Monday, March 26, 2012

"He cornered 7-year-old Miriam Monsonego, the daughter of school principal Yaacov Monsonego, and shot her in the head. "



Last week a gunman named Mohamed Merah burst into a Jewish school in Toulouse and methodically executed a Rabbi, his two children, and another little Jewish girl. The last little girl-- Miryam Monsonego, who was 8 years old-- tried to run, and the killer's gun jammed. So Mohamed Merah held Miryam by the hair until he got out his other gun and shot her in the head.

These horrendous murders of Jews in France have a terrible resonance. Once again, Jews in Europe are being targeted, as they have been targeted for decades in the Middle East and were targeted 70 years ago in the worst crime in human history. The implicit anti-Semitism of much of the modern European elite, and the explicit anti-Semitism of the European Islamic mainstream, is rising to act. I fear that this is the beginning of genocidal anti-Semitic violence that will engulf Europe, as it has already engulfed the Levant.

This is only the most recent in a spate of anti-Semitic violence in Europe and North America. In 2006 a young Jewish man named Ilan Halimi was kidnapped in Paris by a gang of Muslims, sadistically tortured for three weeks, and murdered.

We need to fight this. Not with violence, except where necessary by lawful authorities to ensure the safety of Jews, but with compassion and defiance and tenacity. We need to stand up for our Jewish brothers and sisters in Europe and in Israel and throughout the world.

Please keep the families of the Ozar Hatorah School in Toulouse in your prayers. Send condolences to the school in Toulouse if you can. Let them know that you stand with them, and that an attack on Jews anywhere is an attack on all of humanity. Talk to your Jewish and non-Jewish friends about this. Spread the word. Express your concern to the French government (their actions have been, as best I can tell, laudable). Speak out against anti-Semitism loudly and unequivocally. Call it out-- and call it what it is-- whenever you hear it. Don't ignore it. Blog about it. Call out people who spread hate-- whether it is Islamists who preach raw hate against Jews or fellow-traveling Western anti-Semites who hypocritically attack Israel for defending herself against atrocities while minimizing the culpability of the perpetrators of the atrocities. Let your legislators know that the security of the Jewish people generally, and Israel specifically, is important to you.

Please keep Rabbi Sandler and his two beautiful children and little Miryam Monsonego and their families in your prayers. Let this atrocity awaken all people of good will. Almost 70 years ago, we made a promise to our Jewish brothers and sisters, and many millions of us intend to keep it.

Never again.


18 comments:

  1. 'The canary in the mineshaft.'
    That is what my old Jewish/Israeli friend and colleague says of these type of horrific incidents.
    A bellwether for totalitarianism. A warning of things to come.
    In addition to the hatred and sheer terror instilled by the act, which often blinds the observer, there is a warning of things to come.
    I spent an hour or more on Saturday, his Sabbath, talking about this specific murderous spree with my friend. About the burial of these poor people in Israel. The whys and hows, and the reaction of the Israeli people and media.
    In one way I was left deeply saddened and disturbed. In another way deeply touched by the strength and determination of the Israelis in the face of incredible odds. This latter impression always gives hope, especially after visiting that land and mixing with her people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. CNTD I

      In our conversation we touched on a few ominous aspects of this event that do not seem to have received much attention.
      First is the way in which the European MSM initially reacted to the killings: Blame it on the internal political foe: 'The right' in general, and military men in specific.
      Neo Nazis were immediately implicated and several stories ran in major papers that asserted they must be the culprits as there was a 'racial' element to the killings, and some of the victims of Mureh were Muslims serving in the French military. To their credit, the French police immediately investigated and discounted this connection.

      Now, while neo-Nazism is deplorable and the fact that French soldiers would adhere to such ideas doubly so; it is remarkable to note that the media focus was such that the perpetrator could/must not be Muslim due to the fact some of his victims were ALSO Muslim.

      Delete
    2. CNTD II
      The idea that a Muslim Jihadi would NOT kill Muslims to further his bloody cause is contrary to reason, experience, and the historic record.
      The Jihadist commonly kills Muslims thought by them to be lackeys or tools of 'the Crusaders'. Unfortunately I have seen this myself on literally dozens of occasions.
      So, why would the MSM push such an idea? Why would they leap to such conclusions only hours after the attacks/murders?
      It could only be one of a few things that causes such naked spin, my friend and I concluded.
      Chief among these is that it could be the denial and paranoia of a weak self hating and overly permissive civilization. A civilization that has lost it's central cultural focus to political polarization.
      Rather than admit they have played the role of the fabled frog who attempted delivering the scorpion to another shore, they instead look to blame a fringe element within their own culture.
      They scape goat a popularly despised extreme.
      My friend compared this, in kind, to the 'truther' movement following the infamous 9/11 attacks. Also to the 'why they hate us' crap spewed by the modern anti-war movements.
      I concur.
      Their is also the insidious anti-Semitism of the European elites that compliments such thinking.
      The shock quotes around the headlines indicate the unwillingness to confront this reality.
      The ever present tendency of the 'underground' and 'subversive' movements that find cause to blame 'Zionism' and 'pro Zionists' (ie to keep Israel as an ally) for all the worlds evils, including events like the horrific killings of these innocent people, also bears witness.
      So many 'progressive' and 'radical' thinkers intentionally infer that this kind of killing is the result of Zionism and it's sympathizers in the west. But it is not isolated to the increasingly popular left.
      It is parroted by the far right as well. Their lust for Jewish blood seems just as insatiable.
      I have concluded it, regardless of the political position of it's voice, is a sick way of justifying the acts committed by people like Muher.
      It is way by which they can blame the victim and bury their heads in the sand. 'They were asking for it'. Brutally killing children and making a video of the event is portrayed as 'revolutionary' and 'desperate'.
      It is MURDER.

      Delete
    3. CNTD III
      The real reason 'why' is apparent as the sky, moon, and sun above us. They attack the Jews because they are 'the enemy', they attack fellow Muslims who serve in the military services opposed to them because they are seen as 'traitors' and 'apostates'. They kill civilians because they can easily do so and it strikes terror into the hearts of these 'enemies' and 'apostates'. That terror often results in capitulation and appeasement.
      It is a working, evil tactic of a centuries old 'holy war'.
      This kind of cowardly murder is not a struggle to end oppression, as envisioned by the appeasers, but rather a war intent on terrorizing in order to oppress. It is a battle for hegemony, ideological and real. It is an age old pattern.
      Whether we are talking about a bomber killing himself and dozens more in a market, disco, or bus; whether we are talking about beheading journalists and rigging the bodies of aid workers with explosives; or whether we speak of rockets fired at schools, into civilian neighbourhoods, and snipers into traffic - we are discussing the Jihad. A war of oppression.
      Apologists stand by to justify these events and vilify the response. Soft spoken clerics stand by to whitewash the killing with talk of 'duty' and desperation.
      But the truth, as hard as it is to swallow, is that we are facing a brilliant and ruthless foe that seeks to supplant our very civilization with BRUTE force and sheer numbers. In the face of this the modern approach of 'buying' our foes with material promises is, at best, a stop gap measure and, at worst, empowering the very people who seek to destroy us. This tribute, we call aid, is not working. Equally, the ancient Hellenistic approach is meaningless without equal measures of force to back it up.
      Further this enemy understands there is a historical bent toward anti-Semitism in our cultures. They know that we are suspect of the 'canary' and that killing it will not warn many of us, but push us to lay blame on 'them' - the Jews.
      There are many military minds that understand this. Indeed there are many civilized, western Muslims who do.
      When they speak out they are accused of 'Islamophobia' or 'racism'...and the band plays on.
      When I was younger, I had thought attacks like 9/11, 7/7 and the multitude of others would awaken and reinvigorate the common sense of the western/NATO countries. That many, if not most, of them would make reversals. Look to their heritage and culture for it's strengths and modify them with a modern, sane strategy.
      I am afraid to say that I was utterly disillusioned.
      Instead we hunt men in caves, make deals with Iran, and talk about the tactic of 'terror' as if it were a tangible, real enemy. We dare not mention the name or identify the ideals that attack us. We seem incapable of identifying our own Achilles heal, and instead blame our more sensible ancestors for doing so. Is it because we are loath to admit mistakes? Is it because we cannot even consider that progress is NOT linear or simply moving forward in time? Are we crippled by our cultural, religious, and moral relativism?
      It may very well be ALL these factors.
      Whatever the 'why', the result is an impotence in the face of Evil.
      The Israelis understand this, and this is why I can proudly state that I am a Zionist, as well as a Christian.

      Delete
    4. **PS**
      Sorry about the typos and grammar.
      I was in a rush, and this old box is terrible for auto correcting words incorrectly.
      I felt it important to get these ideas out while fresh in my head.
      Hope it makes some sense to the readers, and obviously to you, Mike.
      PLEASE keep the victims and their families in your prayers, folks.
      May God bless them and keep them from further harm.

      Delete
  2. Yet another instance of terror and violence perpetrated in the name of religion.

    Unfortunately the very religiosity of all the populations in religious conflicts denies the most potent arguments against religious zealotry and the violence it spawns. Because of your own religious sensitivities you are forced only to concede that the faith of Muslims is only misplaced, and that faith itself is not the problem. By acknowledging your own faith and claiming it's superiority you validate faith and revealed knowledge as acceptable and appropriate motivations for action. The only comprehensive argument against Muslim extremism is denied the West because it's reason based humanistic nature is an anathema not only to Muslims, but Christians and fundamentalist Jews as well.

    -KW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KW,

      Thanks for the moral superiority.

      Atheists represent only a small portion of the world population. In other words, of the seven billion people on earth, about 6.9 billion of them believe in one deity or another. All of them aren't responsible for this. The guy who did it is.

      The reason I mention this is because of the national dialogue we've been having about Islamic jihad since the attacks of September 11th. Islam seems to have a particular penchant for blowing people up. While people of other faiths may do so on rare occasions, there's simply no comparison in terms of proportion.

      And yet we must tread so lightly on the subject of Islamic jihad. "The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful!" they say. "You're just attacking all Muslims!"

      Yeah, yeah. If associating terrorism with Islam is painting with a broad brush, what then is associating terrorism with religion generally? Are you trying to tell me that your local Presbyterian is prone to go on a shooting rampage at any moment? How many times have you heard of a Buddhist waging war for the faith?

      This meme of yours--religion makes people violent--is beyond absurd. It puts Osama bin Laden in the same category with Billy Graham and Martin Luther King.

      TRISH

      Delete
    2. KW,

      What you're doing is called scapegoating.

      I remember when the pope visited London in 2010. Protesters came out en masse. One held a sign that read: "Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings"

      Huh. Well that just took the cake for the most asinine sign I have ever read. Nineteen Muslims fly airplanes into buildings and they blame...the pope?

      We aren't even permitted to blame the religion of the perpetrators. We are however, permitted to blame the religion of everyone else. This is absurd.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/8011095/Pope-Visit-UK-Thousands-turn-out-to-protest-against-Pontiff.html

      By the way, KW, here's a great quote from "Christian" terrorist Timothy McVeigh: "Science is my religion."

      Now, if I wanted to be as stupid as you, I would start shouting "Science makes people kill people! Blame science!"

      Luckily, I don't want to be as stupid as you and I won't make such an absurd claim.

      The Torch

      Delete
  3. KW,
    It is relativism applied to religion that makes us weak. No amount of denial will alter that.
    Some cultures and religions are simply better than others. Pretending it is 'terror' or 'fanaticism' is the realm in which you dwell.
    I do not see Islam as an equal to Christianity or Judaism. I do not see Communism as an equal to a free market system. I do not equate the morality of savage potentates with our own in order to justify barbarism in the name of 'progress'.
    You do.
    That is your Achilles heal, and the enemy knows it.
    They are clearly more patient and more realistic in their world view than you are. That is why you cannot buy them out. That is why your hailed 'Arab spring' is a disaster.
    That does not mean I prefer their system of thought to my own. That does not mean they are justified in committing the acts they do.
    I just respect force and attempt to understand their sense of purpose and faith, not equivocate it away, as you do.
    You cannot 'think' your way out of this fight, by fantasizing about John Lennon songs or pretending that removing our own culture will abate the enemy.
    You cannot buy your way out of this fight with material wealth.
    You cannot legislate or rationalize your way out of this fight.
    You can only HIDE from it, by accusing your defenders and allies of the same fanaticism espoused by the enemy.
    OR you can face up to the facts, name your foe, recognize your own culture's and your allies' strengths, and FIGHT BACK.
    Your foe is not religion or some abstract tactic like 'terror'. It is a real, tangible political power-bloc waging a proxy war. Terror is a tactic they use.
    Our strengths are not in division, disunity, and scape- goats.
    The fight cannot be won by pretending so.
    There is no simple way out.
    War is NOT reasonable business. Doubly so when it is considered TOTAL war by a determined and enemy. An enemy we dare not name or consider, because of the relativism you espouse.
    What is required is reciprocal cultural and religious responses backed by financial and military pressure.
    These aspects must be again backed by a solid cultural sense of exceptionalism, NOT nihilism and defeatism.
    We SHOULD defend our selves and defeat these people. We are in the right.
    To succumb to the notions you outline would be defeatism in it's purest form and a betrayal of our allies; Christian, Jew, and Muslim alike. Does your Atheism blind you to this? If so, it is an impediment and you should abandon it.
    If not, if it merely a distraction, stow your ideas about utopia. We do not live in one.
    We need a brave and unified defence against a common foe. We need altruism.
    We need FAITH in purpose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you where occupying foreign lands you where the invader, not the defender. You frame this as an eternal conflict, and so it will be as long as religious values trump secular values in their countries as well as ours. You refuse to see another way. Fine, be a coward and hide behind your gun, your uniform, and your holy book, and keep telling yourself that you and people like you make us safer.

      -KW

      Delete
    2. Pretty nasty stuff, KW.

      Calling crus a "coward" is about as wrong as it gets. He and the good folks who risk their lives do indeed keep us safe. The political decisions are made by the leaders we elect, but it is the soldiers who put their lives on the line.

      You may disagree with their religion, or their politics, but they are most certainly not cowards.

      Delete
    3. KW,

      "When you where occupying foreign lands you where the invader, not the defender."
      No shit?!
      The funny thing about a fluid war is that most of the sides are 'invaders'. Just ask an Afghani or West African.
      Most of the forces we faced in my most recent war were not native Afghans. They poured over the Kush from all over SWA, North Africa, and the Middle East to wage 'Jihad' for 'Abu/Sheik Usama' and his militias the Haqqani and Taliban.
      We even took prisoners who held passports and documents from the UK, France, and USA.

      "You frame this as an eternal conflict,"
      No I don't. I frame it as a long war.
      Islam is 1400 years old. The rapid expansion of the Muslim Ummah is more recent than that and dates from the late 7th to early 8th century of our calendar. That is far from eternal. Look it up.

      "[...] and so it will be as long as religious values trump secular values in their countries as well as ours. "
      YOU see this is an eternal struggle of religious forces. YOU think that by removing religion that 'eternal' war can be avoided. I suffer from no such delusions.

      "You refuse to see another way. "
      What other way? Do you mean YOUR way?
      What is that? A totalitarian global secular state?
      Assuming such a large scale oppression of the masses were even possible, there will be revolutionary wars in response. There would still be infighting and regionalism. There would still be resource issues.

      Maybe you mean laying down our weapons and asking for mercy? Isolationism? Building some nice big walls?
      Or perhaps waiting till the front reaches your neighbourhood? Would it be okay to fight them then? Of course you could always beat them over the head with your revised version of the US constitution until they died of boredom. Maybe even call a cop... that is if they are not to busy hiding behind their guns like cowards.


      "Fine, be a coward and hide behind your gun, your uniform, and your holy book, and keep telling yourself that you and people like you make us safer."
      Pathetic. Truly pathetic.
      Is that the best you have?
      I volunteered for active service after being present at the ground zero response unit in early Sept 2001. I had a nice soft commission at the time, and could have easily served out the war sitting behind a desk. At the time I was almost TWICE the age of my closest colleague and had seen more years in active service than three of them combined.
      I chose to fight. My duty was field reconnaissance/intelligence and intercept. My men and I fought like hell.
      We served along side some of the most elite units in NATO.
      I did not 'hide' behind anything except cover from enemy fire or sometimes from my CO.
      Further, the enemy I faced was a force to be reckoned with; Hardened, determined and fierce.
      They were/are no cowards, nor was I one to face them.
      The cowards are the tribal scumbags that use this war as cover to massacre their enemies. The cowards are the rear area types who send in drones were soldiers should be because they are afraid of nasty headlines. The cowards order their conditioned drones to fly 747's into office blocks and fire rockets at school buses.
      The soldiers, the real fighters (on both sides) are some of the bravest men you could possible meet. Myself? I was privileged as a soldier to serve with them. command them, and to fight against such a determined foe.
      Do I consider myself brave? Not really.
      I consider myself quick, sharp, and lucky.
      Maybe even blessed.
      Do I consider myself a coward?
      I have, on occasion reproached myself for feeling unwarranted worry about things beyond my control. But generally, no.
      I just do not scare that easily.

      Delete
    4. Michael,

      I don't feel safer for Afghanistan or Iraq 2003, although I do feel safe.

      Iraq 2003 was an illegal invasion, badly planned, and a distraction to Afghanistan, which has turned into a nightmare anyway.

      When you have Iraq you will have Muslims with distorted worldviews having their imagined grievances fueled. And then taking their imagined grievances out on innocent bystanders.

      It's better trying to understand what your potential enemies are thinking. When you think that they're completely wrong, they're probably thinking that you're wrong too. When you're carrying out your cleverly planned and thought out actions, you're probably ignoring your enemy's reactions.

      As an example of the folly of disregarding your enemy's thinking, have a look at David Hoffman's 'the Dead Hand', an account of the end of the Cold War.

      When Reagan was proposing his Strategic Defence Iniative, many scientists criticized it because they correctly noted that with current science and technology it could not work.

      The Soviets opposed it because they feared it would work. In unsuccessful talks, they noted that they'd have to resort to 'asymmetric responses', meaning that they'd build more missiles. So if SDI was capable of stopping 10,000 missiles, the Soviets would build another 5,000.

      They were also worried about an American first strike on Moscow killing the leaders and decapitating the Soviet Union, so they planned and began building the 'Dead Hand' which would have automatically initiated a nuclear strike if communications ever failed for whatever reason. An American nuclear strike. A solar mass coronal ejection. A computer virus.

      It could have finished badly if anyone miscalculated. Fortunately it didn't.

      Unless you recognize that your foes are thinking and planning, even if you think their ideology is insane, you will be continually surprised by their asymmetric reactions. 9-11. IEDs. Small terrorist groups. Lone lunatics killing innocents.

      I don't feel safer for having western armies in Iraq and Afghanistan. I feel safer for having well managed and resourced police forces at home.

      Delete
    5. Bach,
      You make some good points regarding asymmetrical warfare and brinkism.
      Iran's genocidal nuclear threats are often viewed in this light.
      The idea that there is no further development or even escalation in shield defence technologies, or Russian deployment systems is erroneous, however.
      The race did not stop, it simply changed course and went 'underground'.
      The most important idea I could put across is not about the speculations on these systems and their usefulness. Frankly that would be a violation of my commission and my oath of secrecy. So I will leave you to wonder, as so many of us do, what on earth keeps us all from blowing each other to hell.

      Rather the point I would make is that the forces serving as a poultice to draw the enemy's resources and materiel are not designed to make you FEEL safer. I hear this so often, I feel compelled to set the record straight from a military perspective.

      It is just not about your feelings, that is the job of politicians.
      If you feel safe they must be doing a good job at keeping the calm. Like you note, a decent police force and intelligence service is what you need for that sentiment currently.
      If it is provided, and the front is not on your doorstep (as it is in Israel for example) the military may seem remote. Actions such as that in Afghanistan (at least originally) and Iraq may seem out there and unwise. This is the view from the armchair, but not from the HQ.
      But to the point: Our job is LITERAL safety.
      It is not about public opinion or FEELINGS of this or that.
      Keeping the war from our shores, aiding our interests & allies, and keeping the resources and trade flowing. Sometimes the action is punitive, other times interventionist.
      These are the service we provide.
      We receive orders from governments that send us to secure areas, draw in the enemy, and hunt down certain targets that pose a propaganda or leadership threat.
      We do not always agree with our missions, nor do we always find the orders connected with the fight we are in. Frankly, some of them come off as insane when viewed in theatre.
      But we follow them because it is our job to do what the people you have elected to help you feel safe tell us to do. They order the brass, the brass orders us, and we command the men in battle.
      The end result is that - to some degree - your way of life is preserved.
      If that makes you feel safe, it is a bonus.

      Delete
  4. Mike,

    Thanks, mate.
    People like yourself and your family are the reason we do it.
    God bless you and thanks for the kind words on behalf of myself and the men and women who serve with and under me.
    **Salutes**

    ReplyDelete
  5. Salutes to Dr. Egnor for moral clarity on this most important issue.
    Yes, we must stand up to this evil, particularly here in Europe, otherwise the whole world will soon suffer calamity again.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jump to: navigation, search Cum nimis absurdum was a papal bull issued by Pope Paul IV dated 14 July 1555. It takes its name from its first words:[1] "Since it is absurd and utterly inconvenient that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal slavery..."

    The bull revoked all the rights of the Jewish community and placed religious and economic restrictions on Jews in the Papal States, renewed anti-Jewish legislation and subjected Jews to various degradations and restrictions on their personal freedom.

    The bull established the Roman Ghetto and required the Jews of Rome, which had existed as a community since before Christian times and which numbered about 2,000 at the time, to live in it. The Ghetto was a walled quarter with three gates that were locked at night. Jews were also restricted to one synagogue per city. Under the bull, Jewish males were required to wear a pointed yellow hat, and Jewish females a yellow kerchief (see yellow badge). Jews were required to attend compulsory Catholic sermons on the Jewish shabbat.

    The bull also subjected Jews to various other restrictions such as prohibition on property ownership and practising medicine among Christians. Jews were allowed to practice only unskilled jobs, as ragmen, secondhand dealers [2] or fish mongers. They could also be pawnbrokers.

    Paul IV's successor, Pope Pius IV, enforced the creation of other ghettos in most Italian towns, and his successor, Pope Pius V, recommended them to other bordering states.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right. Nasty stuff.

      Most relevant is that you had to go back 457 years to find it.

      Atheist hate and genocide are so much more contemporary.

      Delete