British Muslim University Students Poll


Posted in Muslims


Aug. 5, 2008 at 10:32

by BrendaBee

Another look at what Muslims believe, and these are educated Muslims who have lived in a  Democratic  society all their lives. 

I keep shouting in the wilderness that we are at war with Islam and the evidence keeps piling up.  But will we in the United States be prepared when it comes to blood?  I doubt.  BB



   TownHall.com  August 05, 2008

A Revealing Look at Britain's Muslim Students
David Aikman

Many people have argued that Islamist extremism is the result of economic and social grievances among the poor and disadvantaged of the Muslim world. A glance at the high education attainments of most of the 9/11 Arab hijackers ought to have put that misconception to rest.

But now a recent poll in Britain of Muslim university students has confirmed it. One third approved of killing in the name of religion and wanted a worldwide caliphate, and one quarter didn?t think men and women were equal in God's eyes. Yet 94 percent of non-Muslim students thought killing for religious reasons was always wrong.

There's either something wrong with British higher education or something profoundly wrong with British Muslims if Muslim students hold those attitudes.

0 Comments | Post Comment | Email This

Muslim's Make a huge breech in the Dam


Posted in Muslims


Jul. 12, 2008 at 05:57

by BrendaBee

I am passing this on because I am frankly both appalled and terrified.  The British are giving in to their Muslim populations.  This week they removed the Holocaust from their curriculum because it offended the Muslims who do not believe it happened. They also  have agreed to allow Sharia Law to be used within the Muslim communities.

 Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said, "Those entering into a contractual agreement can agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."

The laws of a country are the basis for it's social interaction and cohesion .  Nothing is more important than preserving the laws of a country!  Nothing!  And yet the British, our staunchest allies and friends have  allowed a small segment of their population to ignore the law of the land in favor of a law of intolerance and  ignorance.

 Lord Phillips said Muslims could use Sharia law, or Islamic legal principles as long as punishments comply with English Law.  Sharia Law is a law of intolerance and ignorance and dominion over women.  There is no way that Sharia Law can comply with English Law.   Look up Sharia Law and see for yourself how different it is from our own laws which are based mostly on English law.

Is this then the break in the dam that the Muslims have been trying to get anywhere in the infidel world?  I have written a great deal on this subject if you care to check my articles under the category "Muslims".  References are always presented. 

These stories came from the BBC news network.    I also received and am passing on this e-mail since it so well illustrates what happened.  I am also recommending Cal Thomas' article in the Opinion Pages of Saturday July 11, 2008 News & Record Greensboro, NC.  BB



addition:

Roch looked the following up in Snopes and informs me that it is false.   I hadn't check Snopes on the elimination of history of Holocaust because I read it in BBC News a while back. It was quite a topic of discussion in the House of Commons. Can not remember the date.  I will not remove or apologize for the following because I have no doubt it will be true in the near future.  

The world is at war with Islam and in the name of political correctness and just plain old everyday politics  our leaders and a goodly number of our citizens refuse to see the hand writing on the wall.  Brenda



--- On Fri, 7/11/08, Joe Boden wrote:
From: Joe Boden
Subject: FW: Dwight Eisenhower was right
To: "Joe Boden"
Date: Friday, July 11, 2008, 7:22 AM

Dwight Eisenhower was right



Pictures taken right at the end of WW II


A
U.S. solider surveys a German concentration camp


cid:1.996834371@web51401.mail.re2.yahoo.com

It is a matter of history that when Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps, he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.

He did this because he said in word's to this effect:  Get it all on record now. Get the films and get the witnesses  becauyse somewhere down the track of history some bastards will get up and claim that this never happened!

cid:2.996834372@web51401.mail.re2.yahoo.com


'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing'
Edmund Burke

cid:3.996834372@web51401.mail.re2.yahoo.com


This week, the UK removed The Holocaust from its school curriculum because it 'offended' the Muslim population which claims it never occurred.


This is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving in to it.

cid:4.996834372@web51401.mail.re2.yahoo.com

 

These photos were taken in Germany by James Emison Chanslor, an Army Master Sergeant who served in World War II from 1942 until 1945.


Source: Photos courtesy of John Michael Chanslor.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in  Europe ended. 

This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the

six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests
who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian peoples looking the other way!
Now, more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.


This e-mail is intended to reach 40 million people worldwide!



0 Comments | Post Comment | Email This

Facts relating to the War with Islam


Posted in Muslims


May. 3, 2008 at 08:43

by BrendaBee

This is an e-mail that has been making the rounds for since mid 2004.  It is true, the letter was written and  as I have checked the facts are accurate.  What is not  true is that it has been attributed to Dr. Vernon Chong.  Dr. Chong denies writing it and instead said he found it on the internet and forwarded it to a friend and somehow it became attributed to him.  The man who wrote it  is an attorney and it was meant as a letter to his three sons. 


The name of the author really is immaterial because it is the facts of this  War on Terror, or more accurately this war with Islam and the Muslims of the world.  So many are still keeping their heads in the sand and denying  the facts when the facts are overwhelming.  If you want more information see my blog http://triadblogs.com/BrendaFayBowers and read the posts under the Categories Muslims, Middle East and War on Terror.  I have referenced all of my data so you are free to check my sources.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/soapbox/chong.asp  (url for the letter at Snopes.com)


This WAR is REAL
(the Original title was  "The World Situation, a Letter to my Sons)

To get out of a difficulty, one usually must go through it. Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.


First, let's examine a few basics:


1 When did the threat to us start?


Many will say
September 11, 2001. The answer, as far as the United States is concerned, is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:
* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut , Lebanon Embassy 1983;
*
Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie ,
ScotlandPan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* FirstNew YorkWorld Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran , Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi , Kenya USEmbassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam , Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden , Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.


(Note: during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist attacks worldwide.)


2 Why were we attacked?


Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessor, President Ford.


3 Who were the attackers?


In each case, the attacks on the US were carried out by Muslims.


4 What is the Muslim population of the World?


25%.


5 Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?


Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including
7,000 Polish priests).


(seehttp
://www.Nazis.testimony.co.uk/7-a.htm

Thus, almost the same number of Christians were killed by the Nazis as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom hear of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy in killing anyone who got in the way of his extermination of the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian, or any others.


Same with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US , but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, British, French or anyone else. The point here is that, just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements
-- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was to remain silent or be killed?


6 So who are we at war with?


There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate who you are fighting.


So with that background, now to the two major questions:
1 Can we lose this war?


2 What does losing really mean?


If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions:


We can definitely lose this war and, as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?


It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home, and going on about our business, like post-Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get.


What losing really means is:


We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but, rather, will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us over the past 18 years. The plan was, clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them.


We would, of course, have no future support from other nations, for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see; we are impotent and cannot help them..


They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq . Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.


The next will probably be France . Our one hope with France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished, too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France . France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast.


Without our support, Great Britain will go, also. Recently, I read that there are more mosques in England than churches.


If we lose the war, our production, income, exports, and way of life will all vanish as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us if they were threatened by the Muslims? If we can't stop the Muslim terrorists, how could anyone else?


The radical Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We'd better know it, too, and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.


Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.


So, how can we lose the war?


Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose and failing to dig in and lend full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win.


Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation:


President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights to which we have become accustomed. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.


And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory ... and, in fact, added many more since that time.


Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?


No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.


Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose.


I think some actually do. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends and it does great damage to our cause.


Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police.. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues, and otherwise murdering their own just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.


And, just a few years ago, these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type of enemy fighters who recently were burning Americans and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of
Iraq. And, still more recently, the same type of enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.


Can they be for real?


The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in, and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.


To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again, I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us for many years.


These people are a serious and dangerous liability to the war effort. We must take note of who they are and get them out of office. Remember, the Muslim terrorists stated goal is to kill all infidels. That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States , but throughout the world. We are the last bastion of defense.


We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid. We are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful, and smart that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that, with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world.WeWe can't!


If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it, will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.


qual rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.


This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self- inflicted fall of the Roman Empire . If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.


If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach, little by little, on the established French traditions.


The French will be fighting among themselves over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?


Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.


And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.


Muslims have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who the few will be controlling the masses.


What is happening in Iraq is a good example. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct about the "peaceful Muslims?"


I close on a hopeful note by repeating what I said before: If we are united, there is no way that we can lose.I hope now, after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It ilose.I future we are talking about. Do whatever you can to preserve it. I reiterate: our national election is under way.

1 Comments | Post Comment | Email This

A Fitting Presidential Tribute to Memory of 9/11


Posted in Muslims


Sep. 12, 2006 at 20:09

by BrendaBee

          President Bush delivered a speech yesterday from the oval office at precisely the same minute that he had addressed the nation five years ago on September 11, 2001. In that first speech he declare that “those who harbored terrorists would be dealt with as if they were terrorist themselves”.   He has kept his word to those who were murdered that fateful day five years ago.

          As could be expected he told what he had done to avenge their deaths. Much of his speech was devoted to the war in Iraq.  In the message he spoke of his fears for America,  and the dire need we have to “win” that war and secure a stable democratic government in the heart of the Middle East. I believe he spoke from the heart and very much believes  his administration is doing the right thing.  I do too.  I didn't feel we should race into Iraq with Afghanistan still not secured, but now that we are there (and it was almost a unaimous vote by both houses of Congress and both parties )I too feel strongly that we must win the war in Iraq.  The President made some statements which we as a nation had better acknowledge as true and act accordingly. Following are some quotes that need no explanation.

         ** "The Safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the street of Baghdad.“ Mr. Bush said.

** Mr. Bush sought to place the war in Iraq in the context of an epic battle between tyranny and freedom, saying the campaign against global terrorism was “the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century and the calling of our generation.”

** “If we do not defeat these enemies now,” Mr. Bush said, “we will leave our children to face a Middle East overrun by terrorist states and radical dictators armed with nuclear weapons.”

** Mr. Bush’s language was particularly forceful, even ominous, with warnings of a radical Islamic network that was “determined to bring death and suffering to our homes.”

** Mr. Bush said, “Our nation has endured trials, and we face a difficult road ahead.” And he called for unity, saying, “We must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us.”

        Unfortunately “as soon as the speech was over, the partisanship flared again. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the president “should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning” to justify his Iraq policy. And Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, leader of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, called the address disappointing, saying, “You do not commemorate the tragedy of 9/11 by politicizing it.”

        These comments by Senators Kennedy and Schumer were in fact the ones that were “politicizing” the “tragedy of 9/11”. What better way on this fifth anniversary of a terrible terrorist attach on our county  to explain to the nation just how dire the stakes in our war on terror is and begging the Congressmen to come together for the future of our civilization?

        These people who were murdered by fanatical thugs are not going to go unpunished. Democratic Senators Kennedy and Schumer should be ashamed of themselves for playing politics, I.e. doing themselves what they accused President Bush of doing.

Source: The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/us/12bush.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

3 Comments | Post Comment | Email This

The Democrats Won't Fight!


Posted in Muslims


Sep. 12, 2006 at 11:48

by BrendaBee

        

          Yesterday in a comment I was asked would I vote for the “asses” who got us into this “mess” Here is that comment any what I feel must be done now:

        In fact we need more troops in Iraq rather than less. If we leave Iran will come in and Iraq will indeed become a hot bed training ground for terrorist just as Lebanon has. To think otherwise is sheer stupidity.

Posted by: BrendaBee [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 11, 2006 11:01 AM

         Absolutely correct. My question is are do you want to reward the asses that got us in this situation with another voting victory.

Posted by: James D. Rockefeller at September 11, 2006 10:41 PM

        JDR, I'm not sure which "asses" you mean the Dems or the Reps since they both voted for it, and Bill Clinton (Dem) encouraged Dems to vote for war by stating that he was given the same intelligence.

           Then Rummy micromanaged and did not allow the army all the troops they wanted because he was convinced the US soldiers would be welcomed and everyone would cooperate and throw flowers. The desk chair brass at the Pentagon knew better but played politics and went along with him. When things didn’t go as Rummy wanted he played Lincoln and started switching field commanders ( this is great for fc’s of course because it means promotions big time) so again the desk brass played along and rotated themselves overseas. Can't blame the army if they couldn't get what they knew they needed,  they might as well get what they could. The aim of all the field commanders simply became an effort to spare as many American lives as possible because knew they didn’t have enough troops to do the job and cover all the territory they needed to cover to secure the borders and stabilize the government.
          When things started to go really bad with the Sunni and Shia (a civil war that has gone on for 1500 years) the Dems jumped ship to use the war as a campaign issue. The Sunni and Shia will NEVER form a stable government without a strong dictator or a strong army to keep the peace.
Now will I vote for the asses who are currently in power or the asses who want to be in power? I think was your question.

         JDR, the Dems won’t fight. That’s all there is to it, the Dems won’t fight. If  Al Gore had won the 2000 election and 9/11 happened on his watch not a fiddling thing would have been done and we would have had several more such tragedies by this fifth anniversary because the US would have appeared weak to those thugs.

         So I am going to vote to keep the Reps in, and hope a new Congress will insist on sending in more troops. More seasoned troops over there will also tend to keep the lid on Iran a bit more. And, when the Israelis do go back at it with Hezbollah, and do it right this time by going after Iran and Syria then the US troops presence alone on the Iranian border will insure success. No one wants to go up against the US and Israel when they are both in a fighting mood. Just my take JDR.

Posted by: BrendaBee at September

 

 

 

2 Comments | Post Comment | Email This

Just Who and What is Hezbollah from the Horses Mouth.


Posted in Muslims


Aug. 1, 2006 at 15:12

by BrendaBee

I thought this whole article might clear up some misunderstandings as to who and what the world is up against with Hezbollah.  It is not just a little jerky terrorist group lobing rockets into Israel from Lebanon.  No, Hezbollah is much more than that and we had better wisse up to this fact. This from The Australian July 31, 2006

*******

State within a state thrives in the south

July 31, 2006

SINCE 1984, Iran has created branches of Hezbollah in more than 20 countries. None has equalled the success of the Lebanese branch, which until recently enjoyed something akin to cult status among Arabs, including non-Muslims, because of the way it stood up to Israel.

It has not even cost Iran very much. Hezbollah was launched with just $32 million. After that, according to best estimates, Iran spent $78 million to $131 million a year on its Lebanese assets. Even adding the cost of training Hezbollah fighters and equipping them with hardware, Hezbollah -- the strongest fighting force in the Middle East after Iran and Israel -- has not cost Iran more than $3 billion over two decades.

According to Naim Kassem, Hezbollah's No2, the party has an annual budget of $680million, much of which comes from businesses set up by the movement. These include a bank, a mortgage co-operative, an insurance company, a travel agency, several hotels, a chain of supermarkets and a number of urban bus and taxi companies.

In its power base in southern Lebanon, it is possible for a visitor to spend a whole week without stepping outside a Hezbollah business unit: the hotel he checks into, the restaurant he eats in, the taxi that takes him around, the guide who shows him the sights and the shop where he buys souvenirs all belong to the party.

Hezbollah is a state within the Lebanese state. It controls 25 per cent of the national territory. Almost 400,000 of Lebanon's estimated four million inhabitants live under its control. It collects its own taxes with a 20 per cent levy on all income. It runs its own schools, where a syllabus produced in Iran is taught at all levels. It also runs clinics, hospitals, social welfare networks and centres for orphans and widows.

The party controls the elected municipal councils and appoints local officials, who in theory should be selected by the central Government in Beirut. To complete its status as a virtual state, the party maintains a number of unofficial "embassies".

Hezbollah also has its own media, including a satellite television channel, al-Manar (the lighthouse), which is watched all over the Arab world, four radio stations, newspapers and magazines plus a book-publishing venture. The party has its own system of justice based on sharia law and operates its own police force, courts and prisons. Hezbollah runs youth clubs, several soccer teams and a number of matrimonial agencies.

Its relationship with the rest of Lebanon is complex; it occupies 14 seats in the 128-seat national assembly and holds two portfolios in the council of ministers. But it still describes itself as "a people-based movement fighting on behalf of the Muslim world".

The backbone of all that is Hezbollah's militia, a fighting force of about 8000 men, trained and armed with the latest weapons by Iran and Syria. Of these, about 2000 men represent an elite force under the direct command of the party's secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah. But the party also claims more than 30,000 reservists 

 

0 Comments | Post Comment | Email This

NYT Headlines "Tide of Arab Opinion turns to Hezbollah support” So What's New?


Posted in Muslims


Jul. 28, 2006 at 15:51

by BrendaBee

         Headlines in all the US papers are screaming in large print, “Tide of Arab Opinion turns to Hezbollah support” this is supposedly happening because the Israeli Army is killing too many innocent Lebanese.

            My reaction to all these headlines: Oh Dear , oh me oh my, how awful it is that the Arabs across the world have turned from being neutral to being for Hezbollah. That is of course, their governments have found it more expedient up to this point not to call out the mobs to stampede through the streets shouting, “Kill Israel! Kill America!”

            This mad raging against Israel because Israel is killing all those “innocent civilians” in southern Lebanon who are standing as shields for the brave and humane Hezbollah militants! Even though Israel has dropped leaflets and begged the Lebanese population on radio and tv to leave southern Lebanon because it was going to be a battle ground where civilians would most certainly be killed if they did not leave or go underground in bomb shelters.

            Around 400 or so Lebanese have been killed according to the Lebanese government. Of course we only have the word of the Lebanese who want an immediate cease fire as to the correct count of those dead. This probably inflated count plus the sight of mass graves is meant to sway world opinion. I have always wondered why if they are so grief-stricken they would choose to bury their dead in mass graves like so much trash?   Then I decided it was so that they coud "discover" the mass grave at some time in the future and claim a dictator or  other villian did it.  Mass graves seem to be a staple in the Middle East.

              The Israeli dead has been low despite the heavy bombing. But, Israeli soldiers are warning Israeli civilians to stay in bomb shelters rather than using them as human shields, so naturally there are fewer Israelis being killed.

            There is also the fact that the Israeli Army is being careful to pin point the buildings and areas they are bombing whereas the Hezbollah are just firing hundreds of rockets generally south in the hopes of hitting something.

         Which brings up another puzzling behavior I have noticed is popular among the males in Middle Eastern countries: Arabs/Muslims have a tradition for shooting off a lot of fire arms just for the Hey of it? When fighting you see these rifles and an arm sticking out around a corner just firing away hoping I suppose to hit something. And, every time they do anything from weddings to funerals there are those men firing their weapons into the air. I guess it is a macho thing in that part of the world. Of course with the laws of physics operating we know that what goes up must come down somewhere, which begs the question: how many of the 400 or so Lebanese who have been killed have been killed by their own “friendly fire”.

             A fine example of this irresponsible practice was the case a few weeks ago when a child was killed by those nasty Americans and it turned out that the bullet had come from a rifle not used by Americans at all, but widely used by the Iraqis. Of course, the Muslim world would never believe that “American lie” because after all a “Muslim would never kill another Muslim” even by accident for surely Allah would not permit it.   Yes, after all that is going down in Iraq right now I still hear that bit of nonsense from time to time.

           Have I shown enough contempt for the headlines in the American newspapers (lead of course by the patriotic New York Times!) and for the “Arab Opinion” yet, or should I go on? Nah. There’s no need. You all get my point. Anyhow since the newspapers are all reporting the same thing I guess I will just take time out from my coverage of the war to read a good book today. Maybe Michener’s Chesapeake. This is one of my favorites for just relaxing, and it is ALL American.

 

0 Comments | Post Comment | Email This

Last Page | Home | Next Page


AND SO I GO YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW is proudly produced by Policlicks 2008

Blog Flux Directory