"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query NUREMBERG. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query NUREMBERG. Sort by date Show all posts

Saturday, March 09, 2013

EITHER THEY'RE IGNORANT ASSHOLES, OR OBAMA AND HOLDER LIE ABOUT THE NUREMBERG TRIALS

POWER LINE:

Speaking at a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania during the presidential campaign in June 2008, Barack Obama addressed the Supreme Court’s Boumediene decision granting Guantanamo detainees the right to challenge their confinement through habeas corpus proceedings in federal court. 
Obama asserted that the “principle of habeas corpus, that a state can’t just hold you for any reason without charging you and without giving you any kind of due process — that’s the essence of who we are.” He explained: 
I mean, you remember during the Nuremberg trials, part of what made us different was even after these Nazis had performed atrocities that no one had ever seen before, we still gave them a day in court and that taught the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law. Now the Supreme Court upheld that principle yesterday. 
Obama’s comments derive from “the higher wisdom” that fueled his 2008 campaign and that is now operative in his administration. Holder perfectly reflects it. 
In referring Abu Ghaith for trial in federal court in Manhattan, cloaking him with the rights of criminal defendants under the Constitution of the United States, Holder seeks to give him his “day in court.” He also seeks to “t[each] the entire world about who we are but also the basic principles of rule of law.” 
Right on schedule the White House released this statement on Abu Ghaith’s prosecution yesterday: 
“Article 3 courts have shown that they are, in many ways, a more efficient way for us to deliver justice to those who seek to harm the United States of America and that is the consensus view of the president’s national security team and of agencies all across the federal government — that this is the best way to handle bringing Abu Ghaith to justice,” Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Friday. 
It is worth reiterating that the only appropriate response to Obama’s campaign comments on Boumediene is: “Not true.” 
The higher wisdom is founded on false precepts. 
The Nuremberg trial was conducted before a military commission composed of representatives of the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union. Obama to the contrary notwithstanding, the Nuremberg defendants weren’t brought before a federal court or cloaked with the protections of the United States Constitution.
The most prominent surviving Nazi leaders were brought for trial before the Nuremberg tribunal in late 1945. Winston Churchill had proposed, not unreasonably, that they be summarily shot. The victorious allies nevertheless subsequently agreed that they would be brought before a military commission to be convened pursuant to the London Agreement of August 8, 1945. 
In Boumediene, the Supreme Court disapproved of the system of military commissions Congress had adopted at the Supreme Court’s urging. Obama to the contrary notwithstanding, the Nuremberg defendants’ “day in court” occurred before the kind of tribunal the Supreme Court found constitutionally inadequate in Boumediene.The Nazi war criminals were given no access to American courts. Their rights before the Nuremberg tribunal were governed by the charter annexed to the London Agreement. 
The charter’s “fair trial” provision was extraordinarily brief. It required only the preparation of an indictment (to be translated into the defendant’s language) and accorded defendants an explanation relevant to the charges made against them in the proceedings; the translation of the proceedings into defendants’ language; the right to conduct their own defense before the tribunal or to have the assistance of counsel; the right to present evidence at the trial in support of his defense, and to cross-examine any witnesses testifying against him. 
The charter provision on the appeal rights of the Nuremberg defendants was even shorter and sweeter. There were no appeal rights. The charter provided: “The judgment of the Tribunal as to the guilt or the innocence of any Defendant shall give the reasons on which it is based, and shall be final and not subject to review.”
BRINGING THIS AL QAEDA TERRORIST TO A USA COURT - ONE IN NYC, NO LESS - IS AN INSANE ACT - WITHOUT ANY LEGAL PRECEDENT - WHICH MAKES US LESS SAFE.

HOLDER AND OBAMA SHOULD BE IMPEACHED FOR THIS.

MORE HERE.

Monday, September 27, 2010

From 1967 to Now: History Repeating Itself.

Was Jane Fonda supporting war-crimes, along with commie husband? From Michael Ezra at Harry’s Place:
"Los Angeles Times, December 1967: At the same time as denouncing “Amerikkka” for their actions in Vietnam, many in the Vietnam antiwar movement were cheering on Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Cong. This is but another example of those on the far-left championing brutal murderers. Below I copy an extract from a letter published in the Los Angeles Times in the middle of all this:
Put Viet Reds on Trial: David Boelender, Los Angeles Times, December 4, 1967
"…. The Vietnamese Communists have conspired to commit aggression against South Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Thailand. According to the Nuremberg Charter this is a crime against peace.North Vietnamese troops have violated the borders of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. According to the Nuremberg Charter this is a crime against peace.Since 1945 and continuing today the Vietnamese Communists have murdered thousands of non-Communist and anti-Communist Vietnamese leaders as a matter of deliberate and systematic policy. According to the Nuremberg Charter this is a crime against humanity.The Vietnamese Communists have sent agents into Laos, Cambodia and Thailand to subvert the people and to kill those opposed to the plans of North Vietnam and Communist China for these nations. According to the Nuremberg Charter this is both a crime against peace and a crime against humanity.According to Hoang Van Chi, between 1953 and 1956 the Vietnamese Communists murdered as many as 500,000 North Vietnamese citizens under the pretext of land reform. This is genocide and according to the Nuremberg Charter a crime against humanity."

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

OBAMA SUPPORTS AND HAILS MILITARY TRIBUNALS
















OBAMA:
Democrat Barack Obama said today he would bring bin Laden to account in a way that wouldn't allow the Sept. 11 mastermind to become a martyr.

At a Washington news conference after meeting his security advisers, he acknowledged that bin Laden might not be taken alive, but suggested that the Nazi war crime trials at Nuremberg after World War II would be a good model if he is.
  • THE NUREMBERG TRIALS WERE MILITARY TRIBUNALS.
  • DEFENDANTS WERE NOT READ THEIR MIRANDA RIGHTS OR ALLOWED TO SUE TO GET THEIR CASES HEARD BY A FEDERAL COURT.
  • MOST CONVICTED WERE EXECUTED.

  • SOMETHING TELLS ME WE SHOULD EXPECT OBAMA TO BACKTRACK FROM THIS STATEMENT IN A DAYS OR SO.
  • AS USUAL.
UPDATE: THERE ARE ALREADY SIGNS OF DISARRAY IN THE OBAMA-CAMP ON THIS ISSUE:

OBAMA'S ADVISORS AND SURROGATES SAY OBAMA WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE USA FOR A TRIAL IN US COURTS. WASH EXAMINER:
Barack Obama's foreign policy advisers said Tuesday that Osama bin Laden, if captured, should be allowed to appeal his case to U.S. civilian courts, a privilege opposed by John McCain.

Responding to questions from The Examiner, Sen. John Kerry and former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke said bin Laden would benefit from last week's Supreme Court decision giving terrorism suspects habeas corpus, the right to appeal their military detention to civilian courts.
AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY WOULD BE A GRAVE THREAT TO OUR REPUBLIC AND A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE FREE WORLD.

VOTE ACCORDINGLY.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

New EU Law Restricting Speech

It seems that the EU has passed a law saying that member states must make a crime out of genocide denial. But Muslim genocides (e.g. by Turkey against the Christian Armenians) are not counted as genocides, of course. So Muslims can deny their genocides all they like!

"Condoning or "grossly trivialising" genocide will become a crime punishable by up to three years in prison across Europe, although justice ministers failed to agree a specific ban on denying the Holocaust yesterday.

Germany used its presidency of the EU to push through the first Europe-wide race-hate laws, regarded by Berlin as an historic obligation in the 50th anniversary year of the union created to preserve peace and prosperity after the Second World War....

All 27 EU nations will be obliged to criminalise "publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes" but the test for prosecution was set deliberately high to secure agreement in Luxembourg. Cases will succeed only where "the conduct is carried out in a manner likely to incite violence or hatred".

The definition of genocide will be that set at the Nuremberg trials and by the International Criminal Court, meaning that it will include Nazi crimes and those in Rwanda and Yugoslavia but not the Armenian genocide - a definition disputed by Turkey.

Poland, Slovenia and the Baltic states lobbied hard for - but failed to win - the inclusion of a crime of denying, condoning or trivialising atrocities committed in the name of Joseph Stalin in the new law....

Source


(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)

Friday, November 13, 2009

MILITARY TRIBUNALS: IF THEY WERE GOOD ENOUGH FOR NAZIS, THEN THEY'RE GOOD ENOUGH FOR JIHADISTS

NUREMBERG WAS A MILITARY TRIBUNAL.

  • THE FIRST ROUND WERE INTERNATIONAL (THE ALLIES TRIED THE PERP'S), AND THE SECOND ROUND WAS EXCLUSIVELY RUN BY THE US MILITARY.
ALSO IN WW2, WE HELD 450,000 POWS ON US SOIL, AND NONE WERE DEEMED TO HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO US COURTS.

NONE.

INSANELY, BOUMEDIENE OVERTURNED THAT.


AND AS A RESULT... KSM IS COMING TO NYC.

HE WILL BE TRIED BLOCKS FROM GROUND ZERO.

INSANE.

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

More on the Fascist element in Obama's appeal

"Alles muss anders sein" (Everything must be different) -- Hitler's briefest summary of his policies

History never repeats itself but sometimes it comes close. Obama is NOT a Fascist insofar as the Fascists were patriotic and Obama is the sort of America-hater that is now typical of the Left. Right up to JFK, the American Left was patriotic. It no longer is. And sometimes Obama doesn't even bother to pretend -- as we see below:



But in matters other than patriotism -- the appeal for unity, the preaching of "change", the vague but inspiring rhetoric and the automatic turning to government as the solution to every problem -- Obama is quite Fascist.

That does not mean that he would turn America into a Fascist nation if he became President. Because he doesn't seem to have thought things through, I think he would make a very ineffectual President, in fact. But the main reason why America will remain the Great Republic is that its political institutions, traditions and customs are very strong. F.D. Roosevelt was a strong and determined leader with a legendary base of support throughout the country who openly admired Mussolini and who did his best to put the Federal government in charge of just about everything in America -- but he failed. America is not easily changed by one man. Because Americans think that it is inconceivable for America to be anything but a democracy, it is highly likely that America will always remain a democracy. As judge Learned Hand notably said: "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it. While it lies there it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it."

And Obama is no FDR. But identifying where Obama stands in history might just do a little to prepare people for the adventurism and reductions in individual liberties that he is likely to move towards if he gains office. The amazing revelations of what Obama is like without a teleprompter reveal him as having all the anger and hate of the Fascists too.

I mentioned vague but inspiring rhetoric. Here is the shouted climax of one of Hitler's impassioned speeches at the 1934 Nuremberg Parteitag (party rally), speaking particularly to the Hitler Youth:

"Vor uns liegt Deutschland, in uns marschiert Deutschland. und hinter uns kommt Deutschland" ("Before us lies Germany, in us Germany marches and behind us comes Germany").

The translation erases the cadences of the original German so why it got thunderous applause and inspired many may not be immediately obvious. Hitler is notoriously impossible to translate fully so you need to understand German and see a film of the original speech to really "get" it. But what exactly did it mean? It is rather absurd considered logically but as an emotional declaration of unity it was very powerful. I doubt that Obama will ever convey that message as powerfully -- but it is a very similar message to his.

And note another famous appeal for unity, unity in the State: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato" (Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State) -- the words of Benito Mussolini.

Or how about G.W.F. Hegel, the German philosopher who started it all? (Translation only)

The state, which is that form of reality in which the individual has and enjoys his freedom; but on the condition of his recognizing, believing in and willing that which is common to the whole

And as far as Obama's "change" religion is concerned, see the quote at the head of this post and also note the following policy description:

A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists" -- again the words of Adolf Hitler, from the "Philosophy and Organization" chapter of Mein Kampf

And Hitler also described his movement as having a 'revolutionary creative will' which had 'no fixed aim, no permanency, only eternal change'

It's amusing how Leftists love to see imaginary similarities between GWB and Hitler but will never in a million years see the real similarities between Obama and the Fascists that I have set out in detail. "Bush=Hitler" gives them a feeling of righteousness. "Obama=Hitler" gives me a feeling of sadness. That Fascism has huge and enduring appeal is a very hard thing for a libertarian to swallow. And as for personal popularity, let the picture below speak for itself:



My previous comments on the similarities between Obama and the prewar Fascists are here and here and here

Posted by John Ray

Friday, June 22, 2007

CLINTON AND BOXER DENY INHOFE STORY

Well, of course they do. What the hell does anyone expect them to say, "Yes, it's true, we're neo-fascists with plans to crush free speech." It's just like Bill Clinton always said, "Deny, deny, deny." Of course, Oliver Willis says their denials are proof that Inhofe is a liar:

You mean the senate's leading global warming denier just pulled something out of his ass, sent it over talk radio and had it filtered throughout the blogs and Fox News? Simply astounding.


Kryptonite my ass! It's ironic that he would bring global warming into the argument. Global Warming is the issue that Ole's friends on the Left say is completely settled...NO DEBATE, DON'T QUESTION IT! Hell if you try and question it, you could go before a Nuremberg-Style court, if some folks had their way. Hmmm, silencing an opposing view on Global Warming...just like some want to silence the views of, wait for it....conservative talk radio!

Are you getting this?

UPDATE: Inhofe says the story is true but it's an old one, from three years back, when Hillary and Boxer were in the minority. That should be enough to convince everyone that these two have only the best intentions. I know I'm convinced. We were wrong to ever suspect them of anything untoward.

MORE: The Lefties are steamed at Inhofe for daring to tell such a story. Hillary and Boxer deny it, case closed. So, am I to take from this that these two ladies are against bringing back the Fairness Doctrine? If Inhofe did make it up (which is unlikely), he sure did hit a nerve.

UPDATE: Inhofe explains the timetable to Breitbart TV.

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Climategate: Barack Obama's rule by EPA decree is a coup d'etat against Congress

UPDATE AT BOTTOM OF POST

Why is it the British papers seem to understand Obama better than the American rags?

From Gerald Warner in the Telegraph:

Who needs tanks on the lawn when you have the Environmental Protection Agency? Barack Obama’s use of the EPA to pressurise the Senate to pass his climate change Nuremberg Decrees shows his dictatorial mentality. He wants to override Congress, which is hostile to his climate gobbledegook because it is representative of the American electorate, and sideline the nation’s elected Senators by ruling by decree, courtesy of the EPA. This is a coup d’état.

And what is the justification for this undemocratic action? The allegedly imminent threat from “Anthropogenic Global Warming”. There is always a supposed threat, when tyrants take the stage. The President of the United States has just reduced his moral authority to the level of any Third World dictator heading a “Government of National Emergency”. Fortunately, the world’s leading democracy, which he is trying to subvert, has guarantees of liberty so deeply embedded in its Constitution that US citizens are well placed to fight back.

Back in February of 2009, when the EPA first announced its intention to look into whether to regulate CO2 and other "Greenhouse Gases", the New York Times predicted EPA findings would have an effect on Copenhagen:

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to act for the first time to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists blame for the warming of the planet, according to top Obama administration officials.

The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how utilities generate power. It could accelerate the progress of energy and climate change legislation in Congress and form a basis for the United States’ negotiating position at United Nations climate talks set for December in Copenhagen.

But, if the EPA decision to crackdown on Carbon was to, as the NYT says, "form a basis for the U.S. negotiating position" at Copenhagen, then why did they wait until the very day of the start of the Copenhagen summit?

I BELIEVE THIS IS BECAUSE OBAMA IS, AS GERALD WARNER IS SAYING ABOVE, ATTEMPTING TO SUBVERT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

As was revealed yesterday, rich countries are being encouraged to provide financing for poor ones at the Copenhagen summt.

I think it is safe to assume Obama knew of this agenda going into the summit.

But, if he was aware that rich countries would be asked to pony up funds for the poor countries, where did he expect to get the money?

Did he think Congress would vote to give American taxpayer's money to the United Nations?

No, I don't think Obama believed that was a possibility.

Instead, I believe Obama intends to fine businesses who violate the EPA's regulations on "Greenhouse Gases", and use the money from those fines as booty for "developing countries".

As Reliapundit wrote yesterday, Copenhagen is all about Socialism.

IT'S ABOUT SOCIALISM ON A WORLDWIDE LEVEL.

Obama knows American voters would not approve.

He knows Congress would be unlikely to vote for Worldwide Socialism given the huge uproar that would come from American taxpayers/voters.

So, he is going to just steal the money from the corporations that are the engine of our economy.

And, he is going to hand American money over to third world countries.

Or, so he thinks.

It will be more than interesting to see how this plays out.


UPDATE:

OH YEAH? WHERE DOES HE PLAN TO GET THE MONEY?

Obama, in Shift, Expects Climate Deal at Summit

WASHINGTON -- The White House said late Friday that President Barack Obama now expects a "meaningful" climate deal at a United Nations summit in Copenhagen, possibly involving a commitment for rich nations to provide $10 billion a year by 2012 to help developing countries fight climate change.

The White House said the U.S. is prepared to pay its "fair share" of the $10 billion.



Reliapundit points out that the EPA can not write a check to the UN.

That is true.

But, that does not take away from the fact that Obama, somehow, believes he is going to be able to pony up this money.

Once again, I point back to the EPA ruling. That's where Obama thinks he's he's getting the money from.

After all, it's not taxes. It's only fines. Therefore, it does not belong to taxpayers.

That's how Obama thinks.

Friday, November 13, 2009

PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF GITMO IS A COUNTRY CLUB - AND THE INESCAPABLE AND INEVITABLE CONCLUSION THAT OBAMA IS NO PATRIOT

KSM AT THE TIME OF HIS CAPTURE:



KSM AFTER YEARS AT GITMO:


GITMO IS OBVIOUSLY NOT A HARSH PLACE TO BE.

AND THE JUSTICE KSM WOULD'VE GOTTEN IN GITMO - IN FRONT OF A MILITARY TRIBUNAL - (WHICH AFTER ALL IS WHAT NUREMBERG TRIALS WERE FUHCRYINOUTTEARS!) - WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR EVERY POW IN WW2 AND EVERY ENEMY COMBATANT FROM WW2 UNTIL BOUMEDIENE.

IT'S INSANE TO BRING KSM STATESIDE, LET ALONE TO NYC - INSANE - OR DELIBERATELY EVIL.

MEANING, OBAMA IS EITHER THE DUMBEST MAN IN THE ROOM, OR ON THE OTHER SIDE.

WHEN COUPLED WITH OBAMA'S DITHERING ON AFGHANISTAN, IT PAINTS A VERY CLEAR PICTURE OF WHO OBAMA IS: A MAN WHO CANNOT BRING HIMSELF TO DO WHATEVER IS NECESSARY TO DEFEND AND PROTECT THE USA.
LOOK AT THAT PHOTO OF OBAMA, (ABOVE).


AND THEN THERE'S THIS ONE OF OBAMA CAMPAIGNING IN IOWA. ALSO: NOT SALUTING DURING THE ANTHEM.

OLD HABITS DIE HARD.

OBAMA CAN'T SEEM TO BRING HIMSELF TO BE FULLY RESPECTFUL OF THE FLAG OR THE VETS OR ANYTHING PURELY PATRIOTIC.

(IT'S THE POSTMODERN LEFTIST DEEP WITHIN HIM; THE PERSON MENTORED BY FRANK MARSHALL DAVIS AND SAUL ALINSKY'S PROTEGE, GERRY KELLMAN; THE LEFTIST SUCKLED ON THE CHOMSKY/ZINN PROPAGANDA THAT "AMERICA IS THE EVIL EMPIRE"..)

OBAMA SHOULD BE IMPEACHED BEFORE HE GETS US ALL KILLED.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

CENTRIST MCCAIN SENSELESSLY PANDERS FOR LIBERAL VOTES AGAIN: SUGGEST AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR BINLADEN MIGHT BE OKAY WITH HIM

  • MCCAIN SAYS HE MIGHT AGREE TO AN INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL TO TRY BINLADEN IF HE WAS CAUGHT ALIVE.
  • HOT AIR HIS THE DETAILS - ON THIS SHITFORBRAINS IDEA.
  • AND INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL NOW WOULD CHIEFLY BE A INJUSTICE BECAUSE THE EUROWEWEENIES
  • AND ANYTHING LESS THAN DEATH FOR BINLADEN WOULD A GRAVE MISCARIAGE OF JUSTICE.
  • NUREMBERG HAD THE DEATH PENALTY - AND WAS A MILITARY TRIBUNAL, ALBEIT ONE WITH INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION.
  • BY FLOATING THIS, MCCAIN ONCE AGAIN PROVES HE IS NOT A TRUE CONSERVATIVE BUT A CENTRIST/MAVERICK.
  • IF HE WASN'T THE ONLY TRUSTWORTHY HAWK IN THE RACE I WOULD NOT VOTE AT ALL THIS GO ROUND.
WOULD NEVER AGREE TO THE DEATH PENALTY.

Monday, November 10, 2008

ARMISTICE DAY / VETERANS' DAY TOMORROW

The 11th of November in 1918 was when the First World War officially came to an end. And that day has been formally marked every year since in remembrance of those who died. When I was growing up it was known as Armistice Day in Australia and I still think of it as that. It is however now formally Remembrance Day. It is Veterans Day in the USA. It is perhaps a little more significant this year as the 90th anniversary of the event. Britain certainly seems to have been engaging in more than the usual amount of commemoration in the last few days.

It is indeed a fitting occasion to remember. All wars are bad but that one probably reached a highpoint in ghastliness. And the amount of the slaughter was phenomenal. Few British and Australians emerged from it without the loss of at least one family member. One of my uncles twice removed died in it.

The suffering endured by the troops at the front was so awful that the war became known as "the war to end all wars". No reasonable person wanted another war. Even Theodore Roosevelt lost his enthusiasm for war when one of his sons died in it. And no politician thereafter could come to power unless he was seen as anti-war. The history books have washed memory of it away but even Hitler came to power as an advocate of peace.

I am putting up below a picture of a Nazi propaganda poster of the 1930s that you won't believe unless you are aware of how readily all Leftists preach one thing and do another. It reads Mit Hitler gegen den Ruestungswahnsinn der Welt. And what does that mean? It means "With Hitler against the armaments madness of the world".



And how about the second poster below? It would be from the March 5, 1933 election when Hitler had become Chancellor but Marshall Hindenburg was still President. Translated, the poster reads: "The Marshall and the corporal fight alongside us for peace and equal rights" (Der Marschall und der Grefreite kaempfen mit uns fuer Frieden und Gleichberechtigung)



Convinced yet? If not, maybe the next one below will convince. It is a poster for one of Hitler's famous Nuremberg rallies. It reads: Reichsparteitag des Friedens, 1939. That translates as "National party rally for peace, 1939".



And the fourth poster reads: Mit Adolf Hitler "Ja" fuer Gleichberechtigung und Frieden -- which translates as "With Adolf Hitler "Yes" for equal rights and peace" -- the same old standby slogans that the Left trot out to this day, of course.



So if there is any lesson to be learnt from the ghastliness of the 20th century, it surely is that loud "antiwar" cries from the Left are fraudulent. Such cries are just bait for the gullible and a mask for their real love of destruction.

Sadly, there will never be an end to the desire of some people to prey on others so there will never be an end to war. And any pretence otherwise is at best ignorant.

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. For a daily survey of Australian politics, see AUSTRALIAN POLITICS Also, don't forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here

Monday, September 24, 2007

Hitler Redux

About that Hitler comment from John Coatsworth (the nutjob Dean who invited Ahmadinejad to Colombia in the first place):

Here is what Coatsworth said in a Saturday interview with Fox News. So shocking were his comments that we quote verbatim to assure the reader that he actually said what he said: "If Hitler were in the United States and wanted a platform from which to speak, he would have plenty of platforms to speak in the United States. If he were willing to engage in a debate and a discussion, to be challenged by Columbia students and faculty, we would certainly run it."

Coatsworth is grievously wrong on so many counts. His belief that Hitler would be invited to speak across the U.S. is an insult to America's character. And his thought of engaging the guiding force of the Third Reich in collegial debate is simply monstrous. In your worst nightmare, you can imagine the topics. For example: Yes or no, are Jews truly subhuman? Even to conceive of such a colloquy is both soul-deadening and a wellspring of fury. Identical thinking - repugnant on its face and grossly insensitive to the Jewish community and to all good people - drives Coatsworth's event with Ahmadinejad.

Coatsworth's efforts to justify his remarks further showed he is absolutely ill-equipped for his post. He told the Daily News yesterday he meant "in 1939, [when Hitler] had not started the war and the Holocaust hadn't begun." Oh. So six years after Dachau, four years after the anti-Jewish Nuremberg Laws and a year after Kristallnacht, when Hitler's intentions were known to all, he'd be a fine speaker for Columbia?

Read the whole thing.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

IMPEACH HOLDER: BECAUSE 9/11 WASN'T A CRIME; IT WAS A WAR CRIME


9/11 WAS A WAR CRIME.

AND YOU DON'T TRY WAR CRIMINALS IN REGULAR COURT.

AS I HAVE POSTED OVER AND OVER - AND I WAS AMONG THE VERY FIRST TO REMIND PEOPLE OF THIS - THE NUREMBERG TRIALS WERE MILITARY TRIBUNALS.

KSM AND HIS COMRADES BELONG IN A MILITARY TRIBUNAL, NOT IN FEDERAL COURT.

IS THERE A SINGLE GOP CONGRESSMAN WITH ENOUGH COURAGE TO INTRODUCE A BILL OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST ERIC HOLDER!?

THE US AG IS IMPEACHABLE, YOU KNOW.

WE SHOULD IMPEACH HOLDER - NOW!

(WHAT HOLDER IS TRYING TO DO IS WORSE THAN ANYTHING GONZALES IS ALLEGED TO HAVE DONE. AND THE DEMOCRATS CALLED FOR HEARINGS AND HIS IMPEACHMENT OR RESIGNATION.)

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

ALPS WARMEST IN 1300 YEARS - AND THAT WAS BEFORE THE FOSSIL FUEL ERA


AP:
Europe's Alpine region is going through its warmest period in 1,300 years, the head of an extensive climate study said Tuesday. "We are currently experiencing the warmest period in the Alpine region in 1,300 years," Reinhard Boehm, a climatologist at Austria's Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics said.

Boehm based his comments on the results of a project conducted by a group of European institutes between March 2003 and August 2006. Their aim was to reconstruct the climate in the region encompassing the Rhone Valley in France to the west, Budapest, Hungary to the east, Tuscany, Italy to the south and Nuremberg, Germany to the north over the past 1,000 years.

Boehm said the current warm period in the Alpine region began in the 1980s, noting that a similar warming occurred in the 10th and 12th centuries.
Er um... ya mean it was as warm in the 8th and 10th and 12th centuries... BEFORE man-made greenhouse gases!?!?! A WHATTA?! I guess this means periodic global-warming can't be man-made OR DUE TO MAN-MADE GREENHOUSE GASES. IT'S NATURAL. END OF STORY. NOW: will the eco-nutsies please STFU.

Friday, January 22, 2010

UNBELIEVABLE: THE BRITISH ELITES ARE STILL PROMOTING ISLAM - AND CULTURAL SUICIDE

BRITAIN IS ON HIGH ALERT - THEY'RE UNDER A SEVERE THREAT.

THE THREAT IS NOT CHINESE OR BAHAI OR HINDU OR MAYAN.

IT IS ISLAMIC.

AND YET, THEY'RE STILL APPEASING ISLAM!

BBC:

'Hidden history' of Muslim science explored

An exhibition that has just opened at the Science Museum is celebrating 1,000 years of science from the Muslim world.

From about 700 to 1700, many of history's finest scientists and technologists were to be found in the Muslim world.

In Christian Europe the light of scientific inquiry had largely been extinguished with the collapse of the Roman empire. But it survived, and indeed blazed brightly, elsewhere.

From Moorish Spain across North Africa to Damascus, Baghdad, Persia and all the way to India, scientists in the Muslim world were at the forefront of developments in medicine, astronomy, engineering, hydraulics, mathematics, chemistry, map-making and exploration.

A new touring exhibition, hosted by the Science Museum in London, celebrates their achievements.

"There is a whole area of science that is literally just lost in translation"

Dr Susan Mossman, Science Museum

Salim Al-Hassani, a former professor of engineering at Umist (University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology) is a moving force behind the exhibition, 1001 Inventions.
He calls it "edutainment": a series of displays devoted to different aspects of science meant to be both educational and entertaining.

"We hope to inspire the younger generation to take up a career in science and technology and to be interested in improving the quality of societies," he says.

Mix of cultures

Visitors to the exhibition will be greeted by a 20 ft high replica of a spectacular clock designed in 1206 by the inventor Al-Jazari.


It incorporates elements from many cultures, representing the different cultural and scientific traditions which combined and flowed through the Muslim world.

The clock's base is an elephant, representing India; inside the elephant the water-driven works of the clock derive from ancient Greece.

A Chinese dragon swings down from the top of the clock to mark the hours. At the top is a phoenix, representing ancient Egypt.


Sitting astride the elephant and inside the framework of the clock are automata, or puppets, wearing Arab turbans.


Elsewhere in the exhibition are displays devoted to water power, the spread of education (one of the world's first universities was founded by a Muslim woman, Fatima al-Fihri), Muslim architecture and its influence on the modern world and Muslim explorers and geographers.


There is a display of 10th Century surgeons' instruments, a lifesize model of a man called Abbas ibn Firnas, allegedly the first person to have flown with wings, and a model of the vast 100 yard-long junk commanded by the Muslim Chinese navigator, Zheng He.


Outside the main exhibition is a small display of exhibits drawn from the Science Museum's own collection.


They include a 10th Century alembic for distilling liquids, an astrolable for determining geographical position (and the direction of Mecca - important for Muslims uncertain which way to face when praying).


Also on display is an algebra textbook published in England in 1702, whose preface traces the development of algebra from its beginnings in India, through Persia, the Arab world and to Europe.


Dr Susan Mossman, project director at the museum, says: "There is a whole area of science that is literally just lost in translation.


"Arabic and Muslim culture particularly is a little-known story in Britain. This is a real opportunity to show that hidden story."

She says the hands-on exhibition suits the museum's style, which she describes as "heavy-duty scholarship produced in a user-friendly way and underpinned by academic research".


She adds: "We are opening people's eyes to a new area of knowledge - a cultural richness of science and technology that has perhaps been neglected in this country."


Intellectual climate


There is one big question the exhibition does not address: why, after so many centuries, did the Muslim world's scientific leadership falter? From the 16th Century onwards it was in Europe that modern science developed, and where scientific breakthroughs increasingly occurred.


Prof Al-Hassani has his own theory, though there are others. Science flourished in the Muslim world for so long, he believes, because it was seen as expanding knowledge in the interests of society as a whole.

But in the later Middle Ages, the Muslim world came under attack from Europeans (in the Crusades) and the Mongols (who sacked Baghdad in 1258) and the Ottoman Turks overran the remnants of the Byzantine empire, setting up a formidably centralised state.

The need for defence against external enemies combined with a strong centralised government which put less value on individuals' scientific endeavour resulted in an intellectual climate in which science simply failed to flourish, he says.
BULLSHIT!

TOTALLY DEBUNKED BY FJORDMAN IN 2005 HERE, AND 2007 HERE (PART 1) AND HERE (PART 2) AND HERE (PART 3).

ISLAM INVENTED NOTHING SCIENTIFIC AND IS IN FACT ANTI-SCIENTIFIC.

EXCERPT FROM FJORDMAN 2005:
What is called, too loosely, "Islamic" or -- still worse -- "Arabic" science was in fact the product of many non-Muslims as well as Muslims. The famous translators in Baghdad and Corboda were almost entirely Jews and Christians. Even among the Muslims, none of the major figures were Arabs, but rather Persians and some from Central Asia (as al-Farabi) -- a possible reflection of the importance of having something other than Islam, which is all the Arab Muslims possessed, in the cultural background.

Who cares what the real story was? Who cares that so much of the 200-300 years of achievement depended so much on borrowing and transmission -- paper-making from China brought to Damascus (see Dard Hunter), the concept of zero brought from India to the MIddle East. And those acts of translation were important -- but why act as if the translation of some books of Aristotle rival in importance Aristotle himself, or why refuse to note that while Aristotle was translated, as a living thing, to be acted upon and developed, it was only in the Western world that Aristotle had influence. He remained, an authority but an inert one, for Islamic students of Aristotle.
FROM 2007 PART 1:

The German-Syrian reformist Bassam Tibi points out that the Muslim thinkers who developed Greek rationalism are today despised in their own civilization. As he writes in his book Islam Between Culture and Politics, "rational sciences were – in medieval Islam – considered to be 'foreign sciences' and at times heretical. At present, Islamic fundamentalists do not seem to know that rational sciences in Islam were based on what was termed ulum al-qudama (the sciences of the Ancients), that it, the Greeks."

Science was viewed as Islamic science, the study of the Koran, the hadith, Arab history etc. The Islamic madrasa was not concerned with a process of reason-based investigation or unrestrained enquiry but with a learning process in the sacral sense. Tibi believes it is thus incorrect to call institutions such as Al-Azhar in Cairo, Egypt, the highest institution of learning in Sunni Islam, a university: "Some Islamic historians wrongly translate the term madrasa as university. This is plainly incorrect: If we understand a university as universitas litterarum, or consider, without the bias of Eurocentrism, the cast of the universitas magistrorum of the thirteenth century in Paris, we are bound to recognise that the university as a seat for free and unrestrained enquiry based on reason, is a European innovation in the history of mankind."

EXCERPT PART 3:

Dutch eyeglass maker Zacharias Janssen and his father Hans are usually credited with inventing the first microscope in the late 1500s. The microscope was improved in the seventeenth century by their countryman Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, who was the first to spot bacteria and thus opened up an entirely new field of microbiology. This in turn led to great advances in the natural sciences. The German physician Robert Koch and the French chemist Louis Pasteur founded the science of bacteriology in the nineteenth century. The understanding that disease is caused by bacteria and microscopic germs produced the greatest strides in medicine in history.

According to the free online encyclopaedia Wikipedia, reading stone lenses were invented by polymath Armen Firman (Abbas Ibn Firnas) in Córdoba in Islamic-occupied Spain in the ninth century, and later spread throughout Europe. Wikipedia embodies both the good and some of the problematic aspects of the Internet. I have found useful information there more than once, but it can also be notoriously unreliable on certain subjects due to its numerous editors and lack of professional oversight. Let's assume for a moment that this information is correct. If so, how come lenses weren't developed further by Muslims? The telescope and the microscope were by-products of advances in the production of glass lenses. They made possible, for the first time ever, the study of what is not visible to the naked human eye and radically altered our understanding of the universe, both in the realms of the very small and the very big. All of this could have happened in the Islamic world. So why didn't it, despite the fact that lenses were know there at least as early as in Europe, and despite the fact that the region produced a gifted optical scientist, Alhazen?

Alhazen personally should be credited with being one of the greatest scientists of his age in any discipline, Eastern or Western, yet his inquisitive attitude and scientific mindset wasn't always appreciated by his contemporaries. Here is how his writings were received by fellow Muslims, as quoted in Ibn Warraq's book Why I Am Not a Muslim: "A disciple of Maimonides, the Jewish philosopher, relates that he was in Baghdad on business, when the library of a certain philosopher (who died in 1214) was burned there. The preacher, who conducted the execution of the sentence, threw into the flames, with his own hands, an astronomical work of Ibn al-Haitham [Alhazen], after he had pointed to a delineation therein given of the sphere of the earth, as an unhappy symbol of impious Atheism."

Alhazen made numerous books, many of which are lost today. His groundbreaking Book of Optics survives to us in Latin translation. Muslims thus had access to ideas, but they failed to appreciate them and exploit their potential. This pattern was repeated on several occasions. The first windmills were probably made in Persia prior to the Islamic conquest in the seventh century. Windmills were introduced in Europe during the High Middle Ages, at least from the twelfth century onwards, and spread rapidly across Western Europe during a prolonged period of great improvements. Persian-style windmills spread from Central Asia to China following the Mongol conquest in the thirteenth century, yet in 1206 the leading Arab engineer of the day observed to his readers that the notion of driving mills by the wind was nonsense.

Sundials have been used in Egypt and other civilizations since prehistoric times. Water clocks, too, date from ancient times and had reached a certain level of complexity in the Greco-Roman world. The ancient Greeks created devices resembling clock-work, for instance the Antikythera mechanism (second century B.C.) which has been called a mechanical computer. Early clocks (though not fully developed) were made in Asia, especially China, and could have been known in the Middle East. Around the year 800, Caliph Harun al-Rashid from Baghdad presented Charlemagne with the gift of a complex water clock which struck the hours. In 850 the three Persians Banu Musa, as part of the translation efforts undertaken at the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, published The Book of Ingenious Devices describing many mechanical inventions developed by earlier cultures. They were interested in the work of Greek engineer Hero of Alexandria who made the first known steam-powered device. Again, there is plenty of evidence that Muslims had at their disposal both the theoretical knowledge and the practical examples necessary to create mechanical clocks.

Despite having access to much of the same knowledge as did Christian Europeans, Muslims didn't develop fully mechanical clocks. This happened in Europe in the thirteenth century. The invention spread rapidly throughout Italy, France and England. One was installed in the Old St Paul's Cathedral in London in 1286. The fourteenth century English author Geoffrey Chaucer mentioned a clock, apparently meaning one with a bell which struck the hour. Salisbury cathedral is thought to have the oldest functioning clock in existence, dating back to the year 1386. Clocks were initially large and were used to decorate public buildings. By the year 1500, the coiled spring had been invented, paving the way for smaller clocks. The first portable timepiece was created in Nuremberg, Germany by locksmith Peter Henlein in 1505 in the shape of a sphere worn as a jewel. Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens, by employing Galileo's law of the pendulum, in 1656 made the first pendulum clock, which was much more accurate than previous models. He also invented the balance wheel and spring assembly underlying many modern watches. French mathematician Blaise Pascal is said to have made a wristwatch by attaching his portable clock to his wrist with a string.

I'm not suggesting that no scientific achievements were made in the Islamic world. Avicenna's Canon of Medicine was translated into Latin in the twelfth century, and as late as the sixteenth century, Vesalius wrote a thesis commenting on Rhazes. It is impossible to write the medical history of the West during this age without mentioning Middle Eastern physicians such as Avicenna and Rhazes. What I am suggesting is that the number of achievements steadily declined, and I'm not sure how much Islam should be credited with those achievements that were actually made.

BOTTOM-LINE: SURE, SOME SMART PEOPLE LIVED UNDER ISLAM - SOME OF THEM MUSLIM.

SOME OF THEM EVEN MADE DISCOVERIES OF SOME IMPORTANCE, BUT NONE WERE EVER EMPLOYED TO ANY GREAT BENEFIT TO HUMANITY BY ISLAMIC SOCIETIES.

NONE.

ISLAM IS A PLAGUE. MOST OF ALL TO MUSLIMS. IT ABHORS LIBERTY AND DESPISES SCIENCE. IT IS ANTITHETICAL TO MODERNITY AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION.

WE SHOULD TREAT IT ACCORDINGLY.

PRETENDING IT IS A RELIGION OF PEACE AND ALLOWING MUSLIM TO COLONIZE WITHIN THE WEST IS CULTURAL SUICIDE.

THE BRITISH ELITIE SEEM INTENT ON THIS:

The Telegraph reports that the National Association of Muslim Police has attacked government policy on countering Islamic extremism. In evidence to a parliamentary committee investigating Islamic extremism, the NAMP attacked

the Government’s anti-terrorism strategy, warning that it is an ‘affront to British values’ which threatens to trigger ethnic unrest... that ministers were wrong to blame Islam for being the ‘driver’ behind recent terrorist attacks. Far-Right extremists were a more dangerous threat to national security... that Muslims were being ‘stigmatised’ by the Government’s attempts to tackle terrorism, which was adding to ‘hatred’ against entire communities.

...The memorandum warned that Muslims were subjected to 'daily abuse' due to the strategy. 'We must not diminish our British values further by continuing to allow such behaviour and policies to continue unchecked.'

This is an extremely alarming development.

... The government has bent over backwards to avoid associating Islam with terrorism. In an attempt to peel moderate Muslims away from the radicals, it has poured more than £140 million a year into ‘moderate’ Muslim groups. It has positively fallen over itself to encourage the recruitment of Muslim police officers in the belief that that this would persuade British Muslims that the government had no problem with them, only with the radicals in their midst. Yet these are precisely the policies which the NAMP claims have led to ‘hatred against Muslims’ which ‘has grown to a level that defies all logic and is an affront to British values’.

Thus the fruits of appeasement. Rather than taming jihadi extremism in Britain, the cowardice of politicians has merely resulted in fracturing the thin blue line that protects us -- and turning it into a potential weapon of the jihad.

(VIA GERARD)

APPEASEMENT = CULTURAL SUICIDE.

WHETHER IT'S APPEASEMENT BY HAVING MUSEUM SHOWS WHICH PROMOTE FALSEHOODS, OR WHETHER YOU HIRE MUSLIM COPS AND LET THEM FORM MUSLIM AGITATING GROUPS WITHIN THE FORCE.

SUICIDE.

I GET PISSED OFF ABOUT THIS BECAUSE OF LOVE EUROPE AND BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED ALLIES TO DEFEAT THE ENEMY.

INSTEAD OUR FORMER ALLIES IN EUROPE SEEM TO BE SLIDING INTO DHIMMITUDE AND ISLAMIFICATIOMN.

CAN GEERT WILDERS AND THE UKIP AND THEIR ALLIES STOP THIS?

WE WILL SOON FIND OUT... WITHIN THIS DECADE, EUROPE WILL RISE OR FALL.