Tuesday, September 25, 2012

"... In any war between the civilized man and the savage... "

I love it.

The ads-- sponsored by Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs-- will go up shortly in the New York City subway system. A judge in NYC has overruled New York's transit authority's refusal to run the ad.

The war with Radical Islam (and it is a war) is genuinely a war between civilization and savagery. We need to tell the truth about it.

No doubt the Islamofascists will threaten and bluster, but I pray that they will not respond to free speech with violence, which would, of course, be an obvious instantiation of the point the ad is making.

From Powerline:

Note that the poster contains no reference either to a religion or to an ethnic group. It contrasts “Israel” with “Jihad.”
Abdul Yasar, a New York subway rider who considers himself an observant Muslim, said Geller’s ad was insensitive in an unsettling climate for Muslims.
“If you don’t want to see what happened in Libya and Egypt after the video — maybe not so strong here in America — you shouldn’t put this up,” Yasar said.
So the threat is explicit. But toward whom is the ad insensitive? Jihadists, evidently. Are we really supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of jihadists?
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority in New York initially refused to run Geller’s ad, saying it was “demeaning.” But U.S. District Court Judge Paul Engelmayer ruled last month that it is protected speech under the First Amendment.
“Demeaning”? Again, demeaning toward whom? Jihadists. Are jihadists now some kind of protected class?
Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, backed publication of the “patently offensive” ads.
But aren’t they offensive only to jihadists, which is to say, mass murderers and their supporters? If you advocate mass murder, shouldn’t you expect to be offended? At a minimum?
Opponents say the ads imply that Muslims are savages.
But wait! Aren’t we constantly told that jihadists aren’t really Muslims? That Islam is staunchly opposed to terrorism? So how are all Muslims encompassed within the term “jihad”?
“We recognize the freedom of speech issues and her right to be a bigot and a racist,” said Muneer Awad, the executive director of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. But he said he hopes the MTA and elected officials “take on a leadership role in denouncing hate speech.”
So now jihadists are a race? I am so confused! And does CAIR really think that denouncing jihadists constitutes “hate speech?” If jihadists can’t be denounced, then who can be?
This is the sort of confusion that is, in its own way, clarifying.

A key to fighting the Islamofascists is to name them for what they are, without fear. We must overcome political correctness and self-censorship. Totalitarians of all stripes-- Nazis, Communists, Islamists-- use reticence and fear to gain a foothold, and then strip away rights and civilization by force when they have acquired enough power through intimidation.

There is an adage (attributed to Freud, about unconscious thoughts) that demons retain their hold on us only until they are named. When we name them, they lose their power.

We need to name the jihadi savages for the demons that they are.

Great ad.


  1. "A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down, but it is not this day. This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you *stand, Men of the West!"
    --- J.R.R. Tolkien

    1. I'm reasonably sure that speech is not actually in the books.

    2. I am absolutely sure I don't care what you think.

    3. The point is that since that speech is not in the book The Return of the King (specifically the chapter "The Black Gate Opens"), then it is not a quote from J.R.R. Tolkien. Attributing it to him is consequently in error. It should be attributed to Walsh, Jackson, and Boyens.

    4. Compare Jihad to what aspect of Israel?
      1.Its occupation of Palestine?
      2.Its theft of Palestenial lands?
      3.Its killing of innocent people?
      4.Its ownership of nuclear weapons?
      I cannot recall other options

  2. Woman defaces the ad and claims she is just exercising her first amendment rights, while also spraypainting a woman trying to stand between her and the ad.


    It's HATE!!!!


  3. Shortly before the outbreak of the Intifada a Palestinian girl, Intissar al-Atar, was shot and killed in a schoolyard by a resident of a nearby Jewish settlement. He was one of the several thousand Israelis settlers brought to Gaza in violation of international law and protected by a huge army presence, taking over much of the land and scarce water of the Strip and living “lavishly in twenty-two settlements in the midst of 1.4 million destitute Palestinians,” as the crime is described by Israeli scholar Avi Raz. The murderer of the schoolgirl, Shimon Yifrah, was arrested, but quickly released on bail when the Court determined that “the offense is not severe enough” to warrant detention. The judge commented that Yifrah only intended to shock the girl by firing his gun at her in a schoolyard, not to kill her, so “this is not a case of a criminal person who has to be punished, deterred, and taught a lesson by imprisoning him.” Yifrah was given a 7-month suspended sentence, while settlers in the courtroom broke out in song and dance. And the usual silence reigned. After all, it is routine.

  4. All of this is part of the general program described by Israeli official Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, after Palestinians failed to follow orders in the 2006 elections: “The idea,” he said, “is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.” That would not look good.

    And the plan is being scrupulously followed. Sara Roy has provided extensive evidence in her scholarly studies. Recently, after several years of effort, the Israeli human rights organization Gisha succeeded to obtain a court order for the government to release its records detailing plans for the diet, and how they are executed. Israel-based journalist Jonathan Cook summarizes them: “Health officials provided calculations of the minimum number of calories needed by Gaza’s 1.5 million inhabitants to avoid malnutrition. Those figures were then translated into truckloads of food Israel was supposed to allow in each day ... an average of only 67 trucks — much less than half of the minimum requirement — entered Gaza daily. This compared to more than 400 trucks before the blockade began.” And even this estimate is overly generous, UN relief officials report.

    The result of imposing the diet, Mideast scholar Juan Cole observes, is that “[a]bout ten percent of Palestinian children in Gaza under 5 have had their growth stunted by malnutrition ... in addition, anemia is widespread, affecting over two-thirds of infants, 58.6 percent of schoolchildren, and over a third of pregnant mothers.” The US and Israel want to ensure that nothing more than bare survival is possible.