Saturday, February 25, 2012

"Nothing but burning the White House can relieve the wound of us"


The Muslim world is none too happy about some Korans that got burned in Afghanistan recently. Obama has apologized but that isn't satisfying a lot of Muslims. They have killed at least 20 people including 4 Americans and many more have been injured. In Libya, British graves of war heroes have been desecrated. Extremists are calling for much more violence. In good old Iran, the rhetoric has become, as usual, very heated.

The commander of Iran's Basij force Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Naqd said:

 "Nothing but burning the White House can relieve the wound of us, the Muslims, caused by the Burning of Quran in the US," he said adding: "Their apology can be accepted only by hanging their commanders; hanging their commanders means an apology,"

Looks like apologizing doesn't work.


  1. "Two US Congressmen - Elliot Engel (D-NY) and Jerold Nadler (D-NY) - were attacked by 'Palestinian' stone throwers as they visited the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives on Friday afternoon...."

  2. "Soldiers nearly lynched by Arabs in Haifa

    Arab Israelis viciously assault two soldiers in civilian clothing early Saturday; one victim's head 'engraved' by knife-wielding assailant; attackers use bats, rocks.....",7340,L-4194551,00.html

  3. The humanitarian racists will find a way to overlook this stuff.,7340,L-4179427,00.html

    1. They will say such a thing does not exist.

  4. In other news, Lindsey Graham and John McCain, along with a few other senators (I think 4 of the 5 are Republican), met with the Muslim Brotherhood and are making nice. Lindsey said:

    “I was very apprehensive when I heard the election results, but after visiting and talking with the Muslim Brotherhood I am hopeful that … we can have a relationship with Egypt where the Muslim Brotherhood is a strong political voice.”

    1. And you think that this vindicates the Obama administration, do you?

  5. Vindicates? You're begging the question. I'm not sure that either the Obama administration nor the Republican senators who have met with the MB need vindication. They're accepting political reality. Talking with them is better than not talking with them. I'm just pointing out that your apparent glee about Jews abandoning democrats leaves them either silent in the process or supporting republicans who don't apparently have a significantly different plan for dealing with the evolution of the landscape in Egypt. And on top of that, have all the other objectionable positions that made jewish voters democrats in the first place.

    1. Ah, I see.

      Are you OK with the fact that, according to Ha'aret, Obama held a secret meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood as early as spring '09?

      This gives you no particular reason for concern?

      Is that correct?

  6. Stuart makes two points here:

    1) that there's nothing wrong with sucking up the Muslim Brotherhood; and

    2) that the Republicans may be no better than the Democrats in this regard.

    2) is correct, but 1) is way wrong. See for a brief MB history, including its ties to Adolf Hitler.

    1. I, frankly, just find it astonishing that after country after country moves toward Islamism under the banner of "Arab Spring," which is probably the most significant geo-political development since the fall of the Soviet Union, that the American political left has absolutely nothing to say about it.


      For a long time they yammered at us about "the blessings of democracy" even as the Brotherhood came to power in Egypt.

      It's just astonishing.

      They just have nothing to say beyond, "Oh, how nice. It's democracy!"

      It's as if they consider the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East to be irrelevant and of no particular concern.

      I would have hoped that when Lara Logan got raped in the streets of Cairo to the cries of "Yahood! Yahood!" it might mean something to the progressive-left.

      I would have been entirely wrong, tho.

    2. Just following dear leader's thinking that it's not really a big deal because burdened with the responsibility of governing, the MB will become moderate. You know, like Hamas. lol

    3. Ya know, Doodad,

      it's just possible that the MB has moderated some (all evidence to the contrary!), but there is simply no reason that I know of to honestly draw that conclusion.

      It seems to me that there are 3 obvious things that we know:

      1) The MB has a long history of promoting violence and calls to Jewish genocide.

      2) The Brotherhood despises modernity and secular democracy.

      3) Barack Obama paved the way for the rise of the Brotherhood in Egypt when he called for the ouster of Hosni Mubarak.

      If that third one is controversial, I do not see how one cannot draw the conclusion.

      And if Obama met with the Brotherhood in the spring of '09, it means that he expected them to come into power if Mubarak fell.

      Am I wrong?

    4. I'm going to be beneficent and suggest that Obama and every high power adviser and state dep't official etc were at LEAST as smart as Barry Rubin and others who predicted the MB outcome.

      Therefore Mubarek not being at the Cairo speech but Obama insisting at least 10 MB reps be there speaks to me. It should speak to everyone.

      I would refer everyone again to a link oldschool posted previously from the Cutting Edge wherein a leading Arab Liberal accuses Obama et al of having embraced the Islamist Agenda at home and is POWERFUL stuff....some of the most powerful I have seen in the whole discussion.

      Let us remember too that the MB Lobby didn't just appear yesterday. It has been around in American politics a long time, especially after 9/11.

  7. Sorry, the reply button doesn't seem to work for me. But yes Michael, I think you're wrong. I think it's presumptuous to assume that Obama, and his administration's nor more than tacit support for the Egyptian uprising was the equivilent to paving the way for the rise of the MB. For one, it assumes that if not but for the virtual innaction of the US government, Mubarak would still be in power. I've seen no evidence that's the case. If the US played a part, it was only to make the eventual overthrow of Mubarak less bloody than it might otherwise would have been.

    Did he KNOW that the MB would be eventual ruling party? I doubt it. I don't think anyone knew. The MB has been pretty quiet in Egypt over the last 20 years. I think actually outlawed until relatively recently. They claim they're not the same organization that they were 50 years ago. Are they? I have my doubts, as you do. But I don't see Obama or his administration as playing a significant part in their rise. Nor do I think there was any practical way for them to have stopped it.

    And yes, I do want to see you when you're in Phoenix.

    1. OK.

      Here is my question.

      If you do not believe that the administration understood the power of the Brotherhood in Egypt then why would they meet with a supposedly fringe genocidal organization before they even came into power?

      It cannot be both ways.

      Either the Obama administration considered the Brotherhood fringe or they did not.

      If they did consider them fringe, then why bother meeting with a fringe terrorist organization?

      If they did not consider them fringe, then why validate a prominent Egyptian terrorist organization that could assume power?

      Anyways, yes, I would love to hook up in Phoenix.

      Shoot me an email. OK?