That Day
Posted on September 11, 2009
Filed Under 7/7, 9/11, Afghanistan, Ahmadinejad, Arabs, Barak Obama, Fouad Ajami, Infidel-o-Phobia, International, Iran, Iraq, Islamic intolerance of other religions, Islamic terrorism, Islamist terror, Jihad, Jihadist camps, Jihadists, Mona Eltahawy, Muslims, POTUS, Political Correctness, Political lies, Radical Islam, Terrorism, Yale University, Yale University Press, clash of civilizations, hatred, hatred of Christians, hatred of Jews, hatred of the West, islam, living on the public dole, moderate Muslims, playing for time, political arrogance, political cowardice, political dhimmitude, political fumbling, political incompetence, political ineptitude, political naivete, political opportunism, political terrorism, progressives, radical Islamic terrorism, religious violence, revising history, revising the facts, terror, terrorists, violence | 3 Comments
The skyline that was…
I remember that day… I had a 10:00am interview at Tower 1, that never came to be. I even had a childhood friend, a neighbor and a couple of acquaintances working there, I never saw them again… Neither my friend, nor my neighbor’s bodies were ever identified!
Yeap, I remember that day and I still choke up about it…
What have we learned from that day, a day that forever changed America? On the one hand the War on Terror has managed to stop further attacks on American soil and quite a few in the rest of the free wold. How? Because of information gathered at Guantanamo and other places! On the other hand, our current Justice Department wants to prosecute the very interrogators that saved countless lives… In a misguided, sick, Liberal mindset it is better to respect the “rights” of terrorist who, given the chance, would have no compunctions mounting ever more spectacular terrorist attacks and killing thousands of lives again and again. I guess, to the demented defenders of terrorists, innocent lives mean NOTHING!
The mindset that carried out 9/11, also carried out a Madrid bombing, London 7/7, Bali, Mumbai, etc. etc… Yet, we must respect the rights of these creatures who forfeited their right to be considered members of the human race… I don’t get it!!! Is the life of innocents meaningless to the proponents of prosecution against those who saved mine, yours and their lives?!?!?
No doubt cowed by the violence AND swayed by the multimillion dollar endowments of such peace loving, religiously tolerant nations such as Saudi Arabia Yale University has caved in. As Mona Elthahawy put it in the August 29th edition of the The Washington Post:
Yale’s Misguided Retreat
In deciding to omit the images from a book it is publishing about the controversy sparked by Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, Yale University Press has handed a victory to extremists. Both Yale and the extremists distorting this issue should be ashamed. I say this as a Muslim who supported the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten’s right to publish the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in late 2005 and as someone who also understands the offense taken at those cartoons by many Muslims, including my mother. After a while, she and I agreed to stop talking about them because the subject always made us argue.
For more than two months in 2006, I lived in Copenhagen, where I debated the issue with Danes — Muslim and non-Muslim — including Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, who commissioned the images, and Naser Khader, Denmark’s first Muslim parliamentarian, who launched the liberal Democratic Muslims group just as the controversy unfolded.
Speaking at a conference that Khader hosted at the Danish parliament a year after the cartoons’ publication, I warned of two right wings — a non-Muslim one that hijacked the issue to fuel racism against immigrants in Denmark, and a Muslim one that hijacked the issue to silence Muslims and fuel anti-Western rhetoric.
Sadly, both groups are celebrating Yale’s decision because it has proven them “right.”
The controversy that many might recall as “Danish newspaper publishes cartoons of the prophet; Muslim world goes berserk” was actually much more complex. What occurred across many Muslim-majority countries in 2006 was a clear exercise in manufacturing outrage. Consider:
Jyllands-Posten published the cartoons in September 2005. The widespread protests in majority-Muslim countries that eventually left more than 200 dead did not start until about four months later. Indeed, when an Egyptian newspaper reprinted one cartoon in October 2005 to show readers how a Danish newspaper was portraying the prophet, no backlash was heard in Cairo or elsewhere.
Jytte Klausen, the Danish-born author of the Yale Press’s forthcoming book, “Cartoons That Shook the World,” recognizes that lag. According to Yale Press’s Web site, she argues that Muslim reaction to the cartoons was not spontaneous but, rather, that it was orchestrated “first by those with vested interests in elections in Denmark and Egypt, and later by Islamic extremists seeking to destabilize governments in Pakistan, Lebanon, Libya, and Nigeria.”
I’m perplexed why Klausen agreed — even “reluctantly” — to Yale’s decision to pull the cartoons. Ironically, she told the Guardian that she wanted to publish the cartoons to make the case “that some of them are Islamophobic, and in the tradition of anti-Semitism” — the latter a view that would hardly inflame many Muslims.
Yale also cut from the book images of the prophet meant to illustrate the history of the depiction of Muhammad in Ottoman, Persian and Western art. Sunni Muslims observe a prohibition on depictions of the prophet — but since when has Yale? It says it pulled the images on advice from Islamic and counterterrorism experts that they could incite violence, but at least one author and expert on Islam, Reza Aslan, has criticized the move as “idiotic” (he also retracted a blurb he had written in support of the book).
The cowardice shown by Yale Press recognizes none of the nuance that filled my conversations in Copenhagen nor discussions I had with Muslims in Qatar and Egypt during the controversy. Many told me they were dismayed at the double standards that stoked rage at these Danish cartoons yet did not question silence at anti-Semitic and racist cartoons in the region’s media.
Does Yale realize that it has proven what Flemming Rose said was his original intent in commissioning the cartoons — that artists were self-censoring out of fear of Muslim radicals?
Yale has sided with the various Muslim dictators and radical groups that used the cartoons to “prove” who could best “defend” Muhammad against the Danes and, by extension, burnish their Islamic credentials. Those same dictators and radicals who complained of the offense to the prophet’s memory were blind to the greater offense they committed in their disregard for human life. (Indeed, some of those protesters even held banners that said, “Behead those who offend the prophet.”)
When a group of Danish imams flew to the Middle East in late 2005 with “offending images” of the prophet — some cartoons from the controversy and other images taken from the Web sites of extremist groups — the timing was ripe for the bandwagon of outrage to roll: The Muslim Brotherhood had become the largest opposition group in the Egyptian parliament. In January 2006, Hamas had just won the Palestinian elections.
One by one, regimes and Islamists competed in outrage, whipping up a frenzy that at times spiraled out of control.
Unfortunately, those dictators and radicals who want to speak for all Muslims — and yet care little for Muslim life — have found an ally in Yale University Press.
Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian-born commentator based in New York, writes and lectures on Arab and Muslim issues. She is a columnist for the Danish newspaper Politiken.
Ms. Eltahawy also writes, among other publications, for The Jerusalem Post and has been in Israel numerous times.
So, how do some the nice friendly exemplary followers of the religion of peace take her justified criticism? From her blog, on August 31st:
Death threat for Danish cartoons column
Monday, August 31st, 2009I got my first death threat.
When the Washington Post published my column on Yale University Press and the Danish cartoons, I expected strong reactions and I got them. But then an Egyptian portal called Masrawy.com cherry picked two or three paragraphs from it, said AIPAC the Jewish lobby shared my position and set the attack dogs on me. The comments section became filled with hate and threats against me and someone wrote me an email telling me he’d kill me.
I reported it to the authorities who traced the email back to Giza, Egypt, and who are looking into the Masrawy.com article which incited the message.
Oh the irony – I get a death threat from a fellow Muslim angry at Muslims being stereotyped as violent!
Here’s the email:
From: ahmed saad [mailto:ahmedsaad002010@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 30, 2009 10:36 AM
To: info@monaeltahawy.com
Subject: الاسلام برئ منكي
مش احنا ارهابيين انا لو شوفتك ماشيه في اي شارع
هقتلك
i will kill you
(Subject: Islam wants nothing to do with you.
Body of message: We aren’t terrorists If I see you walking along any street I will kill you
Or: Aren’t we terrorists? Well then, if I see you walking along any street, I will kill you.
I’ve provided the slightly different possible translations but the meaning is the same.
As unsettling as it is to hear someone say they will kill you, I think it’s just an angry person who (hopefully) will not follow through. I’m sharing it here however because it’s important for me to show the hate and violence that some people too easily hurl when they don’t like an opinion.
Now, gently reader, imagine how they must feel about us, the infidels! Imagine their designs on the Free World and like Abdullah Saeed, mentioned in The Australian, ask why moderate Muslims hardly speak up.
Yale, like other prestigious institutions of higher learning, who once prided themselves of being the bastions of ideas – by providing various and often clashing points of view on any issue of importance – have become instead the bastions of intellectual cowardice under the un-illustrious direction of activist academics with a political agenda and the buying power of petrodollars…
Instead of vigorously pursuing our stand against terror and the IslamoFascism that inspired it and continues to inspire it, we acquiesce, we accommodate it in the hope that IslamoFascists will see as the good guys and befriend us or at least leave leave us alone. One of British buffoon PM Gordon Brown’s first acts in office was the renaming of the War on Terror and the no longer referring to terrorists as Muslims, Islamists, or allowing the use of the words “jihad” or “jihadis.” I guess in his mind that made the fight against terror more fair, as evidenced (I’m sure!) by all the venom spewed by far too Imams in Mosques throughout the UK, where they happily live on the public dole…
But, neither has our side of the Atlantic learned its lesson. As Fouad Adjami writes in today’s Wall Street Journal (H/T: Melanie Phillips):
9/11 and the ‘Good War’
It was the furies of the Arab world, not Afghanistan, that struck America eight years ago today.The road that led to 9/11 was never a defining concern of President Barack Obama. But he returned to 9/11 as he sought to explain and defend the war in Afghanistan in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Phoenix, Ariz., on Aug. 17. “The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight and we won’t defeat it overnight, but we must never forget: This is not a war of choice; it is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda could plot to kill more Americans.”
This distinction between a war of choice (Iraq) and a war of necessity (Afghanistan) has become canonical to American liberalism. But we should dispense with that distinction, for it is both morally false and intellectually muddled. No philosophy of just and unjust wars will support it. It was amid the ferocious attack on the American project in Iraq that there was born the idea of Afghanistan as the “good war.” This was the club with which the Iraq war was battered. This was where that binary division was set up: The good war of necessity in the mountains of Afghanistan, the multilateral war born of a collective NATO decision—versus George W. Bush’s war of choice in Iraq, fought in defiance of the opinions of allies who had been with us in the aftermath of 9/11, and whose goodwill we squandered in the cruel streets of Fallujah and the deserts of Anbar.
Our elections last November, this narrative had it, had given us a chance to bring America’s embattled solitude and isolation in the world to an end. A man with strands of Islam woven into his identity and biography was catapulted to the presidency. We had drained the swamps of anti-Americanism. Assalam aleikum (peace be upon you) in Cairo, Ankara and Tehran. The great enmity, that unfashionable clash of civilizations, was declared done and over with. A new history presumably began with Mr. Bush’s return to his home in Texas.
I guess, in the mind of political amateurs – like Obama & Co., IslamoFascism will learn to love us if we praise it, if we rewrite history, if we conveniently ignore inconvenient truths and prosecute those who kept us safe.
But it will not do to offer up 9/11 as a casus belli in Afghanistan while holding out the threat of legal retribution against the men and women in our intelligence services who carried out our wishes in that time of concern and peril. To begin with, a policy that falls back on 9/11 must proceed from a correct reading of the wellsprings of Islamist radicalism. The impulse that took America from Kabul to Baghdad had been on the mark. Those were not Afghans who had struck American soil on 9/11. They were Arabs. Their terrorism came out of the pathologies of Arab political life. Their financiers were Arabs, and so were those crowds in Cairo and Nablus and Amman that had winked at the terror and had seen those attacks as America getting its comeuppance on that terrible day. Kabul had not sufficed as a return address in that twilight war; it was important to take the war into the Arab world itself, and the despot in Baghdad had drawn the short straw. He had been brazen and defiant at a time of genuine American concern, and a lesson was made of him.
No Arabs had been emotionally invested in Mullah Omar and the Taliban, but the ruler in Baghdad was a favored son of that Arab nation. The decapitation of his regime was a cautionary tale for his Arab brethren. Grant George W. Bush his due. He drew a line when the world of the Arabs was truly in the wind and played upon by powerful temptations. Mr. Obama and his advisers need not pay heroic tribute to the men and women who labored before them. But they have so maligned their predecessors and their motives that the appeal to 9/11 rings hollow and contrived. In those years behind us, American liberalism distanced itself from American patriotism, and the damage is there to see.
[...]
Wars are great clarifiers. Barack Obama’s trumpet is uncertain. His call to arms in Afghanistan does not stir. He fears failure in Afghanistan, and nothing more. Having disowned Iraq, kept its cause at a distance, he is forced to fight the war in Afghanistan. So he equivocates and plays for time. Forever the campaigner, he has his eye on the public mood, the steel that his predecessor showed in 2007 when all was in the balance in Iraq is not evident in Mr. Obama.
For the American effort in Afghanistan to stick on the ground in the face of a Taliban insurgency that’s gaining in strength and geographical reach, Mr. Obama will have to make a hard choice. He will need a troop commitment of sufficient weight to turn the tide of war. Furthermore, he will have to face his own coalition on the left and convince it that there is a project in Afghanistan worth fighting (and paying) for.
By the evidence of things, this is a decision that he has refused to make, as he pursues his sweeping domestic agenda while keeping Afghanistan in play. He had been sure that NATO forces would rush to his banners, that Europe had stayed away from a serious commitment in Afghanistan because it had been seized with an animus for his predecessor. But Mr. Bush had been an alibi all along.
Mr. Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and an adjunct fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, is the author, among other books, of “The Foreigner’s Gift: The Americans, the Arabs and the Iraqis in Iraq”
The hopelessly miscast, in-over-his-head, current POTUS and his blame game have been exposed, Mr. Bush had been an alibi all along. Obama, can’t make up his mind. Courage and decisiveness are not his trademark! Governing by the winds of public opinion is more his game, with his popularity waning he’s got to play for time. He was supposed to reach a decision over the next few days as to how to deal with Iran’s reality and its nuclear capability but like the mental midget he is, like a kid thrust into an adult game he’ll make no decision. Instead, a decision, it will be imposed, for the worse, on him… and the rest of us! I fear for America, I fear for the free world as I pray THAT DAY is never again repeated anywhere on this planet!!!
Meanwhile… it seems western leaders have learned little or nothing from that day. Pity!
9/11’s ground Zero today
Chaim
—-)ooOoo(—-
Comments
3 Responses to “That Day”
Leave a Reply
Support our site, vote for us!
Follow Us
Give us some kudos!
Jrants
Feedburner
Track who’s online
Technorati
-
The American Conservative
Webrings
8 years later and look who the morons put into the White House!
I have some very personal memories of that day… none of them good. And 3 days later, in bed with the window open – the smell of electrical burning wafted through my windows…
yet we still appease these animals.
This was an attack on Christian Americans and people laugh when i say that because they can’t see the truth.
Here I will explain.
The 15 Saudi drama heroes and the four other stooges who needed to show off by murdering people, were all garbage clumps of dog doo.
They all knew that America is a mostly Christian country (79%) and that therefore they woulod be killing a lot Christians by destroying those buildings.
Do you hear that Americans?
They have been murdering Christians for a very long time.
Every time I bring up their murders, they answer back to me and they say, You Christians had your Crusades.
Well, here is my answer about that…
The first Crusade began in 1095… 460 years after the first Christian city was overrun by Muslim armies, 457 years after Jerusalem was conquered by Muslim armies, 453 years after Egypt was taken by Muslim armies, 443 after Muslims first plundered Italy, 427 years after Muslim armies first laid siege to the Christian capital of Constantinople, 380 years after Spain was conquered by Muslim armies, 363 years after France was first attacked by Muslim armies, 249 years after Rome itself was sacked by a Muslim army, and only after centuries of church burnings, killings, enslavement and forced conversions of Christians. By the time the Crusades finally began, Muslim armies had conquered two-thirds of the Christian world.
So shove it you sleazeballs.
Every chance they get they talk about Jews and Israelis and Apartheid Jews, and Zionists…and all of that is just to disguise their constant murders of Hindus and Buddhists AND CHRISTIANS.
The way I would like to look at the 9/11/01 attack, is the reaction.
We all know what the reactions were.
However, I ask you the writers and the public, a different question.
What do you think Mr. Obama would have done?
Perhaps he would have immediately flown to Saudi Arabia, apologized for America because America deserved to be hit since it was so horrible in its dealings with the 84 Islamic countries.
He would have told them how ashamed he is of this country’s constant meddling in the affairs of others.
Wait! Does everyone remember the old saying??
You can tell a person by the company he keeps.
Okay guys, check it out.
Mr. Chavez and Mr. Ahmedinjad and Mr. Kim Jong Il, and Mr. Castro and Mr. Khadafi and Mr. Belafonte and Mr. Khalidi and Mr. Ayers and Mr. Farakhan and Reverend Wright are all good buddies with each other and they are greeted nicely by Mr. Obama, and they all hate Mr. Bush. Mr. Obama likes them.
Many of you reading this, can add more names to this list of villains and haters and inciters and murderers.
So, NINE ELEVEN is a day when bin laden decided to make sure that more Muslims would be slaughtered than ever before in world history.
Yes, he did not just attack the Twin Towers. He inadvertently attacked MUSLIMS!!
Because of bin laden, Muslims worldwide have been massacred in greater numbers than before bin laden started his show off campaign, while disguising it as a campaign to follow his god’s order to murder those who don’t want to convert.
Many fools respect bin laden’s name and completely forget that he is responsible for more dead members of Islam than ever before. Millions of dead Muslims are coming in the future because bin laden.
9/11 taught us all to be suspicious of Muslims even if that is not a politically correct goal. The public is made of real people, not fools. You can tell them all day and night that it is wrong to suspect all Muslims because of a few, but the public has seen far too many reports and you just can’t force people to think a certain way.
The ones who murdered those people in the Twin Towers and in Pennsylvania and in the Pentagon, were very great fools. For so many years to come, people will go on spying on Muslims and arresting them and even killing them. Those murderers made things extremely bad for all the innocent Muslims who NEVER murder people.
Those murderers, without even realizing it, killed millions of Islamic people in the future. Did they think that American are just going to say, “Okay, you 19 terrorists are dead and that’s it. All other Muslims are now fine.”
Did they really expect that? Those killers condemned the future generations of Muslims all over the world, to suspicion, murder, imprisonment, and death.
Is that supposed to be an accomplishment? Of course not.
Yet, people with low IQs still think bin laden is a hero. What fools!