will include witnesses from the New York Police Department and others from the intelligence community.

 Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74298.html#ixzz1prpzeJl2 




NOTE:

US Congressman: Hezbollah agents in US worse than AL-QUAIDA

Israeli navy secures promise for its sixth submarine

LOS ANGELES TIMES
MARCH 22, 2012

 

REPORTING FROM JERUSALEM -- The long reach of Israel's military promises to get a little longer after the government signed an agreement with Germany to purchase an additional submarine.
Israel currently has three Dolphin-class submarines and another two were already on order. Negotiations with Germany for a sixth were on-again, off-again for several years, challenged alternatively by the political and economic climate. 

Now the two countries have agreed that Israel may buy the sixth submarine, with Germany helping to finance a third of the whopping $528-million price tag that makes the vessel one of the world's most expensive war machines.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a letter, saying the warship would help Israel meet its "considerable security needs in these stormy times."   

Defense Minister Ehud Barak was more specific. He told Israel radio that the purchase strengthens the navy as it increasingly plays a key role in confronting far-away challenges such as Iran as well as closer ones such as defending shipping routes, countering sea-borne terror and arms smuggling, and safeguarding natural gas drilling sites and production platforms off its coasts.

Israel's biggest security challenge, Iran, may not be immediately affected by the new purchase -- which will take years to be delivered -- although it has been speculated submarines could eventually play a part.

However, the overall upgrading of Israel's naval capabilities above and below water is a powerful addition to the capabilities of the Israel Defense Forces, or IDF. Tensions involving Iran's contested nuclear program have long threatened to spill over into the naval arena, with the Iranians threatening to block the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf and both Israeli and Iranian vessels at times passing through the Suez Canal.

"The strength of the IDF and the state of Israel, and its operational flexibility, will grow tenfold," navy commander Maj. Gen. Ram Rothberg said at a naval officers graduation ceremony, according to the Israeli military's website.

Cruise missiles from Israeli submarines, with a range of more than 900 miles, could hit any target in Iran, Israeli naval officers have told foreign media. Those submarines, according to reports, can carry missiles with nuclear warheads.

French Shooting Suspect Was on U.S. No-Fly List

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

By DEVLIN BARRETT


WASHINGTON—The gunman suspected in a string of shootings in southern France was on the U.S.'s no-fly list as a suspected terrorist, according to people familiar with the matter.

A 23-year-old gunman suspected of killing seven people in southwestern jumped from a window to his death in a hail of bullets after police stormed his apartment. (Video: Reuters/Photo: AP)

Two people familiar with the case said Mohammed Merah was on the list because in 2010 he had been in custody in Afghanistan, then sent back to France. Counterterrorism officials at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which manages the U.S. no-fly list, also had collected information on Mr. Merah before the recent shootings in France, including the 2010 encounter, officials said.

The circumstances of his apprehension, detention and return to France weren't entirely clear. U.S. military officials said they don't have a record of his being in American custody while in Afghanistan.

Dow Jones reporter Inti Landauro reports from Toulouse, France on the end of the nearly two-day standoff between police and murder suspect Mohamed Merah. Police shot and killed him as he jumped from an apartment window. REUTERS/Jean-Paul Pelissier

Mr. Merah died in a shootout with French police following a tense armed standoff at a Toulouse apartment. During the standoff, Mr. Merah had claimed he had undergone training with al Qaeda in the Pakistan region of Waziristan, according to French officials.

The suspect apparently returned briefly to the region last year, and then arrived back in France in October, according to French authorities.

A 23-year-old French citizen of Algerian descent, Mr. Merah is suspected of killing four people at a Jewish school Monday, and fatally shooting three soldiers the previous week.

Write to Devlin Barrett at devlin.barrett@wsj.com

NOTE: Shot to head kills gunmen as he scrambles from window

The New Nazis - by Sultan Knish

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 

There was a time when Jewish children were hunted down and killed in France. Their killers believed themselves to be members of a superior group that was destined to rule the world and enslave or exterminate members of inferior groups. The cowardice and appeasement of the French authorities allowed them to operate freely, to kill Jews and launch attacks on other countries.

What was then is now again. The occupying army doesn't wear uniforms, it wears keffiyahs. It doesn't speak German, it speaks Arabic. It doesn't believe that it is superior for reasons of race as much as for reasons of religion. It does not view all others as Untermenschen, but as infidels. It looks forward not to a thousand year Reich, but to a thousand year Caliphate.

Mohammed Merah did not chase down a French-Jewish seven year old girl, put a gun to her head and pull the trigger because he came from an economically depressed area or any of the other media spin. He was only doing what Muslims had been doing to non-Muslims for over a thousand years. He didn't do what he did because he was "radicalized", he did it because he became a fully committed Muslim.

It won't end with taking down one man and it won't end with Jewish children. When your ideology believes that it is in a zero-sum struggle with the rest of the world and that membership means that you are a superior breed of human being because you worship the Fuhrer or Allah, then it won't stop. It won't ever stop. Not until the figurehead is toppled, the creed is humiliated and the supermen are shown to be cowards, neurotics, pedophiles, insecure men dressing up their weaknesses in power fantasies.

Between all the non-stop coverage, the expressions of grief, the political pandering, no one is stating the obvious. France has been occupied all over again. Once again the occupation has been carried out with the consent of the authorities who have decided that cowardice is the only way. Vichy France has become Vichy Europe, Vichy America, Vichy Australia, where the blatant appeasement is disguised as honor, treason is portrayed as responsible leadership and collaboration in the mass murder of your own people is never acknowledged as such.

It's not Neo-Nazis that are the threat to Jews today. It's the new Nazis and the old Nazis who were rounding up Jews into ghettos and murdering their children long before a thousand years before Hitler. The Neos are pathetically longing for the return of a genocidal state that isn't coming back, while the Muslims are actually working to bring back their genocidal state. They are doing it in Egypt, in Libya, in Pakistan and in England, France and Spain.

Muslims have hated Jews before the telephone, the telegraph, the steam engine, gunpowder, movable type and paper currency. And now surrounded by smartphones, credit cards and jet planes, they still hate them. That simple undeniable fact is denied by government, in every university and in every center of culture. And every one of those deniers has blood on his hands.

Not only the blood of the Jewish children murdered by Mohammed Merah. Not only the blood of Jews murdered by Muslims in France. But the blood of all those who have been killed by Muslim immigrants, no matter of what generation, in the name of Islam.

The names of Chamberlain, Petain and Quisling have become eternally infamous because they stand for appeasement and collaboration. But then what do we make of the names Blair, Sarkozy and Stoltenberg? What have the latter done differently from their predecessors? The left likes to pretend that its collaboration with Islam is moral, while the collaboration with Nazism was immoral. It's a distinction without a difference.

Does it really matter whether the men murdering children in the name of their Fuhrer call him Adolf or Mohammed? Does it matter whether they call themselves Hans or Mohammed? Does it matter whether their fantasies of superiority are based on bad science or bad religion? What matters is the end result. A foreign enemy controls your cities, murders at will and takes your future for his own.

The Tolouse Massacre did not come out of the blue, it follows decades of Muslim violence in France-- a Kristalnacht that has been going on year after year. It will not stop here. Not while there are five million Muslim in France, some of whom are bound to pick up the Koran and take it seriously. The "radical" clerics that Mohammed Merah listened to did not innovate a new religion, there has never been any basis to the teachings of the so-called radicals other than the Koran. The only book more popular in the Muslim world than Mein Kampf.

"O Muslims, O Servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." That is what Muslims look forward to in their end times. Rocks and trees that tell them where the Jews are so that the fat faithful servants of Allah don't have to spend too much time and energy searching for their victims. Mohammed Merah did not have any trees or rocks to tell him where to find Jews to kill. But he had a compliant French state which tolerated a known Jihadist to the detriment of his victims.

The question, as always, after every act of Muslim terror is how many more must die? How many? Because the killing will continue. It has gone on for over a thousand years. It is not about to stop now. Muslim leaders who condemn these acts do it for tactical reasons, not moral ones. They don't believe it's wrong to kill rebellious non-Muslims... unless the act rebounds against Muslims.

The difference between the "radicals" and the "moderates" is that the radicals want to engage in genocide even while they are a minority, while the moderates want to wait until they are a majority. The radicals are satisfied with killing a few Hindus, Christians, Jews, here and there. The moderates want to wait and kill millions. Neither are our allies. Both are our murderers.

There is no peaceful way forward here. Carving up Czechoslovakia, Cyprus or Israel will not sate the blood lust of people whose egos are fed by hate, who treat every concession as proof of their own superiority, who love nothing so much as for others to fear them. There is no peace to be had with a creed that defines peace exclusively in terms of its own dominance over others.

Islam, like Nazism, is a disease of the soul, a twin sense of superiority and victimhood possessed by the angry corner dwellers of the world, who are certain that they would rule if only it wasn't for all the others holding them back. To understand a Nazi or a Muslim, you don't need to learn their creeds, just stare into the eyes of a wife beater, a pedophile or any bully and you will see that same smirk which easily transforms into outrage, the arrogant tone that turns unctuous when it is set back on its heels, the flickering eyes that are always looking at what they can't have.

You don't need to read the Koran to understand Mohammed Merah, you can just as easily understand the Koran by reading about what Mohammed Merah did. Nothing much has changed in all the centuries, except that Mohammed Merah didn't get to rape the girl he murdered, because the French state was still functional enough to keep him on the run. The day will however come when it won't be and then the peoples of the free world will learn what true Muslim terror really is, as the peoples of Africa and Asia, as the many other religions of the Middle East, including the Jews learned, in the day of the original Mohammed.

There is nothing extraordinary about what Mohammed Merah did. You may think that there is, but that is because you are a citizen of the free world and you have become used to that rare thing known as civilized behavior. But when your nations opened their borders to people who consider your infidel lands, the Dar Al-Harb, the House of the Sword, then civilization gets its throat cut, it gets chased down at a school, has a gun put to its head and the trigger gets pulled.

Killing children is not a shocking act in the Middle East, except when CNN points its cameras the right way. Parents routinely kill their own children for minor offenses that would hardly get an American child grounded. When they move to America or Canada, they kill their children there too and we considerately look away. If they do that to their children, why do you think they will have any more mercy on yours?

There is no point in holding Mohammed Merah accountable for what he did, just as there was no point in bringing Nazi leaders to trial for crimes against humanity. Mohammed recognizes no form of law other than the law of Islam, just as the Nazis recognized no other form of humanity than their own. There is no common moral or legal system that we share with Islam. Equality before the law, the cornerstone of our system, is so much noise in the windy corridors of the mosque. How can the Subhuman be equal to the Aryan, how can the Infidel be equal to the Muslim?

Mohammed Merah is a mad dog and should be treated as what he is. Accountability is for those who share our moral system. It is for our own leaders who continue perpetuating the macabre myth of a religion of peace, even while attending the funerals of tis victims. Accountability is for the Petains, the Chamberlains and the Quislings who have led us into this hole and keep waving in more Mohammeds to come and join the party.

The old Nazis marched in at the head of an army. The new Nazis bought a plane ticket. The old Nazis had to get by the French Armed Forces and the Royal Air Force. The new Nazis are welcomed in and anyone who says a word otherwise faces trials and jail sentences. The old Nazis deported Jews to camps. The new Nazis kill them right in the cities. And the killing will not stop until the Muslim occupation of Europe comes to an end.

 

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ 

UPDATE - FOX NEWS VIDEO: Comparison: Ft. Hood shootings and American solider in Afghanistan

UPDATE - March 24, 2012: The following Fox News video, posted on Family Security Matters is addressing the issue my friend Bill asked about the other day, on March 22, 2012.  Here's the video:

Bee"s Note:  I received an E-mail from my friend, William, last night.  Bill noticed something strange between the shootings at Ft. Hood in the name of Islam, by Major Nidal Malik Hasan, and the United States Army soldier who shot 16 Afghanistan "civilians".  He asked a good question - "Am I missing something here?" (see below).  

Can anyone deny that there is more violence committed in the name of Islam, around the world, than in the name of any other religion? Jihad by a Muslim terrorist who just happened to be wearing an Army uniform and held the rank of "Major" was committed at Ft. Hood, Texas.

So, the questions is open - are Muslims treated differently than non-Muslims in the United States?  My suspicions are "yes" and the reason Major Hasan's trial is stalled (perhaps for years) is because this administration does not want to bring to the attention of the media that Islamic terrorism is still the most dangerous issue facing America and the world.

Perhaps the shootings in TOULOUSE, France will jog our memories.

E-MAIL FROM "William":

Am I Missing Something Here?

After reading the headlines recently about the US soldier who shot up Afghanistan civilians, I couldn’t help noticing an irony. There is, all this clamor to try this guy quickly and execute him, never mind his having suffered a traumatic brain injury. Yet Major Hasan, a Muslim, who shot up Fort Hood while screaming Allah akbar, still hasn’t stood trial, and they are still debating whether he was insane, even with the clear evidence regarding his motive: to slay as many infidels as possible. 

So we have a guy in a war zone who cracks and he must be executed immediately, according to reports from the media, but this Muslim psychiatrist who was stateside in a nice safe office all day, murders 13, wounds 29 of our own guys, and they try to argue the poor Muslim lad suffered post-traumatic stress syndrome, from listening to real soldiers who had  actual battle experience. Two and a half years later, they still haven’t tried the murderous bastard.

__________________________

Notes: 

1.  In wake of Fort Hood, Congress drills Army on promotion system

2.  Major Is Arraigned in Fort Hood Killings

3.  Al Qaeda Recruiter New Focus in Fort Hood Killings Investigation

4. Napolitano Admits Fort Hood Killings an Act of ‘Terrorism’

5. Army: Fort Hood shooting suspect said 'Allahu Akbar!' before massacre

 

Mourners grieve for soldiers killed in Fort Hood shooting by alleged gunman Maj. Nidal Hasan

 

Ft. Hood shooting victims

Update:  As the United States Army has officially released the names of the 13 fatalities in the Fort Hood Shootings; I will now add them to this article.

* 1. Lt. Col. Juanita Warman, 55, Havre de Grace, Md.
* 2. Maj. Libardo Caraveo, 52, Woodbridge, Va.
* 3. Cpt. John P. Gaffaney, 54, San Diego, Calif.
* 4. Cpt. Russell Seager, 41, Racine, Wis.
* 5. Staff Sgt. Justin Decrow, 32, Plymouth, Ind.
* 6. Sgt. Amy Krueger, 29, Kiel, Wis.
* 7. Spc. Jason Hunt, 22, Tillman, Okla.
* 8. Spc. Frederick Greene, 29, Mountain City, Tenn.
* 9. PFC Aaron Nemelka, 19, West Jordan, Utah
* 10. PFC Michael Pearson, 22, Bolingbrook, Ill.
* 11. PFC Kham Xiong, 23, St. Paul, Minn.
* 12. Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, Chicago, Ill.
* 13. Michael G. Cahill, Cameron, Texas [civilian]

 Continue reading on Examiner.com Fort Hood shooting victims list - National US Headlines | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/us-headlines-in-national/fort-hood-shooting-victims-list#ixzz1prZfFJX2