Friday, March 30, 2007

Kosovo, a cautionary tale

By Ruth King on Mideast Outpost. This is the best summary of the history of Kosovo and Metohija written by a foreigner I have seen so far. My only objection is the part about Milosevic but I suppose Mrs.King had to preserve some amount of political correctness in order to have this published.

It looks increasingly probable that Kosovo will gain its independence from Serbia, an outcome that should be of serious concern to Israel and its supporters. Ariel Sharon, to his credit, heard the alarm bells during the American bombing of Serbia in 1999, when he warned American Jewish leaders: "If Israel supports the type of action that's going on in Kosovo, it risks becoming the next victim. Brutal intervention must not be legitimized as a way to try to impose a solution in regional conflicts." And, it is no coincidence, as journalist Julia Gorin reminds us, that during the bombing of Serbia on behalf of Moslem Albanians in 1999 Saudi Prince Khaled Bin Sultan, commander of the allied Saudi troops during the first Gulf War, called on the US to do the same against Israel on behalf of Palestinians.

The fate of Jews and Serbs, which has intersected in the past, is doing so again. The jihadist effort to expunge Jews from Palestine mirrors the Moslem goal of incorporating Kosovo into a “greater Moslem Albania” while expelling Christian Serbs.

Go on and read all of it.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

There we have it now

As suspected Ahtisaari proposed independence for Kosovo and Metohija. Also was expected the cheerleading from Washington, London and Brussels.

The US and it's allies have now openly decided to trample over the UN Charter and enforce the carving up of Serbia, and the consequences be damned. And what will those be? Even the US themselves do not know, they just keep parotting the line how "Kosovo is not going to be a precedent", without ever explaining how they intend to enforce that. Of course, to anyone with an IQ over 80 their propaganda cliche' is laughably ridicolous. But they don't mind, since they live in the 1990-ties where they believe they can coerce everyone into agreeing with them. Somehow, I believe it will be tougher this time...

Friday, March 23, 2007

And if they don't become like us... is what happens: German judge cites Koran in refusal to grant divorce.

As ironic as it may sound, this judge actually has more sense then Bernard Lewis. At least she knows that his fantasy is precisely that: fantasy. And at least she gives a good indication of the future.

Dissent 101

Ever since Iraq war began(perhaps even after 9/11) an artificial divide has been imposed upon the general public. According to this concept when it comes to Iraq there are only two camps: George W. Bush and the neocons who blindly insist on pursuing the fantasy of democratisation and the appeasers of jihad and leftist moonbats hooked on the post-modern multiculturalist utopia(but in a slightly different manner then their supposed neocon counterparts). Anybody refusing to tow to the party line and present things the way they are is labeled "unpatriotic" by the former and "islamophobe" by the latter, depending on which parts of the discourse they cherry-pick.

That this need not be the case and that genuine, patriotic dissent is indeed possible is best shown by this comment from Hugh Fitzgerald from Jihadwatch. In the text Fitzgerald plainly and in an easy-to-understand manner how the Iraq experiment failed and why, sticking to point blank facts and real-life civilisational reasons, not to conspiracy theories and "Bush is evil" rants like those coming from the liberal left.

The sad thing is that sane criticism such as this one is relegated to the blogosphere while mainstream publications still prefer propagandist tracts of various Kristols, Kagans and Michael Moores.

Lewis' strategy? Hope and pray!

Bernard Lewis is considered by many, especially by some policy-makers in Washington, as the foremost expert on islam. While there is no denying he knows a lot about it, it is how this knowledge is applied that has left me perplexed, from supressing antisemitic passages in the Koran to spectacularly wrong predictions about the so-called Oslo peace process and the war in Iraq. His latest speech given at the American Enterprise Institute has several disturbing parts but the closing parts give particular cause for concern.

Where do we stand now? Is it third time lucky? It is not impossible. They have certain clear advantages. They have fervor and conviction, which in most Western countries are either weak or lacking. They are self-assured of the rightness of their cause, whereas we spend most of our time in self-denigration and self-abasement. They have loyalty and discipline, and perhaps most important of all, they have demography, the combination of natural increase and migration producing major population changes, which could lead within the foreseeable future to significant majorities in at least some European cities or even countries.

But we also have some advantages, the most important of which are knowledge and freedom. The appeal of genuine modern knowledge in a society which, in the more distant past, had a long record of scientific and scholarly achievement is obvious. They are keenly and painfully aware of their relative backwardness and welcome the opportunity to rectify it.

Less obvious but also powerful is the appeal of freedom. In the past, in the Islamic world the word freedom was not used in a political sense. Freedom was a legal concept. You were free if you were not a slave. The institution of slavery existed. Free meant not slave. Unlike the West, they did not use freedom and slavery as a metaphor for good and bad government, as we have done for a long time in the Western world. The terms they used to denote good and bad government are justice and injustice. A good government is a just government, one in which the Holy Law, including its limitations on sovereign authority, is strictly enforced. The Islamic tradition, in theory and, until the onset of modernization, to a large degree in practice, emphatically rejects despotic and arbitrary government. Living under justice is the nearest approach to what we would call freedom.

But the idea of freedom in its Western interpretation is making headway. It is becoming more and more understood, more and more appreciated and more and more desired. It is perhaps in the long run our best hope, perhaps even our only hope, of surviving this developing struggle. Thank you.

So let me see if I get this straight: we should hope that muslims become like us and that is the only way for our civilisation to survive? What if they don't become like us? What if they do not want to become like us? What then? How about simply saying that practices such as honour killings, sharia law and dhimmitude is incompatible with values of freedom and equality? How about telling those that come in that if they want to stay they have to adapt to the values of the domicile population? "When in Rome, do as the Romans!" And most of all, what do you say that those who want to bring the aforementioned elements of Islam to Europe and America not be let in or kicked out if they are there already? All this is inconcievable to Lewis and his crowd because that would mean the end of their ideology globalist multiculturalism and make their thesis of how everyone desires freedom and democracy worthless. So rather then face facts they indulge themselves into puerile fantasies exposing typical symptoms of the diseade I like to call the Rastenburg 1944 Syndrome.

But the detachment from reality and giving hope as a strategy is not the worst aspect of this speech. In it, Lewis basically said that if muslims don't become like us we should submit or convert to islam or otherwise we will die and that not only we shouldn't do anything about it but also we can not do anything about it. The choices are either post-modern multiculturalism, islam or death. No return to traditional religions and values of European nations and America should be even considered lest we loose our liberal ways.

What Lewis uttered in this speech is beyond the pale! Beyond all pales!

Thursday, March 22, 2007

The "imaginary" jihad of the Balkans and reactions to it

For over a decade western so-called experts dismissed out of hand as pro-Serb any claim that a jihadist network is being established in the Balkans. Furthermore, these people went out of their way to promote how the muslims from Bosnia, Kosovo and other parts of ex-Yugoslavia are supposedly secular.Well, it seems their claims have been(for the umpteenth time) denied by the reality on the field.

What is even more perplexing, however, is the reaction from mainstream muslim organisations. The men arrested belong to the "extremist" wahabi group and it would be safe to assume that the official representatives of the Sandzak muslims would denounce them and support the police actions, since the wahabi group goes against the secular and pro-European orientation of the majority of muslims. Yet, what happened were sympathetic and self-serving communiques from the islamic community, even claiming that the weapons that the wahabi group collected were to be used against that same islamic community. If that is the case, how come they had anti-tank weapons? Does the islamic community in Sandzak have tanks, perhaps?

Makes you wonder, are the wahabis really extreme, or there is something else to it?

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Hang on a minute, I thought...

...that everything is rosy in Kosovo and Metohija? I thought everyone is getting along just fine, the sun is shining, the birds are singing...I mean the UNMIK chief said so, he wouldn't lie about it, would he? So what is this business about a mixed marriage couple fearing for their lives?

This is just the tip of the tip of the iceberg. UNMIK and the western powers are creating a virtual reality on Kosovo and Metohija in order to cover up the disaster they have caused. Now they want to coerce Serbia into accepting the independence of Kosovo and Metohija as the result of the NATO war of agression in 1999 and thus absolve themselves of any responsibility. It must not pass. They made the bed, they should now sleep in it.

Friday, March 16, 2007


So what does one learn from Mel Gibson's latest movie, apart from the fact that good films can be made in dead languages and without top stars?

A few things, but still valuable. Such as distinguishing a historian from an ideologue. The former gives you all the facts and puts them in the context of time and civilisational development while the latter always omits the context and if there are facts that counter his ideological view of events, you can be certain he will supress them. For decades students learn from liberal-left historians about how great and ancient civilisations of Maya and Inca were destroyed by bloodthirsty Spaniards which killed millions and plundered everything in sight. Those historians would never present some facts that might have changed that interpretation. It was left for Mel Gibson. He revealed to the general public that the "great civilisations" were built largely on slave labour, that people were forcibly taken away from their homes nad loved ones and sacrificed to pagan gods for sheer amusement of the masses and that the survival of the fittest was the life moto, by and large. So what was it so bad that the Spanish brought with them that wasn't already there?

The other thing you learn, after you are aquainted with the facts Gibson presents, is that Hegel was right. He once stated that everything that collapsed throughout the course of human history deserved to collapse. At the end of the movie, you can't help but agreeing with him 100%.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Aaaaawww, poor baby!

Ever see a kid having it's temper tantrum where it complains about things not going it's way and whines how everyone is so mean? Sure. But ever see a supposed grown-up do the same? If not, take a look how the blogger who has written about the Hitler impersonator in Kosovska Mitrovica reacts to others quoting his blog entry.

So the baby doesn't like that others took notice of his exploits. Boo-freaking-hooo! Cry me a river! Why did you go in public then? You complain they took your words out of context? What context did you have in mind, baby? What possible context can there be for anything connected to Hitler other then negative?

What is it exactly that you complain about Mr.Baby? Is it perhaps that the place that still looks favourably on der fuhrer simply doesn't fit in the post-modern, globalist utopian vision of yours? Or that the "Republic of Kosova" you so simpathetically write about is not as rosy as you'd like to paint it? Whatever the reason is, the cat is out of the bag, deal with it, instead of whining about "right-wingers", "Bush cronies" and "Serb nationalists".

And be sure to put me on the list of those that allegedly misused your blog entry. I feel unjustly neglected.

Monday, March 12, 2007

Two anniversaries

Sunday was the first anniversary of the death of Slobodan Milosevic, while today is 4 years since the assasination of the former PM of Serbia Zoran Djindjic. These two men still polarize Serbia even from their respective graves.

I won't go into details about Milosevic, but if you are really curious what I think read this text since it expresses my opinion almost to a letter.

As for Djindjic he has for a long time been the darling of the western mainstream media, right up until some time before he was murdered. What caused the change? Well, Djindjic had realized that, in his exact words, democracy can not be proved with betrayal of one's national interest. The propaganda daggers were out immediately but it was all broken off with his untimely demise. Coincidence that he was killed just as he was beggining to defy the west? Well, "afterwards" does not necessarily mean "because", still...It would certainly have been fun to watch the globalist liberal media in the west villifying their former idol, in the perfect Ministry of Truth style.

Friday, March 09, 2007

Ihre fuhrer

Yes, their fuhrer. And why shouldn't he be? After all, he was the first to give Kosovo and Metohija to them way back in 1941. And one of them decided to give his personal tribute. Read it, and have a barf-bag nearby, just in case. And all that under the noses of UN troops! The funniest part is when the blogger writes:"...we step out of 1941 Germany and enter present day Mitrovica..." How are the two different?

BTW, a lovely little ornament on the restaurant's bill in the left-hand corner, isn't it?

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

Some scholar

Dinesh D'Souza and Srdja Trifkovic were debating yesterday on an american radio show. D'Souza has recently written a book that has caused a great deal of controversy. While I haven't read the book itself from the excerpts I can conclude that, although he makes valid points on the destructive influence of the cultural left, D'Souza is amazingly ignorant about islam and his central proposition, that western conservatives join forces with traditional ordinary muslims is quite absurd.

Just how ignorant is D'Souza? Have a look at the transcript of the part of the debate over at Jihadwatch. Scroll down to the part where Trifkovic asks D'Souza in what order are the Suras in the Koran arranged.

D'Souza claims he spent 4 years studying islam. Seems to me he wasted them and would have been better off traveling around the world.

Friday, March 02, 2007

If you can't beat them, rape them

For decades, in spite of overwhelming numeric superiority Arabs were unable to defeat Israel and, in their words, "push the Jews to the sea". So some of them decided to take revenge and show how manly they are.

Where's the penalty of castration for the rapists when you need it?