September 11, 2005

"...Ibrahim 'Alloush-

    In principle, I support resistance wherever there is occupation.

    In Palestine, there is occupation, whose nature colonialist,

    and not just military. Therefore, targets in Palestine are not

    civilian. Every colonialist is a legitimate target, and the

    occupation in Iraq has local supporters, whose targeting is

    legitimate...

 

    The operations against the occupation forces and all their

    collaborators, in Iraq, Palestine, or elsewhere, are 100%

    legitimate, and I think we don't carry out enough of them.

    We need more such operations.

 

    Host-

    What operations?

 

    'Alloush-

     Operations that target the American occupation and all its

     collaboraters are legitimate resistance, according to the

     UN Charter- Article 51 grants peoples the right to defend

     themselves when they are subject to foreign occupation.

     I'm not responsible for the collaborators, because they've

     betrayed the [Arab] nation...

 

     The Al-Qaeda Jihad organization in Iraq is one of the

     legitimate Iraqi resistance forces, such as the Ba'th and

     the Al-Sadr movement. Anyone bearing arms against the

     Americans and their supporters is a legitimate force, and

     if anyone doesn't like it, he can include them in the list of

     terrorist organization- no problem. But I'd like to address

     the issue of the 9/11 attacks.

 

     Host-

     In brief.

 

     'Alloush-

      America brought the 9/11 attacks upon itself. OK? This is a

      case of the chicken coming home to roost. In other words,

      you have brought this problem upon yourselves. As long as

      America occupies the Arab homeland and the Islamic world

      militarily, politically, economically, and culturally, and as

      long as it supports the Zionist entity, it should expect

      something...."

 

                - Transcript excerpts of an interview of "Palestinian-

                  Jordanian" author Dr. Ibrahim 'Alloush, which was

                  carried on Al-Jazeera TV on August 23, 2005

                  (Translation at MEMRI.org)

 

 

     "...Behind the events of 9/11 there were clearly various

      groups, at odds with one another. It cannot be said that

      one man was behind these events and that the orders were

      given from one place. It should be said that the Manhattan

      events were terrorist acts. The destruction of the towers was

      intended to spread fear and terror. It terrified people. But the

      attacks on the building adjacent to the White House and

      on the Pentagon were not intended to spread fear. This was

      something else: an attempt to assassinate people in power.

      I don't think any of the assassination attempts were carried

      out by Islamists, as the official American version goes. That

      is an embellishment, a total lie, and an attempt to cover up

      internal disputes in America....

 

      In my opinion, the U.S. government was fully informed in this

      affair. I have mentioned this in my book. Many foreign

      intelligence agencies warned America about what was about

      to happen. The intelligence agencies of Egypt, the Zionist

      regime, France, Germany, and Russia sent reports to their

      American counterparts. All these reports had a clear and

      a common message: Attacks would be carried out against

      American interests, and perhaps against Israeli interests as

      well. These attacks would be carried out by planes of

      American commercial airlines, which would be hijacked and

      crashed into targets. The targets would presumably be large

      buildings, the main target would be in Manhattan, and these

      events would will take place in the week of September 9.

      This is completely accurate information that would have

      helped (the US) to take measures that would have made

      the attacks more difficult, if not preventing them.

 

      But the US government did nothing to prevent these attacks.

      On the contrary: while for 40 years there was an American

      aviation law requiring pilots to carry arms, this law was

      repealed right before 9/11, even though the US government

      had received warnings about the high likelihood of these

      events. If we disarm the pilots even though they are at risk-

      this means we want these events to happen. When the US

      government is now asked about this matter, it says that it

      has always received similar warnings and that it was

      impossible to know whether this warning was more important

      than the others, and that its only mistake was in sorting the

      information. This may be the case. Since this discussion

      began, it has been said that certain CIA, FBI, and NSA

      officials conveyed messages to the US government that a

      certain incident is possible. They warned and sent reports

      about this. If these were only low-ranking officials, the fact

      their warnings were not taken seriously could be understood.

      But Russian President Vladimir Putin told an American TV

      channel, four days after the events, that when the Russian

      intelligence services had conveyed their initial report to

      America, he had called Bush personally to remind him of

      the report's importance. If one does not pay serious

      attention to information brought by a low-ranking official,

      this is one thing... But what about disregarding a phone call

      by the Russian president? This is hard to believe. We see,

      therefore, that the US government allowed these events to

      happen. This is passive cooperation..."

 

                    -Excerpts from an interview of French Author

                     Thierry Meyssan on Jaam-e Jam 2 (Iranian

                     television), on August 30, 2005 (Translation at

                     MEMRI.org)

 

 

"...No one has the answer,

    But one thing is true,

    You've got to turn on evil,

    When it's coming after you.

    You've gotta face it down,

    And when it tries to hide,

    You've gotta go in after it,

    And never be denied.

 

     Time is runnin' out,

     Let's roll...

 

              - Partial lyrics from the song, "Let's Roll",

                by Neil Young.

 

 

To All,

     Once again, even in the face of the tragedy along the Gulf Coast, remembrance of those events 4 years ago is in order. But if the above transcripts are any indication of the level of agreement among Cindy Sheehan's intellectual confreres in the Arab and/or Islamist world, then perhaps more TNT is in order.

 

In other news:

 

A Reason:

     Bob Dart of the Austin-American Statesman wrote in yesterday's edition about the existence of at least one local component of the "unorganized militia" in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

 

     Residents of Algiers Point had banded together and availed themselves of their Second Amendment prerogatives after it became clear that local law enforcement had become totally overwhelmed by what appears to be the largest natural disaster to yet hit the United States.

 

     Included in the militia's armory is an "assault weapon", in what is described by Dart to be a "...Vietnam-era AK-47..." (One would at least expect the Texas Press to get their firearms identifications correctly in print, given the probability that it is more likely a semiautomatic version. But then this is Austin we are talking about.). From Dart's account one can gather that Algiers Point residents had to actually use their firearms to repel looters, theirs being one of the few communities to suffer (relatively-speaking, of course) less damage.

 

     But if some were to think that it was only the armed "redneck" who was prepared for a breakdown in law in order, even in the face of the antigun confiscatory policies of yet another politically-liberal city machine, then one is mistaken. Dart observes that 74 year-old Jennie Pervel kept both her rosary beads and her .38-caliber pistol close at hand until troops had reclaimed the streets from the looters and hoodlums.

 

     Still, one can only wonder as to the true motives of those authorities that should be spending more time disarming groups of roving hoodlums than disarming prudent Catholic grandmothers. Given the recent Supreme Court decision in Kelo, one could even wonder as to whether it would be more "cost efficient" for the New Orleans Mayor and City Council to condemn and redistribute the real property of unarmed citizens who have been forced from their homes (Note- one's home is often the primary basis of personal wealth and the nest-egg one counts on to survive in retirement.). What with all the talk of plans to bulldoze various streets in the damaged city, it is clear to see that an altruistic view of any evacuation order may not be called for.

 

    As such, firearms owners are going to have to man the battlements in their various communities nationwide as the various governing bodies "update" their emergency response plans due to the example of Hurrican Katrina.

 

     California activists in particular are going to have to remain vigilant that general disarmament protocols are not established as a portion of earthquake response plans being currently reviewed in such bailiwicks of unchecked liberalism as San Francisco and Los Angeles. It would be most difficult to survive an 8 moment or greater earthquake in the Los Angeles metropolitan area if the Crips, Bloods, Blythe-streeters, and MS-13 could roam the city at will in the knowledge that they only had to "worry" about a relative handful of otherwise pre-occupied law enforcement personnel.

 

     As such, a good start towards preventing confiscation by any means convenient may just turn out to be statewide support of the effort to defeat the city ballot initiative by San Francisco to ban handguns. Those Bay Area voters who have real property to defend, or who are concerned with having to "stick it out" at a public shelter of last resort, may just have been presented a good reason to vote "NO" on Proposition H in the upcoming special election. Stay tuned.

    

http://www.statesman.com/search/content/auto/epaper/
editions/today/news_342278fe0324917e000f.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/
08cnd-storm.html?ex=1283832000&en=668d8220ffbd1938&
ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2005/09/08/AR2005090802089.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?
xml=/news/2005/09/11/wkat211.xml

 

http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/D8CI3A8O0.html

 

 

Better Late Than Never:

     Sasha Talcott of the Boston Globe wrote an article today that notes that firearms sales jumped significantly in the days after Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast.

 

     This is despite the voluntary decision by Wal Mart to not sell firearms (and presumably ammunition)  from some 40 stores scattered throughout the region.

 

     Luckily, the same kinds of smaller retail dealers that have, so far, survived the competitive pressures of Wal-Mart have been able to take up the "slack" in being able to sell firearms to people confronted with the realities of criminal activity during a major natural disaster. These last apparently include single mothers who realized that the police would otherwise be unavailable during event of the scale of Katrina.

 

    California firearms activists have noticed the gradual shift away from supporting firearms products by Wal-Mart among a number of stores located in more urban neighborhoods. But this declining to sell firearms and ammunition in a region largely supportive of the individual's right to keep and bear arms (especially in defense of themselves and their homes) is a disturbing shift at a time of customer need. Hopefully open discussion in the future will prevent such misunderstandings in the future. Otherwise, gun owners will have to patronize those firearms retailers that deal with the law-abiding public through thick and thin, not just when it is "politically correct".

 

Link at:

http://www.boston.com/news/weather/articles/2005/
09/11/halted_gun_sales_infuriate_customers/

 

 

Perhaps An Answer:

     Nancy Wills writes in today's New York Daily News about two anti-gun films that are about to make their way to movie screens in September.

 

    One film, " Lords of War ", starring Nicolas Cage, is putatively about the international illegal arms market. The other, "Dear Wendy", is tentatively about some disenchanted 20 year olds whose "fascination" with curios and relics is supposed to lead to "tragic consequences".

 

    What is amusing, yet illuminating, are the natural assumptions built into Wills' article and into the "Hollyweird" world-view. For example, the condemnation of arms sales ("Lords of War") is predicated on a deliberate confusion of legal and illegal arms sales "permitted" by governments world-wide.

 

    Yet a variety of revolutionary movements would have long-ago succumbed to a logistically-based failure had there not been any means to obtain arms and supplies so as to maintain low-intensity conflict (That held true for Israel in 1947-48, the Vietnamese in the 1960's, and the Palestinians of today). As such, many struggles currently supported by the Hollywood Left would have long ago died stillborn had the world's governments actually been able to ration arms as currently proposed by the UN.

 

     Of course, given that it often becomes a government's policy to support conflict and revolution in a particular region for geopolitical reasons, it might be said that a disarmed world-wide Utopia can only happen when a) all governments give up trying to support "civil" conflicts it agrees with, no matter the reason/excuse;  b) when even relatively "low-tech" artisans as exist in such countries as the Philippines and Pakistan disavow making firearms, even by hand using files and saws;  c) when all peoples give up all means of violence, crime and even resistance to tyranny so as to finally quiet the Kumbayah Crowd once and for all; and d) when pigs fly (For certain Islamist countries, substitute camels for the sake of cultural tolerance).

 

    Normally one does not care a jot for an arrogant performing class that would as soon bite the hand that feeds it at the box office as give a workman-like performance on the silver screen. After all, it is a sad thing that despite 80 decades of technological advancement of special effects one sees a relatively more accurate depiction of the terminal effects of small arms in the Westerns and gangster films of the 1930's and 1940's than one sees in modern films since Peckinpah's "Wild Bunch".

 

    In fact, one might even take some small satisfaction that the very same movie business that selectively ostracizes firearms owners (but not their dramatic use in films) so relentlessly is now currently facing a serious rejection of a wide range of their products (How long Hollywood could have expected the public to sit in their seats and pay ever higher prices for the cinematic version of being spat upon remains a controversial discussion topic outside of the back lots and sound stages.).

 

     For example, box office figures are down to the point of affecting balance sheets, and not even the proposals of corporate welfare for the movie industry currently being bandied about in Sacramento can make offset the cumulative effects that Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, and Quentin Tarantino have had on movie goers across the Fruited Plain.

 

    But in looking forward, given that Hollywood's efforts are about business and profits as well as "art", one still should not hold one's breath for more culturally friendly films. When the only upcoming film that could be remotely called "friendly" to the concept of individual responsibility and "concealed carry" is "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire", one does not hold much hope for near term improvement (financial or cultural). Perhaps with a continued and widespread rejection of the same old Hollywood fare, and the absence of profits that would result, the same kind of message that was sent to Kanye West in the opening week of NFL football can be sent to the film community. Stay tuned.

 

Links at:

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/story/
344866p-294412c.html

 

http://jam.canoe.ca/Movies/2005/09/05/1202343-ap.html