Jacqueline Murekatete has a simple goal - to end genocide forever. A 22-year-old survivor of 1994's genocide of nearly a million Tutsis in war-torn Rwanda, Murekatete has been speaking on genocide in forums all over the world for six years now. And when she calls on "civilization and morality" to come to the rescue of those about to die, she carries an authority born of having witnessed the collapse of both.
"It is not an option to allow the genocide in Darfur to continue," she said vehemently in a conversation with The Jerusalem Post in Tel Aviv last week. "It's a matter of practical self-interest," she warns the West. Genocide happened "not just in Darfur. It happened in Asia; it happened in Europe; it happened in Africa. And it can happen in America."
How far does she want the West to go to stop a genocide? "Sometimes military intervention is a necessity, sometimes economic sanctions are enough. The most important thing is that genocide as a crime ends."
Does it matter that Darfur and Rwanda, both unstopped, took place in Africa, while Bosnia, which witnessed international intervention, saw whites dying? "There's a racial context," she agrees. "People say, 'oh, Africa, they're always killing each other.' There's more pressure [to stop it] in Europe. But people need to realize that what happens in Africa affects the rest of the world." In a more interconnected world, "what happens in Africa and Asia ultimately will have consequences for the West."
Murekatete speaks quietly but firmly, with a poise and free-flowing intelligent conversation that seem older than 22.
She is an orphan, her parents, uncles, aunts and six siblings killed during the 100-day massacre of Tutsis that began in April 1994.
That massacre, like the one taking place in Darfur now, was an attempt - almost successful - of the majority Hutu ethnic group to eliminate the Tutsis in their midst. At the behest of the government, and especially of the government radio service, neighbors barged into the homes of their neighbors and stabbed, raped or hacked them to death.
"Both my parents were farmers, and I had six siblings," she begins, telling her story for the millionth time, but somehow still with a driven urgency. "Growing up, I was very aware that I was Tutsi." Discrimination in pre-war Rwanda was ubiquitous. "Identity cards saying you were Tutsi had to be shown just to go to school, and roll call was separate for Hutus and Tutsis. This was the government's way of discriminating." The constant reminders, official and unofficial, of the distinction meant that "everybody knew who was Tutsi and who wasn't. That's why so many could be killed," she notes, adding that over 90 percent of Rwandan Tutsis were slaughtered in the 1994 carnage.
"Once the government ordered the killing, neighbors could kill neighbors, because everybody grew up in this environment."
From the early 1990's, Radio Rwanda had broadcast anti-Tutsi propaganda on a regular basis, calling the group "foreigners" and "cockroaches."
"When the massacres began," Murekatete continues, "I was caught living with my maternal grandmother in her village." Traveling as a Tutsi was "suicidal," since Tutsis passing through government roadblocks were summarily executed, so Murekatete could not return to her parents' village. "I never heard from them again."
Posted by: Fred ||
07/05/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm sorry the people in Darfur are up to their asses in alligators, but we are trying to drain the swamp with zero help at home or abroad.
#2
Genocide happened "not just in Darfur. It happened in Asia; it happened in Europe; it happened in Africa. And it can happen in America."
How far does she want the West to go to stop a genocide? "Sometimes military intervention is a necessity, sometimes economic sanctions are enough. The most important thing is that genocide as a crime ends."
And how shall we stop those who are unutterably fixated upon religious extermination of the Jews? Does wiping them out to the last believer count as genocide?
#4
And how shall we stop those who are unutterably fixated upon religious extermination of the Jews? Does wiping them out to the last believer count as genocide?
This is the corker and so very few people seem to get it. Extermination of the Jewshowever horribleis but a small facet of the genocide planned by Islam. Imagine the death tolls arising from establishment of a global caliphate:
1.) Extermination of all Jews:
Some 13.5 MILLION people, world-wide would most likely die at the hands of their Muslim oppressors.
2.) Extermination of all homosexuals
I'm going to use what is called a "wildly exaggerated figure" for the sake of including the bisexual and transgender community plus other deviants who would all be put to death. Thusly, some 10% of the world's population, or 600 MILLION people would fall into this category. The remaining figures that follow are much more difficult to quantify.
3.) Armed resistance to Muslim encroachment:
I think it's safe to say that nearly everyone here at Rantburg would perish fighting a Muslim attempt to overrun America. World wide, the numbers would most likely exceed that of the Jews. We'll place it at a meager 100 MILLION.
4.) Women denied access to medical care:
This is a huge number because under Islamic law women would only be able to be seen by female doctorsan exceedingly small fraction of this world's medical practitioners. Ill use the figure for global female cancer deaths as an example of how reduced early intervention will escalate avoidable deaths, especially among women. That figure will be more than 3 MILLION per year.
5.) Execution of political prisoners:
Toss in another 10 MILLION.
6.) Execution of those who refuse to convert:
Im going to use the worlds population of Catholics as a figure representing those who would adamantly refuse to convert or cooperate and be put to death. While the number would likely be much higher, this figure alone would approach over 1 BILLION.
We now have a total of 1.726 BILLION people who would die within the first year of Islam establishing its global caliphate. Millions more would die each year due to Islams heavy-handed sharia law and its frequent demand for capital punishment. Women would keep dying in droves due to the unavailability of female doctors. Emerging homosexuals would be killed as with many other deviants, be they political, religious or otherwise.
Do the math. Those six categories above represent a small fraction of the actual death toll that global shari'a law would find worthy of execution. Shari'a has so many offenses meriting death that my own estimates are hopelessly conservative.
The global caliphate would rise upon dead bodies numbering greater than this worlds entire Muslim population.
My Iranian friend Ray agrees with me that the number who would perish would be closer to HALF this worlds population but that is far more speculative than the conservative numbers Ive posted above.
So, the question remains:
HOW MUCH LONGER ARE WE TO PUT UP WITH AN IDEOLOGY WHOSE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO BRING ABOUT THE DEATH OF MORE PEOPLE THAN ITS OWN FOLLOWERS?
Ive stated before that if Muslims cannot abandon their quest for a global caliphate, then I would just as soon see all of them perish rather than the larger numbers who would ultimately die by Islams brutal hand. The numbersapproximate as they might bedo not lie.
#6
We should have divided Sudan into North/South long ago. It would ahve sent a strong message to the blacks in subsahara africa that we won't sit and let them be slaughtered and a strong message to the Arabs that we'll divide their nations if they don't act civilized.
Darfur would never have happened if Sudan really feared for their territorial integrity.
#7
Note on my previous post... I meant that better to wipe out the Islamists than be slaughtered. After re-reading my post it sounded like I would let the Jews die rather than us.
Anyway, good thoughts Zenster. Don't forget all the stoning and executions that would take place for infractions of the law. Along with all the mutilations.
#9
I'll just add that the last groups to kill far beyond their own number of followers were the Nazis and Soviet communists. They now occupy history's dustbin. So should Islam and for all of the same reasons.
And do you really think there are no Muslim homosexuals? Think again. Most western homosexuals would just go into the caliphate's "closet" to survive.
A billion refusing to convert? I'm not that optimistic. I believe my church has about seven thousand "members", but it only seats about 500 and only holds four masses each weekend. And there are empty seats.
I just sent the following to Associated Press Director of Media Relations Jack Stokes and the Associated Press Board of Directors.
When does a massacre matter?
I ask this question, because on Thursday, June 28, The Associated Pressand to a lesser extent, Reuters, and a small independent Iraqi news agencyran stories claiming that 20 decapitated bodies had been found on or near the banks of the Tigris River in Um al-Abeed, a village near Salman Pak, southeast of Baghdad, with sectarian violence strongly implicated. . . .
This claimed massacre never happened, and was formally repudiated by the U.S. military on Saturday, June 30, who ascribed the claims to insurgent propaganda. To date, the Associated Press has refused to print a retraction or a correction for this false story, just as it has failed to print a retraction for previous false beheading stories. . . .
At the same time, the Associated Press has refused to run the story of a verified massacre in Iraq discovered on June 29 and supported by named sources, eyewitness statements, and photographic evidence provided by noted independent journalist Michael Yon in his dispatch, Bless the Beasts and Children.
I would like for the Associated Press to formally explain why they are willing to run thinly and falsely sourced insurgent propaganda as unquestioned fact without any independent verification, but refuses to publish a freely offered account by a noted combat corespondent that some consider this generation's Ernie Pyle.
Is it because the massacre documented by Yon was conducted by alleged al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists, and could not be ascribed to sectarian violence? It certainly could not be because of cost, as Yon has offered both his text and pictures to any and all media outlets free of charge. It could not be because of a question of validity, as his account was photographed, videotaped, and witnessed by dozens of American and Iraqi soldiers, some of them named, who could easily be contacted by the Associated Press for independent, on the record confirmation.
Why is the Associated Press willing to run the claimed of a false massacre on June 28, but unwilling to report a well-documented and freely-offered account of a massacre that was discovered just one day later?
I await your response with interest.
Actually, I don't expect a response at all, but if they should respond, I'll be sure to publish it.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/05/2007 15:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Important questions that need to be asked. Thanks for posting, Mike.
#2
I hope the day is soon in coming when MSM falsehoods are greeted by a flood of such letters. In the meanwhile we'll just have to settle for them losing gigantic portions of market share as a disgruntled public migrates away from such traitorous drivel.
Now here's the sort of story that brightens the 4th of July:
THE leader of a radical Pakistani mosque was arrested while trying to flee in a woman's burqa as security forces stepped up pressure on a few hundred hardcore followers still holed up inside.
Firebrand cleric Abdul Aziz's capture sparked an exodus from Islamabad's Lal Masjid, or Red Mosque, with 1,200 male and female students surrendering to the authorities a day after clashes there left 16 people dead.
..."After all the things he has said and all the oaths he took from his students that they should embrace martyrdom with him, look at this man,'' deputy information minister Tariq Azeem said.
It's like an upper-class Indian masquerading as an Untouchable, or a Ruler of the Universe in blackface, trying to fool the cops. The deputy information minister has it precisely right, just look at this guy, a typical blowhard inciting his followers to martyrdom, who cross dresses and tries to sneak out the alley, leaving his followers to their doom.
This is, shall we say, not unusual. I reported way back when that Osama bin Laden sneaked into Iran from Afghanistan when the going got tough in late 2001...in a burqa. Ditto for many other jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan, who pretend to be despised females when given a chance to perform the ultimate sacrifice.
You may have noticed that some of the hardliners in Iran are demanding death for former president Khatami, because he shook hands with a woman-not-his-wife. But I rather wonder if these same tough guys will wrap themselves in burqas and chadors when their moment comes. It's a delicious practice, isn't it? These vile misanthropes who delight in having women stoned or hanged or flogged, sneaking around in drag rather than facing their Maker. Or the Marines, for that matter, who are firmly committed to arranging the meeting.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/05/2007 07:03 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11131 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Another one of those "last drop of blood" guys I'll bet...
Posted by: ed ||
07/05/2007 06:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
If this guy is right, that's damned worrisome for us and even moreso for India. I wonder if we've got any contingency plans for going in there and getting the Pak nukes.
Posted by: Mac ||
07/05/2007 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Most likely there are contingency plans. If the donks get elected, these plans may never be implemented.
Contrary to popular perception, al-Qaeda is not necessarily against free elections. And elections in Pakistan without Musharraf's interference may fall more overwhelmingly in favor of radical Islamists than many suspect. This statement is a gross under-estimation of Pakistani popular support for Islamofascism. Everything I've read since 2001 indicates it's overwhelming but temporarily under Musharraf's lid.
And when Pakistan as we know it falls, it will surely most likely become run by al-Qaeda and/or al-Qaeda aligned Islamists. An Islamist figure such as former ISI (Pakistani military intelligence) Director Hamid Gul can be expected to rise to grasp the official levers of power within Pakistan. A figure such as bin Laden will never publicly hold such official title, as an al-Qaedastan would draw too much international ire. Hamid Gul and Aslam Beg have openly called for a Pakistani military and nuclear alliance with the Iranian mullah regime. [The] 'best-case' is one in which Musharraf no longer controls Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal, but a trustworthy General seizes control of at least the nuclear weapons.
or perhaps the nukes are even now being smuggled out of Pakistan, greased by the distribution of truckloads of Benjamins.
#4
... or perhaps the nukes are even now being smuggled out of Pakistan, greased by the distribution of truckloads of Benjamins.
In the long run would it really matter? The most difficult hurdle, the initial development, is long past so Pakistan, Iran (soon), or other similar regimes will be able to replace the weapons. Perhaps not as soon as they've been removed but certainly not long thereafter. The rules of the game have changed in a very fundamental way.
#5
I'm confident that our military has contingency plans for disabling or appropriating Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. A major concern is that the radicals would wait patiently until a less assertive (read: democrat) administration is in place who would be far more hesitant to approve of such measures.
It is cold consolation that Islamic radicals consistently overreach themselves. We can only hope that Musharraf's downfallwhich at this point seems inevitiblecomes while there is a republican administration presiding. Ironically, Bush's insistence upon propping up Musharraf may ultimately work against him. Better to remove our bolstering supportsuch that Mussharaf fallsand proceed to confiscate Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, than risk having the threat go unanswered by those less willing who might follow his depature from office.
Ending Pakistan's ownership of nuclear weapons is second only to preventing Iran's acquisition of them. Both represent a strategic calamity in the making.
#7
So, damned if we do and damned if we don't, eh? Why does this seem to be the principal hallmark of dealing with Islam? As with Saudi Arabia, in Pakistan we enter the usual Islamic hall of mirrors. The near-infinitude of irrational and hair trigger Islamic sensibilities makes it almost impossible to gauge Cause and Effect with any accuracy. The fact that Muslims display an almost congenital immunity to any comprehension of Cause and Effect only serves to complicate matters worse.
Rather than waste time aimlessly wandering through Islam's maze of deceit and perfidy, I'd much sooner see us exit their hall of mirrors. Alexander's solution to the Gordian knot springs to mind.
#8
Buy the nukes from Mushariff and arrange for him to exile somewhere then let history take it's course. It'll be ugly in the short term but without oil money or even a dominant ethnic group they'll never become another Iran. They'll probably dissolve into three or four nations.
#9
The MMA received only 10% of votes in Pakistan's last federal election. They are despised in much of Sindh and the Punjab. They have no chance of increasing their votes, and no reason to since the leading parties are kissing Islamofascist butt. I support a return to the economic boycott of Pakistan. It was only removed after 9-11, under Saudi counsel.
Excerpt:
Khadduri was an Iraqi and a scholar of Islamic law of international renown. Ive lately been revisiting his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject. Khadduri says this about jihad:
The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put Gods law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. It refused to recognize the coexistence of non-Muslim communities, except perhaps as subordinate entities, because by its very nature a universal state tolerates the existence of no other state than itself. Although it was not a consciously formulated policy, Muhammads early successors, after Islam became supreme in Arabia, were determined to embark on a ceaseless war of conquest in the name of Islam. The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)
And:
Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islams instrument or carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief in God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ. Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another, will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam is permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community which prefers to remain non-Islamic -- in the status of a tolerated religious community accepting certain disabilities -- must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. (Page 64)
Posted by: ed ||
07/05/2007 06:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Islam is the only religion that makes everyone who studies how it is practised in the real world want to be an atheist.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
07/05/2007 9:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
According to Wikipedia: A phobia (from the Greek ????? "fear"), is an irrational, persistent fear of certain situations, objects, activities, or persons.
I don't think islamophobia fits this definition of a phobia. The concern for islam is not irrational at all. There is plenty of evidence that one should be very concerned. There is good reason to be wary of islam. Islam is trying to take over the world. If this doesn't give everyone real concern, then I would advise seeking professional help. Forget about global warming, carbon credits, tree-hugging, grandiose immigration amnesty, and all that other leftish bulls*it.
#4
Phobias areby definitionunreasoning or irrational. Fear of Islam does not remotely qualify for this misnomer. In fact, any non-Muslim who remains unconcerned about Islam's quest for genocide and global domination could quite justifiably be labeled as unreasoning or irrational.
#5
It makes more sense to talk about the reality of islamobarbarism or islamofacism or islamoterrorism rather than islamophobia. Islamophobia sounds like some psychobabble that says the problem is with us and not them--if only we would try harder, then we wouldn't have any problems with the islamics. It makes it sound like 911 would not have happened if we just did something different. The term islamophobia softens what is going on. Islamobarbarism; the head severings, the desire for grand and massive murder, torture, the indiscriminate killing of civilians is the reality. The desire as stated by the terrorists is to take over the world and recreate it is the image of islamic totalitarianism.
The sight of a burning SUV stuck at the entrance of Glasgow Airport's passenger terminal had me begging God for reprieve.
"Please let it not be a Muslim," I prayed. But the odds were against me.
One of the first eyewitnesses to appear on BBC dashed my hopes. "The bloke was on fire and when we tried to approach him, he started throwing punches and shouting 'Allah! Allah!' " said an exasperated Scot.
Fortunately, this clumsy attempt by Islamic terrorists failed. But what was extraordinary about this attack was the profile of the accused.
Among those arrested were Arab professionals, one a neurosurgeon, the other a physician. These were no inner-city sons of impoverished immigrants invoking their right to fight injustice. These were well-placed, Mercedes-driving, upper-middle-class Muslims responding to the call of jihad against non-Muslims, which is the basis of all Islamic terrorism.
As usual, Islamic groups lined up to utter cliche-ridden denunciations without once attacking the ideology of jihad that provides the fertile soil for Islamic extremism.
If the profile of the arrested was unusual, the reactions were predictable. As usual, Islamic groups lined up to utter cliche-ridden denunciations without once attacking the ideology of jihad that provides the fertile soil for Islamic extremism. The condemnations were just enough to put some distance between themselves and the jihadis, and to absolve themselves of any responsibility.
The current state of affairs in Britain is not just the fault of the Islamists and their apologists.
It is also the fault of politicians such as Tony Blair.
The current state of affairs in Britain is not just the fault of the Islamists and their apologists.
It is also the fault of politicians such as Tony Blair, who, after foolishly entrenching Islamists at every level in British society, then lied about weapons of mass destruction and helped U.S. President George W. Bush launch his illegal invasion of Iraq. Blair set up state-funded Islamic schools and knighted a known Islamist, a person who had defended the death sentence on Salman Rushdie.
To make matters worse, Blair endorsed and funded the so-called "Radical Middle Way" for British Muslim clerics. This "middle way" has become a front for all those who provide convoluted academic analysis, explaining the root causes of Islamic terrorism and falsely promising the British taxpayer that they will counter the ideology of hate against secular societies.
But its media savvy scholars promote a very narrow view of Islam, carefully avoiding any rejection of the doctrine of jihad, choosing instead to suggest that Britain's foreign policy is at the root of terrorism.
Instead of stating that there was no room for jihadi ideology in Britain and challenging the Islamic organizations to join him, Gordon Brown coyly referred to "moderate majorities" and "extreme fringes."
Even the new British prime minister failed to take the bull by the horns. Instead of stating that there was no room for jihadi ideology in Britain and challenging the Islamic organizations to join him, Gordon Brown coyly referred to "moderate majorities" and "extreme fringes."
Time has come for this to change.
Time has come for ordinary Britons and Canadians to say that if our politicians do not have the spine to stand up to the Islamists, we will. We have to say to those apologizing for Islamists, "Enough is enough," and stand up to the Jihadis and Jihadi-Lites.
We should not hesitate to say to those who will not embrace the principles of secular democracies, "shape up or ship out."
This victimhood mentality forced on young Muslim men, mixed with the exaltation of martyrdom and the doctrine of jihad, has been at the root of Islamic terrorism in Britain.
When prosperous young Muslims use Mercedes as car bombs in London and Glasgow, the groups who instilled in them this frenzy are equally guilty of the crime, if not more.
Those who incite young Muslim men in Britain and Canada into believing that western society is satanic and that the West is waging a war against Islam have a moral obligation to take responsibility when these same men become suicide bombers and terrorists.
Muslim organizations in Canada must come out and state clearly that the only laws that matter in Canada are the laws of this country, not medieval shariah laws of the ninth century.
Muslim organizations in Canada must do more than simply pay lip service to cliche-ridden patriotism while preaching against the values and foundations of this great country.
Muslim organizations must come out and state clearly that the only laws that matter in Canada are the laws of this country, not medieval shariah laws of the ninth century.
If they do not reject the doctrine of jihad as an option for Muslims, they should be considered part of the problem, not the solution.
Tarek Fatah is founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress and author of Chasing a Mirage: The Islamic state or a state of Islam, to be published by John Wiley & Sons in 2008
Posted by: lotp ||
07/05/2007 12:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
As usual, general rhetoric. "Stand Up" in what way? After castrating the war on terror you are a hypocrit. Don't be surprised when this islamist stand right back up and get right back in your face more militant than ever.
#2
Notice that Tarek Fatah does not claim any Quranic argument supports his position. It may be out of ignorance of the theology (probably) or out of embarrassment at the theology (Irshad Manji is an exception to this rule, she quotes the Quran a lot and probably thinks she knows what she is talking about).
This is the problem self identifying moslem moderates face. In essense, the terrorists quote the Quran, the moderates run away from it.
#3
Or they quote the 5% of the Koran that is gentle and accepting, ignoring the other 95% as hard as they can. I heard exactly that on NPR this morning, as follow-on to their report on the 45 jihadi doctors plotting mayhem in the U.S.
#4
The reason why no one will stand up (besides lack of a spine) is the fact that if they do, the Islamists will stand right up too and try to behead them. Thus, the apologists rule the land.
The war is on people. You will have to fight, or surrender.
#6
Those who incite young Muslim men in Britain and Canada into believing that western society is satanic and that the West is waging a war against Islam have a moral obligation to take responsibility when these same men become suicide bombers and terrorists.
They not only are happy to take moral responsibility, they gloat at the successes.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/05/2007 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Please do not do the green block comments with tiny tiny letters. It hurts my eyes and I will not attempt to read them!
There's no need to read them as they are merely excerpts from the body of text. The green color indicates which moderator perceives these passages as being of significance.
As to the article, it would have been nice if the author had provided more detail about how people should "stand up to the Islamists". She says, "Enough is enough," and, "shape up or ship out" but neglects to mention if this involves beating the crap out of protestors who openly advocate shari'a law or (gasp!) shipping out offenders via deportation. Much more explicit language is going to be needed to overcome the years of Politically Correct Newspeak that have neutered public awareness of Islam's threat.
#9
It is also the fault of politicians such as Tony Blair, who, after foolishly entrenching Islamists at every level in British society, then lied about weapons of mass destruction and helped U.S. President George W. Bush launch his illegal invasion of Iraq
Some things are well-stated whereas others are pure BS. The statement about lying about WMDs is the mantra of the left. Saddam has WMDs which he used against the Iranians and the Kurds. He tried to develop a nuclear capability in the early 1980s before the Israelis took out the facilities in a pre-emptive strike. He had been working on biological weapons and chemical weapons. Another mantra is that Bush invaded Iraq illegally. Bullshit. Iraq ignored UN sanctions for years. Bush went to the UN and got a UN resolution to invade Iraq.
Exactly what that fool Bloomberg is allowing Dabah al Montaser to do in New York
It is also the fault of politicians such as Tony Blair, who, after foolishly entrenching Islamists at every level in British society, then lied about weapons of mass destruction and helped U.S. President George W. Bush launch his illegal invasion of Iraq.
Repeating this common Big Lie of the Left invalidates the rest of the article in my view. Not only is the charge false but it is just another example of a blame-the-victim mentality.
Besides the Islamists themselves the only other group which deserves blame are the multi-cultis who allowed this movement to infiltrate our societies.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
