What will happen when Gitmo closes? Where will the terrorists go? Where will we find them? Apparently all we have to do is look out the window:
Holder told reporters at the Justice Department that the administration’s review, made on a case-by-case basis, would determine whether the prisoners need to be put on trial or whether they can be released.
“For those who are in that second category, who can be released, there are a variety of options that we have. Among them is the possibility that we could release them into this country,” he said.
After Gateway pundit’s jaw is picked up from the ground he reminds us:
Honestly, what could possibly go wrong?
Stop the ACLU has video with apologies to Mr. Rogers.
Hey I hear there is one house in Bill Ayers neighborhood that isn’t getting much use now.
Update: The WSJ weighs in, along with Hotair.
Update 2: Captain Ed:
I find myself growing nostalgic for the days when American government kept Americans safe, instead of the terrorists.
…comparing Bush to Bad Nazis.
You know that you’ve fallen far as a columnist when you can be safely put in the same category as Dennis Kucinich.
Oh and the information from Sullivan’s link comes from interviews with Al Qaeda terrorists who would cut his throat for being Gay as soon as look at him. Sullivan’s link doesn’t make that clear but NPR does.
There is a point where someone has gone so far over the edge that you just have to ignore them. I’m very sorry to say that Andrew has reached that place.
I wasn’t going to comment on the new Newsweek Cover which is like a societal vote for Carter but Tim Blair’s line is too perfect to ignore:
“Living with” radical Islam would be a whole lot easier if it didn’t involve so much killing.
It doesn’t get better than that.
The reclusive leftist is; I don’t know if outraged is too strong a world with this article by Kim Gandy minimizing the impact of Islam on the beheading of Aasyia Hassan:
…she goes far beyond these observations into a full-scale shut-down of any possible cultural or religious differentials in terms of violence against women. All religions and nationalities are essentially the same, Kim tells us, and if there are any teeny tiny differences, they are unknowable. Pointless to even think in those terms. No reason to look at environmental factors like culture or religion when trying to understand why there’s a dead female body on the floor. Violence against women is the same everywhere, Kim implies, regardless of culture or religion. From Sweden to Somalia, from Wicca to Wahhabi, it’s all the same.
This attitude drives me nuts.
On the other end of the scale Tim Blair points out the problem here:
A nationwide, unified effort entitled “Imams Speak Out: Domestic Violence Will Not Be Tolerated in Our Communities” has commenced to ask all imams and religious leaders to finally discuss this recent tragedy, as well as domestic violence, in their weekly sermon on their upcoming Friday prayer services.
Good luck with that. Imams – particularly those who turn up on YouTube – seem to be the main problem, writes Mona Eltahawy:
Type Muslim+woman+beating into an online search engine and you get a monster’s parade of what I call “YouTube imams” explaining how to beat a woman according to “Islamic teaching.”
He has the basic solution to those who are worried about people who think that this is giving fuel to “haters of Islam”.
Here’s a crazy idea: how about Islamic men stop bashing women? All Islam haters would then be completely without ammunition.
It’s SO crazy it just might work!
Looks like our favorite net comedian who is Not Mohammad is getting death threats from the religion of peace™:
God forbid you insinuate the religion of Islam is anything short of peaceful. It only results in responses such as these:
“DEATH WILL FIND YOU NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE EVEN IF YOUR ON THE MOON WITH WALLS BUILD UP HIGH DEATH WILL STILL COME AND FIND YOU”
“ur a freaken racist pig… otherwise u wouldnt be making any sarcastic remarks…u just got the worst reputation amoungst muslims that I showed that video to…they were cursing u like crazy….take my advice and remove that racist video”
“you should actually post a new video, correcting the mistakes you made in this video, and im sure you know which ones you made, because that’s the only way that’s gonna save you from a freak accident.”
“FYI, i am glad, because if u said this to my face, u would be on the floor. simple. u come here and disrespect me, forget me, u disrespect the prophet pbuh, u expect me to just sit by, u disrespect the quran and then u try to play it off. u r a joke. a joke. dont EVER do this again. EVER.”
“your a jew ISLAM WILL TAKE OVER THE WHOLE WORLD”
“u should make a video apologize to the muslim community. thats the only option u have.”
Charming. In their defense folks… My video IS classified as hate speech. At least, that’s what thousands of Muslims said whilst flooding YouTube with constant “flagging.” In case you haven’t yet heard, there are actual online Muslim networks that exist solely for this purpose. The minute anything even remotely critical of Islam pops up online, thousands of members are notified and are commanded to flag, spam and utilize comment suppression techniques that ultimately result in the video’s removal and permanent banning of the user.
Well tell you what, every time I read about his death threats I will re-post the video.
Update: Oh and he is now blogrolled too.
…for the Obama administration to get this low:
The Obama team was not only silent on the new “Israel is racist” language, it also said nothing when faced with Holocaust denial. Negotiators from the European Union suggested on Wednesday a new provision to “condemn without reservation any denial of the Holocaust and urges all states to reject denial of the Holocaust as an historical event, either in full, or in part, or any activities to this end.” Iran–whose president is a Holocaust-denier–immediately objected and insisted that the proposal be “bracketed” or put in dispute. The move blocked the adoption of the proposal and ensured another battle over the reality of the Holocaust in April–at these supposedly “anti-racism” meetings. After Iran objected, the chair looked around the room, expecting a response. He said: “Is there any delegation wishing to comment on this new proposal by the European Union? It doesn’t seem the case. We move on.” U.S. delegates said nothing, even after the prompt.
The official US delegation of the Obama administration was not willing to officially object to Holocaust being in dispute. Can’t make Iran angry.
Since the Obama administration is not a Pseudo Bishop without actual standing in the Catholic Church I suspect the media will not jump on this at all, but the Arthur Carter Watch does:
Carter 11 Arthur 4
Via Hotair this is in such contrast to the fear of the press that it deserves to be copied here.
Big money quote: “If every Christian acted like Christ I sincerely think the world would be a better place, if every Muslem acted like Muhammad according to modern law they would have to be jailed.”
Guts Guts Guts.
I teased the Reculsive leftist a little because she didn’t notice the outrage of the right and Christians over the beheading in Buffalo and lack of coverage thereof. She however hits it out of the park with this one:
For many commenters on the web, it is apparently impossible to condemn this nightmare without hastening to add that American culture has plenty of its own home-grown brand of misogyny, and it’s therefore “intolerant” to notice the particular lethalness of the honor-shame paradigm in some non-Western cultures. You know the argument: America is full of sexism and the commodification of women and our own gendered violence, so we have no business even talking about women’s rights.
If you’re a habitué of the progressive blogosphere, this line of thought is probably so familiar that you take it in without blinking.
She sees it as woman’s rights vs human rights and argues that they are same thing:
But for me, as a feminist, women’s rights are human rights. I am not an apostle for American culture, which is certainly far from perfect; I am an advocate for women. When I criticize honor killings or sharia law or any of the other non-Western abuses of women, I’m not speaking from a standpoint of cultural chauvinism. The ground I occupy is one of fundamental human rights for all women: freedom of action, of self-determination, of bodily integrity; freedom from violence and oppression and subjugation; freedom to be educated, to work, to love, to have children (or not); freedom to participate fully in life as first-class citizens. I view and judge every society on earth through that lens, including my own.
But by the same token, it doesn’t work to simply advocate for a universal ideal of women’s rights without inquiring too closely into the specific cultural obstacles to achieving that ideal. The devil, as ever, is in the details. We cannot unpack the situation of an abused wife in a conservative Christian community, for example, unless we understand the particular social and religious codes at work. We can’t stop honor killings unless we know why they happen — and I mean exactly why they happen. What are the social and religious codes at work there? What is the psychology of the people who do this? What drives them, what sustains them, what potential punishments and rewards are in the offing? I wrote on Tuesday that “we must be like doctors fighting disease, seeking to identify precisely the pathogens involved.” If we’re serious about ending the oppression of women, nothing less will do.
She does ignore the real possibility that people writing are afraid of getting ones head cut off but other than that omission this is about as solid as it gets.
I haven’t quoted Jay Nordlinger in a while but today’s Impromptus should be required reading to remind us just what we are dealing with in Islam:
More from MEMRI, more from Arab TV—this time not so funny. Listen to a Kuwaiti professor appearing on al-Jazeera:
Four pounds of anthrax . . . carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S., are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour, if it is properly spread in population centers there.
What a horrifying idea. 9/11 will be small change in comparison. Am I right? There is no need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings, and so on.
One person, with the courage to carry four pounds of anthrax, will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this ‘confetti’ all over them, and then will do these cries of joy. It will turn into a real ‘celebration.’
(For the full report, go here.) I don’t watch much al-Jazeera, but it must be a cauldron of poison. And, all those years ago, when we liberated Kuwait—did we have to liberate that professor?
I look at this and then think of the comments at Tim Blair’s blog worrying that the beheading (that apparently nobody is blogging about) will hurt the image of Islam.
From what I’ve been seeing the thing that hurts the image of Islam the most is Islam. I’m reminded of the old saying from the civil war: All Democrats are not confederates but all confederates were democrats.
Mark Steyn points to this article by Lars Hedegaard that I am ashamed to say didn’t hit me until I read it:
We know that the broad Left – which in Europe would include various shades of the hard, Communist or Marxist Left, the New Left, which has now transformed itself into tree huggers, and the traditional Social Democratic parties – has vacated its traditional ideological positions in order to preach ideologies that used to be hallmarks of the far right. Positions such as the need for censorship, kissing up to demands that “religions” (i.e. Islam) must not be criticized or ridiculed, the institution of ethnic or tribal special privileges and inequality before the law – depending on what ethnic, tribal or clan chief or holy man can ingratiate himself to the top of the totem pole as most aggrieved victim.
This new weltanschauung takes us back to a legal order – or rather lack of order – the like of which we haven’t seen in the civilized world since – when? The democratic revolutions of the 19th century, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, England’s Glorious Revolution, John Milton’s Areopagitica, Magna Carta?
Take your pick. Any one of the above is true.
The road chosen by the parties on the Left permits no return. Having alienated – not to say discarded – large chunks of their traditional working class voters,
they are now increasingly dependent on the Muslim vote, which they hope will guarantee them a perpetual foothold at least in the major populations centers. emphasis mine
It’s all about money and power. These pols of the left primary principle is to keep both. It it means appeasing Islam, then so be it. After all when you don’t have a next generation of your own to worry about or a belief system that looks beyond today’s comfort who cares?