Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Let`s just say he had a rough day in the office.

Tough day to be in Bush`s entourage:

Top three stories on Drudge:

BUSH DAUGHTER ROBBED IN ARGENTINA

THREE MOTORCYCLES IN BUSH MOTORCADE CRASH IN HONOLULU...


White House Staffer Robbed, Beaten at Waikiki Nightclub...

DAM! When it rains it pours.

First question that will be on Life insurance forms tomorow:

Do you, or have you ever had a relationship (personal or professional) with George W. Bush?

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Free Karim Soliman!




I know its getting tiring for some of the readers who visit my blog to read about these things and me asking them to help to help contribute, but believe me its well worth the effort. This cause is very important to me, its very important to the the moderates in the Middle East and its also important to you. It is this kind of strangulation in Middle Eastern society that helps breed religious fanaticism and the ignorance that runs wild in the Muslim World today, I cannot emphasize how important it is for people like Karim to know that the majority of decent human beings are standing by his side)

Abdelkareem first received international attention in early 2006 when he was kicked out of Al Azhar University for posts he wrote on his blog. During that first incident, he was detained by police but eventually released. Despite his first arrest, he has continued to speak his mind on women's rights, religious freedom, and academic freedom.

On November 6, Abdelkareem was again interrogated over his blogposts. A human rights lawyer from the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information was present to represent Abdelkareem. But the police still decided to arrest him.


They set up a letter writing campaign to help lobby for his release, its VERY simple. If you can`t be bothered to write a letter, just go here, add your name, e-mail and country and just press "send". And please spread the word. Link this campaign on your blog, e-mail friends and relatives, mention this to your co-workers any help would be very much appreciated.

Let me stress that this is not an online petition, as many of those just end up being invitations to spam and junk mail. These letters will be filtered for duplications and spam, and sent to the following officials:

  • General Adel Ali Labib, Governor of Alexandria,
  • David Welch, US Undersecretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs,
  • Francis Ricciardone, US Ambassador to Egypt,
  • Habib el Adly, Egypt's Interior Minister,
  • Ahmed Nazif, Egyptian Prime Minister,
  • Nabil Fahmy, Egypt's Ambassador to the US


Fellow Cannucks, it would probably be a good idea to copy and paste the e-mail and send to the MP`s on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development:

Jason Kenney Kenney.J@parl.gc.ca
Mario Silva: Silva.M@parl.gc.ca
Caroline St-Hilaire: St-Hilaire.C@parl.gc.ca
Irwin Colter: cotler.i@parl.gc.ca
Ted Menzies Menzies.T@parl.gc.ca
Wayne Marston Marston.W@parl.gc.ca
Kevin Sorenson Sorenson.K@parl.gc.ca

You can follow-up on the proceedings here,

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Saddam gets the easy way out.

I oppose this death sentence on the same grounds to which I opposed sending Zacherias Moussaoi to hell sooner rather than later.

Its also a reflection as to why (In most cases anyway) I oppose the death penalty. Its not that I believe its a cruel punishment nor the fact that I have compassion for the prick. My issue revolves around the fact that the death penalty allows guys like this to take the easy way out of this world. In other words, I believe it doesn't go far enough in terms of punishment. It doesn't`t give the convicted any idea of the pain and misery he made other people feel due to his crime.

Let`s think about this, this man has put people people to death through the most brutal ways imaginable to any decent human being. Lashing, electric shock, drowning, you name it. And what does he get as punishment, three meals a day, and a lethal injection to the neck? Please. Furthermore we have to consider how his supporters in the Arab world will view this. In their view, they see a defiant statesman standing strong against his country`s occupiers.

There are other ways of helping Saddam really come to grasp for his crimes against humanity which could deliver the message to both him and his supporters:

Some suggestions:

-Beatings from the hands of friends and relatives of the victims that died from his orders.
-His cell block would consist of a small, dark room, with a bed shaped cement and one toilet.
-Just for kicks, let`s also make the room`s ceiling shorter than his height.
-For entertainment purposes, let`s throw in a non-poisonous cobra in his cell every once in a while (We have to give each victim`s relative an opportunity to give him at least one beating!), the cobra harms him and we laugh, he fights off the cobra and that`s his meal for the day.
-Again like Moussaoi, construct a built in-wall t.v showing all the birthdays, wedding ceremonies, graduations of all his victims over and over.
-Videotape his condition as time goes along, and distribute it all over Iraq as a message to the armed militias. "Disarm and make peace, or you`ll go through what he`s going through".

What? A little too graphic for ya? Well...so is this.

Update (06-11-2006)

Note to self, in the unlikely event that I ever become a leader of a country, Jarrett will be the one responsible of the entire "rehabilitation" system:

My idea involves a large number of bottles of Canadian whiskey, a bunch of waxed Kurdish bodybuilders of ambiguous sexuality, a camel, and the Fox Network.

(You now owe me two Keyboards Jarrett ;) )

A couple of must-read reactions across the Arab Blogsphere:

Mahmood’s Den.


and

Sudanese Thinker


Sanmonkey covers the idiotic coverage by the Arab MSM.

The dominant Middle Eastern Psyche

How to describe it? A few adjectives come to mind: sick, hypocritical, dumb, twisted and so on.

Let me bring your attention to a recent media campaign launched by some Iraqi moderates who are doing their part to help curb the the violence in Iraq that has claimed the lives of many of their countrymen.

"Terror has no religion"

Recently they released several t.v commercials and print ads in which they aim to:

To reveal the true and ample doctrines of Islam, and expose the contempt these terrorists hold for the spiritual essence of our religion. These terrorists and their ungodly way are the ones responsible for making Islam an easily marked target in the eyes of the world, as well as causing Muslims to be the subject of criticism before the world community.


The target audience are meant to be the younger generation of Iraqis in hopes of deterring them from ever joining the jihadist militia (either Shiite or Sunni) as a means to redeem their frustrations of the current atmosphere. Here`s one example:

Suicide Bombing in Baghdad

But unfortunately, despite this group`s best intentions, this ABC reporter stationed in Jordan sums up why this project is dead on arrival:

Sadly, these ads appear to miss the mark. Sure they get your attention but they do look VERY American and will likely be viewed with plenty of skepticism, seen as mere propaganda. More importantly, all the ads are based on one message, "Terror Has No Religion" and suicide bombing runs counter Islam.


The initial message that`s being displayed in these ads will not matter. The simple fact that this group received "American" aid in helping develop this message will, in the eyes of many in the Arab world, just be brushed off as mere "Propaganda" (As if the simple guideline of killing innocent people is bad is Verboten! as it is conveyed by American interests. Give me a break!).

The simple fact that many Arabs and Muslims cannot simply look past the "American" nature of these commercials is an indication to just how intellectually bankrupt today`s Middle East has become. This intellectual bankruptcy itself reveals the reason as to why many "closeted" moderates don`t even bother changing the status-quo in the middle east today. And simply look for the easy way out.

(H.T. Mental Mayham)

Monday, October 30, 2006

This war is going to happen, whether you like it or not.

This is not a post I write with great joy. By by the manner in which many of our esteemed "progressives" and isolationaists commentators have been describing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, this point has to be re-iterated over and over.

5 years after 9/11, two wars in two different countries, and numerous terrorist activities and busts, the left side of the political spectrum all over the western world still propagate the never-ending philosphy in which they claim is the best tool to curb the extremist islamist ideology. The manner in which it is described varies from one progressive to another, however it all comes down to this:

"If were nice to them, they`ll be nice to us."
or
"They`re here, because we are there."


Basically they believe the west should extend an olive branch whether in the form of removing its troops from muslim lands, or diplomatic and political sacrifice to give in to the muslim world`s concerns. Examples: Giving the Palestinian people their own state or "talking" with the Taliban.

These opinions and talking points illustrate the sad handicap many of our progressive friends suffer from. Like the famous conservative joke says it: "The best thing about being a liberal is that history only begins this mourning".

History, the best conservative tool since Reagan.


I hate to repeat what I`ve been saying all along, but historic facts and past events regarding conflict with fundamentalist muslim militants suggest that neither approach (military withdrawal or diplomatic negotiation) have worked to quench the other side`s thirst for more war and conflict. Quite the contrary, it made them more popular among the muslim world, more determined and more powerful and stronger (Both political and militarily).

Case studies:

Lebanon

Past events in Lebanon gives more than enough ammo to help support our argument that the current enemy we`re fighting is not exactly is not exactly someone whom we can discuss matters of mutual interest over tea and crumpets.

Take for instance, the case of southern lebanon. Since the 80`s international human rights organizations, the UN, the EU and many left-wing talking heads were repeating over and over again that Israel needs to withdraw from the south for there to be peace in the region. Israel was assured from everyone that this withdrawal would result in Hezbollah being less influential to distribute its anti-Israeli propaganda, and that cooler heads would prevail in Lebanon where the moderates would gain the upper hand in pushing for peace.

In 2000, Israel obeyed. It withdrew from southern lebanon with little or nothing in return from the other side. Unfortunately it backfired, very very badly. Hezbollah was given credit for the withdrawal, and were greeted as liberators from the majority of people in Lebanon. The moderates were shut out, as their talking points of reform and moderation were drowned by the loud ovation that "jihad works!" and the the most effective way to get matters done, is through holly war and bloodshed. Hezbollah was rewarded for its popularity with political power in Beirut and self-rule in the predominantly shiite region in Southern Lebanon. To make matters worse, Hezbollah continued to receive more than ever, military supplies from Iran.

Another event of note in Lebanon was the 1983 Marine barracks bombing. Following the bombing, and the huge public outcry back in the US to withdraw the troops, many Americans were not aware the at the time, the Islamists were taking notes, as Bin Laden stated in an interview in 1998:

Osama bin Laden, identified as the mastermind behind Sept. 11, underscored the symbolic importance of the 1983 violence when he told ABC News in 1998 that U.S. soldiers were "paper tigers."

"The Marines fled after two explosions," he recalled.

"There is no question it was a major cause of 9/11," said former Navy Secretary John Lehman, a member of the Sept. 11 investigative commission quoted recently in Knight Ridder Newspapers. "We told the world that terrorism succeeds."




Palestine:

Palestine is a different case study, where different actions took place, but unfortunately yielded similar results. Since time immemorial the Israelis were being pushed in making "sacrifices" with the PLO. And in the early 90`s, the Israelis decided to roll the dice. And proceed with the demands many leftists are making today.

They withdrew from cities like Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jenin, Gaza City, Hebron and gave civic control to east Jerusalem. They also agreed to "negotiate" and engage in talks with their arch enemy Yassir Arafat. The overall principles of this negotiation was revolved around "Land for Peace". Basically, the Israelis would give back the lands they took in 1967, in return the Palestinians would cease terrorist activities against Israeli civilians, and crack down on radical groups whose purpose it is to destroy Israel.

The outcome,
Arafat did not crack down terrorism. He greeted Hamas and Islamic jihad with hugs and kisses.
Groups tied to Arafat carried out suicide attacks by the droves.
More Israeli civilians died due to terrorism after the peace process than before Oslo.
Arafat personally wrote the checks to suicide bombing materials.

But, naively, Israel kept on giving, last summer they withdrew from the entire Gaza Strip. Resulting in the same results experienced in Southern Lebanon.
-Hamas was credited for the withdrawal.
-They`re more popular than ever.
-They continue to carry out terrorist activities against Israeli civilians.


In both cases, Israel did exactly what the progressive and isolationist movements are advising to do today. Withdraw militarily and sacrifice politically. Now judge for yourselves:
-Is Israel more in danger today than it was pre-PLO negotiation or withdrawal from south lebanon?
-Are the fundamentalists more or less popular than they were?
-Are the fundamentalists more or less politically influential than they were?

And then, ask yourselves, do you think that withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan would not result in a similar fate?

Truth be told, is that if history of the region teaches us anything is that we have two choices:
-Fight them now and take losses by the dozen.
-Withdraw now, and face them again in 10 years when they get more powerful and influential.

Pick your bullet wound.

The "Muslim Outrage".

On talking point the anti-war lobby loves to repeat over and over is the explanation of how Al-Qaida grows in numbers and supporters. The way they see it, whenever muslims see they`re own brethren get killed by Western troops, they instantly become more receptive towards the extremist propaganda who offer them the opportunity avenge those deaths.

Unfortunately, like most matters in the middle east, its not that simple. While there`s no doubt that civilian deaths in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do in fact enrage the muslim youth, thanks to constant brainwashing and propaganda by the religious leaders in the region, you would have to step back and look at the atrocities committed throughout the entire middle east and look at the different reactions the muslim world chooses to display. Namely, at the killing of muslims when the killers are muslims themselves.

Examples:

1. The Hama Massacre: In 1982 following an assassination attempt on Syrian dictator Hafez Al Assad, the Syrian government raided the city of HAMA (where it was believed that it housed the largest opposition members to the Syrian Baathist regime). According to the Syrian Human rights committee, 30000-40000 civilians were massacred. And if you want more in-depth details of the raid, you can find it here:


many families were victims of genocide, whether it was under the heavy artillery shelling or massacres committed by gunning down the victims with light fire weapons. The most terrifying massacres occurred in public squares and in graveyards, even hospitals and schools were not spared, all available buildings were converted to a detention center during the massacre period. It is safe to assert that the massacre of Hama was a collection of separate massacres, which targeted about one fifth of the city’s inhabitants. One survivor of the Sriheen Massacre, which is one of the most horrific massacres then, how people were taken to their fate in eleven trucks. In his testimony, he said: “I was among a huge number of people, so crowded that we almost could not breeze, and we were taken to Sriheen, where we were ordered to step out of the trucks, so we did as told. First thing we noticed was those hundreds of shoes scattered everywhere on the ground. It was then when we realized that it meant that hundreds of our fellow citizens were killed and we were next to face the same imminent death. We were searched afterwards, and any cash or watches were taken off us. Then, the elements of the Syrian authorities ordered us to move forward towards a deeply dug trench, which stretched long. Some of us were ordered to go to another nearby trench. When I stepped forward to my spot by the trench, I saw the pile of bodies in their still tainted by running blood, which horrified me so much that I had to close my eyes and I had to contain myself to avoid falling off. As expected, streams of bullets were fired towards us and everyone fell in their blood into the trenches, whilst the ones who were inside the other trench got shot inside the trench where they stood.” The survivor went on: “My injury was not life threatening and God granted me survival by inspiring me to wait patiently till the murderers left the premises and I ran despite my injuries. I was divinely saved from that fate whereas the injured could die under the weight of the other bodies most definitely.


2. The massacres in Algeria: The armed Islamic group committed massive amounts of massacres all accross rural Algeria, killing as much as 100-300 innocent civilians in a matter of 1-2 hours per day. This occurred more frequently during the holly month of ramadan.

I`m not going to go into details as they`re quite horrific, you can look into this horrific matter on your own, however, just know that Islamists considered no one to be off limits, the targets were specifically women and children. Some put the body count at 60000 others go as high as 120000.

Many more atrocities and human rights abuses were committed on Muslims by muslims themselves. But here`s the interesting (and shocking) fact about all the heinous acts of barbarism.

What was the reaction from the Muslim across the middle east to these massacres.

Nothing.


There was no marches, no debates, no call ins to radio stations, no angry sermons at the mosque, no call for Jihad to avenge those deaths.


Should`nt this reaction at least raise a flag among the anti-war crowd? Why are the lives of muslims killed by Americans or any Western troops considered more important than those killed by their own people?

Doesn't`t this show, to put it mildly, a lack of consistency within the muslim world on the value they place on human life as a whole? The more you think about this, the more you begin to understand the sick ideology and hypocrisy many muslims are living in today. And raises a question as to who is delivering them the message rather than what message is being delivered to them.

Possible reasons for leftist opposition to Mid-East wars:

As I mentioned many times, the left has taken a nasty turn in modern times. Where their hatred for their political enemies outweigh their own principles.

(A good example of this was when the left slammed Bush on his supposed lack of funding for AIDS research. When Bush announced more funding than any other western leader to combat aids, the very same talking heads in turn slammed him for undermining the UN.).

Case in point: the defeat of their political enemies is more important to lefties toda than the well-being of the third-world.

Notice how the death of any civilian in Iraq or Afghanistan is a call for masturbation among many Progressive Bloggers. The thought of dragging dead corpses in the Middle East with the sole intent on attacking their domestic political gain is something many of them get excited about. Repercussion to military withdrawal be dammed. They want their political enemies`heads on a platter. Omar from ITM, hits the nail on the head:

Among the things I cannot accept is exploiting the suffering of people to make gains that are not the least related to easing the suffering of those people.


To others, its a a case of denial. They cannot bring themselves into believing that their are some real sick bastards in this world. And the solution in dealing with them should not be a bullet in their skull, but a hug and the intent on proving to them that were not bad people.

To some, the wars today tend to draw attention away from issues dear to their hearts. Such as the environment, or social programs. Therefore they more we ignore the problem or get it over with, the sooner we could get back to those matters they hold in priority.

Any way you look at it, the opposition talking points to these wars are very easily demolished with some good ole fashion common sense and history.

Conclusion

Its not that I refuse to look at the the left`s talking points or don`t think some of their concerns are not sincere. I wish it could be as simple as us being nice to them. I WANT to believe that just a little gesture of generosity and compassion on our part would put this whole nightmare to rest.

And its not the fact that I`m right-wing, or heartless, or militaristic, or that I have no desire to see a war-free world. Let be known that if I ever find a magic lamp, with a genie inside, my first wish would be for World Peace.

Its just that I know the reality on the ground. And I know how the middle eastern psyche works.

You want to withdraw now? Fine. Go on ahead, bring back the troops, sit down with Al Qaida, invite the Taliban over for tea, let`s give in to their demands. And then...well`ll be back at war with them in 10 years time, only this time they will be 10 times deadlier.

Be it now, or tomorrow, or 10 years from now. We will still be at war with this ideology. Whether we want it or not.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Don`t these people ever come out with something original?

First it was Brison ripping off Clement`s platform.

And now its Dion copying Suzuki`s report word by word? (h/t Steve Janke).

With all respect to Steve, I`m not sure. Dion is considered (at least in the Academic World) a very well respected University professor prior to his entry into politics. Which is why I`m willing to believe that this was a fu*k up made by his legislative team rather than him personally.

But then again, you`d expect someone like Dion (who never stops reminding us of his environmental credentials or the priority he gives to this issue) to have read an important report by Suzuki and put 2 and 2 together when he read his own platform.

Sunday, September 03, 2006

People making a difference:

There are people who talk about making the world a better place, and there are people who actually work to make the world a better place. Like the following:

1. 4 Canadian soldiers killed Afghanistan during a successful offensive mounted by Afghan, American, British and Canadian on Taliban strongholds. Deepest condolences and prayers go out the the friends and families of
* Warrant Officer Frank Robert Mellish
* Warrant Officer Richard Francis Nolan
and the two other unidentified soldiers.


2. Arab Peace Warrior dies:

Novelist Naguib Mahfouz, who in my opinion, is the greatest novelist ever to come out of the Arab World, passed away on Thursday, he was 92. For those of you unfamiliar with Mahfouz, he was a Nobel prize winner for literature in 1988, who stood side by side with Anwar Sadat when he signed the Peace Deal with Israel at Camp David in the late 70`s. He was considered a hero and a mentor to many Arab Moderates and Democracy activists throughout the middle east. And was also highly critical of the status-quo currently held in the Arab world today. Needless to say he faced allot of this:

It is no wonder that Islamists condemned him for this very reason. In 1994, he was stabbed in the neck by extremists while he was taking his daily walk to a favorite café in Cairo. He survived the assault but lived under constant protection by the authorities ever since.

In addition to the hostility he faced from the religious establishment, he was also criticized by so-called intellectuals in the Arab world for his moderate stance toward Israel and his outspoken support for President Anwar Al-Sadat and the Camp David peace accords. Before that, he was branded a reactionary because of his well-hidden disapproval of the destructive policies of President Gamal Abdul Nasser and the coup that brought him to power in 1952. Many of his novels were banned in Arab countries.


(h/t Healing Iraq)

God Bless you Naguib. You were the beacon of light to our people for many of us.

Make sure to read more about Mahfouz:
Big Pharaoh

Sandmonkey:

Freedom for Egyptians:


Kabob Fest

And Roba:



3. Fellow Blogger Brian Gardiner from Home At Hepster is running for Terry Fox. Probably the greatest Canadian ever to have lived. If you can, help him by sponsoring him through this link. Blue Blogging Soapbox has put out a 500$ challenge. So far there`s 205$.

"Talking to the Taliban"....sooo 2001.

By now, everybody is aware of Jack Chamberlain`s idiotic suggestion of "talking with the Taliban", progressive goals be dammed, this guy shown that he has no principles in which he believes in, and that the Liberal Party was right when it joked that Layton would sell out his own mother for an extra vote in the ballot box.

What you probably missed was that the Liberal party is in favor of this approach as well, and I would`nt have realized it without Eva Braun`s long lost daughter Liberal Catnip:

Liberal defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh also rejected the NDP call to withdraw troops, but agreed that talks with the Taliban could be helpful.



The problem for the Grits and the Dippers is that believe it or not...its already been tried. And by George W. Bush nonetheless:

CNN (17.09.01)

Taliban given three days to hand over bin Laden

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- The Pakistani government, led by President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, will ask the Taliban, Afghanistan's rulers, to hand over suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden in three days or face massive military action led by the United States, CNN learned Sunday.

In a move called "very encouraging" by a senior Bush administration official Sunday, a high-level Pakistani delegation is traveling to Afghanistan Monday to carry this message to the Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammed Omar in Kandahar.


But to no avail.

AFGHANISTAN'S ruling Taliban yesterday ignored an edict by Islamic clerics that Osama bin Laden be asked to leave the country, defying America's demands that they hand him over or face military strikes. President Bush had also said that the Taliban should yield senior members of the suspected terrorist mastermind's al-Qa'eda organisation, and close all militant training camps inside Afghanistan, where he has lived for five years.



They said no back then, they`ll say no again. In fact just like Hezbollah and Hamas, they`ll see this as a sign of weakness and help their propaganda campaign. Its the way these people think and work.

Update (03/09/06) 5:24 pm:

Andrew Coyne with the money shot to Layton, what does he mean by "negotiations"?:

Or would they, having absorbed the initial round of gains, simply resume fighting the minute the opportunity presented itself? In which case, would any negotiations not require the continued presence of international troops to enforce the results? And what if the Taliban refused to abide by the terms even then? Why would they be likely to accede to the demands of the international community in that event, when they have been so unwilling to date? In which case, would we not have to, you know, fight them?


(H/T Daimnation!)

Debunking the Hezbollah whitewashing.

I know I`m very late to comment on this, but during my mini-hiatus from the blogging world, there`s been quite a few interesting developments when it comes to Canadian Foreign Policy and anti-terrorism.

Predictably, many on the Canadian Left have called for invitations to Hezbollah to come to the negotiating table and be treated as equals in the peace process. I will list the excuses and talking points (at least the predominant ones) followed by a simple rebuke using nothing but historical facts and common sense logic.

This will be a an ongoing post, meaning every time I hear a new talking point/excuse for Hezbollah to be scratched off the terror list and begin negotiations with them, I will post it, source it, and follow it up by a rebuke. Now I`m not going to be alone in this. A few of my Lebanese-Canadian buddies will be helping me out on this: My best friend Khaled is just itching to blast away any `misconceptions`the Left has to offer on Hezbollah, he`ll be doing some of the debunking. So will Deema (an ex girlfriend who has relatives in the SLA), her cousin Ramzi, Geroge (who spent his entire childhood in Lebanon) and Eli (Lebanese foreign student in Canada).

This is just a heads up in case you see one answer/post with a different signature on it. I`m still here, only others will also be answering your questions.

Also if you happen to come accross any new excuse, let us know in the comments section, and we`ll take care of it.

I have plans to turn Arabian Dissent into a group blog, and if your of Middle Eastern origin who needs a channel to vent your frustration against the fuckers who are dragging our name in the mud, and is for Democracy, and widescale reform to take hold in the Middle East, e-mail me.

Now...on to the Debunking:

Myth number 1:

Hezbollah is a democraticaly elected party in the Lebanese legislature, if Lebanese politicians talk with them freely, why can`t we?

Answer: Hezbollah may have been democraticaly elected in the legislature, however, that does not mean they respect and honour their democratic duties. Flashback:

Some 100 lawmakers, including Geagea's wife, voted for the amnesty motions,
while about 15 legislators of Shia Muslim group Hizb Allah and their allies
walked out when lawmakers began debating Geagea's case.

The violence began when sticks and rocks were used in fighting between
members
of the Shia Amal movement and Christian Maronite supporters of
Geagea.
When gunfire broke out, Lebanese army units were deployed
to
the area to stop the violence.



There`s your reason why Lebanese politicians have no choice but to have formal talks with them. If they don`t, they get killed, its as simple as that.

Next.


Myth number 2:

We`ve dealt with the IRA, why can`t we deal with Hezbollah!?

Answer: Very simple. The nature of both groups are very very different. For starters, the IRA does not advocate nor aim for the destruction of Engalnd. And peace negottiations with the IRA only began AFTER they moderated their stance not before. The IRA also has no major plans for territorial expansion aimed at wiping an entire race from the face of Europe. And is not an active satelite for a country that`s known to fund and aid terrorist groups. The same cannot be said for Hezbollah.

Myth number 3:
comes from the well-meaning but historicaly ignorant Mike from Rational Reasons:
"including these groups in the political process (see IRA, PLO, currently ETA) has moderated their positions and brought about negotiations and peace."

The PLO moderating its stance since its inclusion into the political process? Only in Dipper world, where history begins this morning.

Since being "included in the political process" the PLO (and its sub organizations) under Yasser Arafat has:
-Doubled anti-semitic Propaghanda in their social system through state-controlled media and through its education system.
-Personally wrote checks for suicide operations.
-Helped form a sub-division that carried out suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.
-Refused to crack down on Hamas and Islamic Jihad (a pre-requisite for the PA when it signed onto Oslo)
-Tried to sneak in a boatload of ammunition into Gaza.
-Pulled two-faced tactics, saying one thing in English in front of the international community, while saying another in Arabic to its people.
-Refused a generous offer by Ehud Barak to get back 95 per cent of West Bank and Gaza Strip land and instead launched a civilian uprising against the Israelis.
(Initifada 2)

Does that sound like "moderating their position" to you Mike?

Myth number 4:
Hezbollah runs various charities and social programs that aim to help the Lebanese civilian population.

Answer: Let`s use this logic through a different scenario. Say I killed an innocent passer-by because I was having a bad day. However, I`m also a member of the Red Cross and volunteer at the local Food Bank from time to time. In the court of law, the later would`nt mean squat. I`m still a murderer. And will be judged as such. My volunteer work and goodwill cannot be used as a bargaining chip with the law. And neither can Hezbollah (and its apologists) use this as a tool to convince people that they`re really not that bad.

Myth Number 5:

Some Israelis don`t view Hezbollah as "terrorists"

Answer: Like I said in my previous post, the Israeli left has been very naive over the past few years.
Almost all their concessions and negotiations they championed have lead to more and more disasters for both people. So while many on the Israeli side are well-meaning, they`re not necessarily right on this matter.


(More will come...)

Saturday, September 02, 2006

Delaying the inevitable.

I wish I can express some level of optimism regarding the so-called “ceasefire” in Lebanon. No more bombs, no more dead innocent civilians and no more destruction to property. The Lebanese people will just have to pull back their sleeves and begin the re-construction phase once again and eventually peace will come…..

If only that was true! However, just a glimpse at the history of the region would indicate that the current UN brokered ceasefire is only a delay of the even bigger war that will create ten times more destruction and death.

The way things are perceived in the Arab world is that Hezbollah stood up against the Jews, caused many casualties, humiliated the once-might Israeli army, and have restored honor to “Muslim Pride”. It’s the exact similar reaction they had when the Israelis withdrew from Southern Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza last summer.

You’d think that this alone would raise a red flag in the mainstream media, the halls of academia or even individual citizens to properly assess what’s coming in the next few years. Unfortunately all were hearing are calls for inviting Hezbollah to the negotiations table, the “excessive force” displayed by the Israeli military and the questioning of whether or not military solutions are the proper response to Islamist threats.

Which is weird, considering all what’s happening in the recent months can be directly attributed to actions and “peace solutions” in which “Progressives” worldwide assured everybody would pay off. Many on the right however, had reservations.

Consider:

- Everybody pushed Israel to make territorial concessions in the West Bank and Gaza in the hopes that b withdrawing and giving the Palestinian people autonomy, political and economic control and a better handle to their social system. Eventually, the Israeli were told, the Palestinians would moderate, and tings would eventually fall into place for peace to take hold for future generations.

And the Israelis went for it, they gave back Hebron, Ramallah, Nablus, Gaza City, Bethlehem, Jericho and Jenin.

13 years later, the Palestinians elect Hamas. Hmmm…not exactly according to plans…but what the hell.

Case number 2:

Southern Lebanon:

Almost the same exact scenario as today. Israel was occupying Southern Lebanon in hopes of creating a buffer zone between northern Israel and Hezbollah. But things were getting hairy. It was getting expensive, in both finance and military lives on the Israeli side. And the Labor party in Israel under Ehud Barak caves into international pressure to eventually withdraw from Southern Lebanon and give control to the Lebanese. They were told by everyone from the UN, Bill Clinton and the EU that this move would send the right message to the Lebanese and Arabs in general that Israel would be willing to make concessions in return for peace. Once again, the Israeli right wing had different feelings. Nonetheless, on April of 2000, the last Israeli solider officially withdrew from Southern Lebanon.

6 years later: Hezbollah terrorists are praised as Liberators, they gain major political autonomy in Shiite regions in Lebanon, more political representation and message is sent to the Arab world that Israel eventually caves once you kill the right amount. Possibly setting the motivation for Arafat to launch the second intifada shortly after Camp David 2.

Was this what the people who were calling for the withdrawal back then had in mind? Who knows…but just a few years later they advocate for the same thing only this time in the Gaza Strip.

Case number 3:

The Gaza Strip

Ariel Sharon breaks off with his traditional right-wing allies in Israel and decides to create a centrist alternative to both Likud and Labor. He goes against his right flank and announces a complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. The left in Israel and all over the world is overjoyed. This is the right thing to do they said. Concessions and sacrifices are they key to the peace process. This will help the Palestinian moderates. Cooler heads would prevail. The Palestinians would finally build a prosperous and peaceful society that would help deflect terrorist and radical intentions.

One year later:

Hamas gets praised as liberators. Israel is seen as weak to pressure. They begin using the Gaza strip as a lunch pad to their rockets that target Israeli civilians. The economy in Gaza is in ruins, and the moderates are nowhere to be seen.

Hmmmm…so far they’re 0-for 3.

Now what you need to do is consider the three scenarios mentioned and ask yourself the following questions:

1. Is Israel more or less in danger today following the withdrawals?
2. Who gave more concessions throughout the whole peace process Israel (with territorial concessions) or the Arabs (cracking down on terrorist groups)?
3. Who has prevailed in the Arab world after all those concessions? The Moderates? Or the religious fundamentalists?
4. Has the situation in the Palestinian territories and Southern Lebanon improved following the withdrawals?
5. Do you think the continued violence is due to the fact because the Israeli right was listened to? Or is it because they were ignored?

And finally…do you think following the withdrawal this time from Southern Lebanon, the Israelis have avoided or simply delayed a bigger fight in the future?

Judging from the scenarios before us, I’m leaning towards the later.

And I’m not the only one. Khaled (my buddy who was evacuated from Lebanon a few weeks ago) swears that Lebanon is dead to him. As far as he’s concerned, he ain’t ever going back. My Lebanese friends aren’t even considering returning for even a visit for the next 10 years.

I’ve just run into an Israeli-Canadian friend from University in the gym. Says he’s just trying to get back in shape because all signs in Israel point to him being called back for military service. Does this sound like peace is right around the corner?