The lesson of 9/11: Don’t dare upset the Muslims

I keep finding myself, as of late, trying to imagine table talk about world goings-on at an average Muslim family living in Britain. For some reason, the imagined table always seems to be in West Bromwich, in the West Midlands. And I always picture the family members laughing like hell into their mango lassis.   

Following the major television news networks these past few days as they fretted over the burning “Will he or won’t he (burn the Korans)?” question, it became patently obvious that the headmaster is now terrified of the school bully, who – on this ninth anniversary of 9/11, when he should be begging the world’s forgiveness – now understands that “might makes right.”  

Of interest to me is not the attention-seeking nut in Florida, but rather the seeming desperation of the Western world – as reflected in its ridiculously exaggerated media coverage of this non-story – to fall over itself to appease Muslims and their possible reaction to International Burn a Koran Day.    

Hardly a day goes by without us witnessing appalling atrocities and provocations in the supposed name of Islam: suicide bombings, fatwas, stonings, burnings of effigies and flags, Holocaust denial, and other crude forms of anti-Semitism. Women in Gaza and Muslim countries daren’t even have an orgasm without first obtaining permission from their Islamofascist rulers. 

And who in the West dares to utter a word in protest?      

A loony pastor in Florida, however, with no more than fifty followers, threatens to burn a few Korans and the Western media descends into a state of frenzy, the story leading all the major news networks for days.      

Such disproportionate oversensitivity to and appeasement of Muslims constitutes a worrying sign that the West may already have given up the fight against the evil of Islamofascism. And when a former British prime minister is forced to cancel book signings in London because of fears of violent protests by wrongheaded scum, and no one says or does a thing, it is very depressing indeed.      

I am under no illusion about individuals such as Pastor Jones or, for example, elements of the English Defence League. What I do admire, however, is their refusal to lie down while their world and way of life – and in their own countries – is being transformed in front of their very eyes.   

Coming to West Bromwich soon?

Anyone who is more concerned about a few books being burned by some deranged pastor – and we are not talking state-sponsored, 1933-style destruction here – than about the creeping Islamization of our planet is no less irrational than the mook with the handlebar moustache.      

The spirit that got Britain through the last threat to its way of life, seventy years ago, would appear to have gone walkies. The British had better wake up soon and find it . . . before it is too late.   

http://www.justgiving.com/melchettmike

World Trade Center set for suicide bomber memorial

From today’s Independent . . .

While the controversy over plans to build an Islamic center and mosque just two blocks away from Ground Zero continues, other plans have come to light for a monument to shahids or fedayeen – i.e., suicide bombers and ‘martyrs’ – on the very site of their most dastardly act: the World Trade Center.

The Allahu Akbar Foundation wants to erect the memorial – comprising three figures: Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden, 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, together with an “unknown martyr” (with wires hanging out of his clothing and his thumb on a switch) – at the entrance to 1 World Trade Center (due for completion in 2013).

The artist: Fuqn-Youslus, in her Gaza City home

The figures, made from scrap metal garnered from the twisted wreckage of Israeli buses, took the celebrated Palestinian artist, Miwurqs Fuqn-Youslus, over two days to complete.

“It would have taken even less,” said Fuqn-Youslus from her home (or, at least, what’s left of it) in Gaza City, “but there is a shortage of decent quality niqabs (head coverings) in the shuk as a result of the Israeli blockade. My current one is not a good fit, and the slit keeps riding over my eyes while I work! Oh yes, and there is also the matter of my one arm . . .” (Hamas officials amputated Fuqn-Youslus’s right arm at the elbow after she refused her husband sex without good cause).

The initial reaction of New Yorkers, however, to the latest plans – including of families of victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks – has been far from enthusiastic.

“Why don’t they just spit on the graves of the three thousand people who were murdered here?” said the father of one such victim, a New York firefighter.

The founder of The Allahu Akbar Foundation, however, Aamer Zileeh-Qunt, can’t see what all the fuss is about.

“We are hearing a lot of propaganda and lies against Muslims – this monument commemorates good men and is not disrespectful in any way,” said Mr. Zileeh-Qunt from his hideout in a remote region of Pakistan. “And it is not just a memorial to martyrs, but also to those who wanted to be but, for example, were too thick to pass the flying course or who, like my brother Abu Hamza in Belmarsh (prison), could not follow the simple instructions in their jihadi bomb-making manuals.”

Various American Reform rabbis have given their support to the planned monument, as has the Jewish lobbying group J Street.

And the reaction in Britain has also been supportive, with Member of Parliament Gerald Kaufman going so far as to claim that opposition to the memorial constitutes an insult to the memory of his late grandmother.

“As a Jew,” declared Mr. Kaufman from outside his Regent’s Park home (that of the dodgy expenses claim), “I am ashamed that some of my coreligionists are behind this ignoble attempt to derail what is, after all, an entirely innocent monument. My grandmother, who was murdered by the Nazis, died in vain if Manhattanites will not allow this perfectly respectable memorial.”

Gorgeous Bhoy: George Galloway ex-MP

Speaking from his bench outside Kings Cross Station, George Galloway, also once a Member of Parliament, claimed that “the tentacles of Zionism are behind this outrageous opposition. It is a lovely work, and my auld mate Saddam, zichrono livrocha, would have been all for it!”

Meanwhile, artsy UK human rights activists Ken Loach, Alexei Sayle and Annie Lennox, together with career Jew-baiter Ken Livingstone, have organised a rally in support of the proposed monument – and to protest against what they have labelled “an undemocratic, Islamophobic provocation” by its opponents – in Hyde Park, this Sunday.

Following the death of the regular speaker at such rallies, playwright Harold Pinter, the organisers are flying in Hollywood film director Oliver Stone, whose recent remarks, they say, make him the natural heir to Pinter’s rally stage.

American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist and political activist, Noam Chomsky, will also traverse the Atlantic specially for the rally.

“My Jewishness,” said Professor Chomsky from his office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “together with the fact that no one is bright enough to understand a word of what I am on about, makes my opinion on US government policy vis-à-vis Zionism, the Palestinians and Islam practically unimpeachable.”

The reaction of the Islamic world, too, to opposition to the planned monument has been one of anger. Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, between dodging “stray firecrackers”, proclaimed that “the Zionists’ days are numbered”.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was unavailable for comment, but a government spokesman in Ankara, Aylyket Ubdibüm, said that Mr. Erdoğan would “go along with the Iranian response . . . whatever that may be.”

And, emerging from his Beirut bunker in a cunning “bandit” disguise, Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah – who denied recent media reports that he and a certain extremist rabbi residing in Stamford Hill may be distant cousins – again threatened Tel Aviv.

“We have missiles capable even of reaching melchett mike,” declared Nasrallah. “This Zionist piss-taker should enjoy his four dogs while Allah allows him.”

Cunning disguise: Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, on a Beirut street

An open letter to the British investigators in Israel

Dear Investigators,

Shalom and welcome to Israel!

Contrary to your likely first impressions, following your arrival on our festival of Purim, we don’t always go around in disguises and fancy dress.

But, assuming that Mossad agents really were behind the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, can Britain truly be surprised that they were using assumed identities? Would it rather have expected them to be strutting around the 5-star hotel in shirts unbuttoned to their navels, stars of David bouncing off their bear-like chests, spitting garinim (sunflower seeds) onto the marble floors, while yelling into their mobile phones?

Whilst your 007 may get off on introducing his real self to villains and totty alike, our intelligence services consider such a carefree approach to be somewhat reckless in the perilous world of international espionage. Anyway, “The name’s Rosenblatt . . . Elchanan Rosenblatt” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.

If those On Her Majesty’s Secret Service are embarking on dangerous missions without disguise, perhaps even carrying their library and Blockbuster cards from Blighty in their pockets, now may be as good a time as any for a rethink. And, while I am on the subject, might I also humbly suggest that Britain review its immigration policy, welfare system, and the application of its hate laws in mosques throughout the UK.

You see, I am not entirely convinced that Mr. al-Mabhouh was the all-round top bloke that Britain appears to think. In fact, I salute every one of the Mossad agents involved in ridding the world of the filth, and have maximum respect and no little envy for the lucky, lucky bastard who had the honour of suffocating the c*nt with his own fetid pillow.

Oh, that it had been me! After administering the muscle relaxant (allegedly found in al-Mabhouh’s blood), I would have given this modern-day Haman a small taste of the misery that he was pivotal in inflicting on so many thousands of innocent Israelis. My fantasy (and it is just that – in the IDF, I was scared of a couple of the Kavkazis in my own unit!) involves al-Mabhouh’s fingernails, a rusty pair of pliers, his Jihadi testicles,  and a high voltage set of electrodes.

Finally, before sending him off to meet all those lucky virgins, I would, Tarantino-style, have recited a few peaceful verses from the Koran – demonstrating to him, in his last moments, how he could instead have chosen to be a good Muslim – and then treated him to a heartfelt rendition of Hatikva (Israel’s national anthem).

Although it is our pleasure having you here, I believe that you have come to the wrong address. Your questions should rather be directed to the authorities in Dubai, who knowingly hosted a murdering scumbag. To Iran, which had been supplying him and his Hamas masters with their weapons. And to Syria and the other Arab regimes in cahoots with Tehran.

You might not consider it cricket, but neither is life under a barrage of missiles. So, far from apologising, Israel will continue to do its duty – both for itself and for the civilised world – by sending the al-Mabhouhs of this planet on their 5-star journey to Hell.

Enjoy your stay.

Yours unapologetically,

melchett mike

PS What do you make of our totty? It’s tops, intit?!

The Return of the Lockerbie Bomber: Lessons for the Golan

The shameful release of the Libyan convicted of murdering 270 innocent people over, and in, Lockerbie in 1988 disgraces Scotland, its criminal justice system, and its people.

The freeing, on “compassionate grounds”, of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi (right) by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill – seemingly more intent on making a name for himself than living up to his title – shows no “compassion” whatsoever for the families and friends of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, never mind consideration for the rule of law.

Watching “breaking news” of the Lockerbie mass murder, the biggest in British history, was one of those never-forget-where-you-were experiences – I was sitting on a friend’s couch in Finchley – and, as it transpired, a boy I knew, Marc Tager, was on the flight.

MacAskill’s expressed motivation for releasing Megrahi – Scottish values to show mercy – smacks of the empty cliché:

“In Scotland, we are a people who pride ourselves on our humanity. It is viewed as a defining characteristic of Scotland and the Scottish people.”

To the Scots’ other, less attractive, mythical traits – misery, meanness, and drunkenness – can now be added gross stupidity and insensitivity.

The argument that Megrahi, who is said to have terminal prostate cancer, should never have been convicted in the first place is a “red herring” and does not excuse MacAskill’s horrible lack of judgment. If this is the logic of the Scottish Justice Secretary no less, and a member of the Scottish National Party, the Scots are clearly no more ready to govern themselves than their Celtic cousins down in the Valleys.

Some see more than coincidence in Megrahi’s dropping, less than a week before his release, of his second appeal against conviction – at which embarrassing evidence may have come to light exposing a miscarriage of justice and/or a cover-up (see David Horovitz’s article in last weekend’s Jerusalem Post) – whilst the even more cynical link the decision to the increasing interest of Western (including British) energy companies in Libya’s vast oil and gas resources.

More shameless than the decision to free Megrahi, however, was the hero’s welcome put on for his return. Even if Libya disputes his conviction, the sickening scenes of jubilation on the runway in Tripoli were a further slap in the face for the the Lockerbie victims’ families. And, viewing those scenes on TV, I perceived a real warning for Israel . . .

I spent the weekend before last in the Golan Heights, where I talked to Syrian Druze displaced by Israel’s occupation – and, in 1981, formal annexation – of the Heights following the 1967 Six Day War.

My discussions did not confirm the oft-heard view – from those whose veins flow even bluer-and-whiter than mine – that these Druze (right) do not really want the Golan to be returned to Syria, because life is better for them in Israel. True, they currently live in a genuine democracy and enjoy greater economic prosperity, but – unlike too many of us Israelis and Jews, who (sadly) attach so much import to the merely material – the Druze lead simple lives, wanting nothing more than to be reunited with their families on the other side of the fence. (For more information on the Golan Druze, and the Golan Heights in general, see Wikipedia.)

I have little doubt that, within the next decade or so, the Golan Heights will  be returned to Syria. But to what end?

"Look into my eyes, my eyes . . ."

Will Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad (right) do his part to guarantee peace along the countries’ (adjusted) common border?

Will he cease providing refuge, in Damascus, for Jew-killers?

And will he withdraw Syria from its dastardly axis with Iran and Hizbollah?

Will he f*ck!

His continual anti-Israel pronouncements aside, just one look at Assad’s eyes are enough to know that (if I may be forgiven for quoting a previous post) “for  Israel to deliver the strategic Golan Heights to the Ass’ Man would be akin to putting a serial paedophile in charge of a kiddies’ paddling pool.”

Assad and the Syrians are no more trustworthy than Colonel Gaddafi and their Libyan “brothers”, who – by granting a convicted mass murderer a hero’s welcome, instead of receiving him in an appropriately low-key manner – exposed themselves to the world as the heartless, amoral lowlifes that they are (indeed, if Megrahi – a former intelligence officer – wasn’t dying, I have no doubt that Gaddafi would be putting him straight back on active duty).

If, or more realistically when, the Golan Heights is returned to Syria, the state-sponsored jubilation will make Megrahi’s welcome, in comparison, seem more like a birthday bash for Bernie Madoff attended by satisfied former clients.

Dictators’ PR stunts, however,  are nothing new, being all they have to offer their long-suffering subjects.

The real question is whether Assad will “be putting” the Golan Heights “back on active duty”, and utilising them for the same purposes as pre-1967 . . . to attack Israeli villages below. With the greatest respect to the memory of the victims of Lockerbie and to the feelings of their families, Israel has far more to lose than ‘merely’ insult and hurt.

Spineless Cricketers: Murderous Muslims Your Problem Too

England’s cricketers are well-known for their spinelessness on the field. Now they have gained the same reputation for their actions off it.

After getting drubbed five-nil by their Indian hosts in the recent one-day series, the Englishmen returned home early from their tour, following last week’s terror attack on Mumbai. What wonderful guests! They are now apparently awaiting the conclusions of a security report before deciding whether to return for the scheduled two Test matches.

Do England’s cricketers, and their management, really need reminding that it was only three years ago that bombs were going off on London‘s Underground and buses? Islamic terrorism is not a problem affecting only India. The Englishmen should have shown solidarity with their hosts, rather than acting as if what happened had nothing to do with them.

The cancer of Islamic extremism is not going to go away any time soon. It will affect the lives of the children and grandchildren of Kevin Pietersen, England’s cricket captain, no less than those of our own. This cowardly retreat sends out all the wrong messages, not in cricketing terms, but in human ones.

Australia’s cricketers continued with their Ashes tour, in the summer of 2005, after 52 people – as a proportion of the UK population, a far higher number than last week’s fatalities – had been murdered, by four British Muslims, on London’s transport system.

I don’t put this difference down to some brave streak in the Australian national character, but rather to the patronising attitude towards “the Subcontinent”. If such a terror attack had occurred during a tour of Australia or New Zealand, the Englishmen would still be out there. And, if it had happened during an Aussie tour of India, they would have acted no differently than the Poms.

The discomfort of the white “Anglo” on “the Subcontinent” was perhaps best illustrated by English cricket great, Ian Botham, who, after returning home early from a 1984 tour of Pakistan, said it was “the kind of place to send your mother-in-law for a month, all expenses paid”.

Perhaps we shouldn’t be at all surprised by the actions of professional sportsmen, the prime motivation of whom, these days, would appear to be the next fat pay cheque.

It would be so wonderful however if, just for once, they showed the public – the ones who, ultimately, pay their obscene salaries – that they are not completely disconnected from the rest of us mere mortals. England’s cricketers, by staying put and doing what they are being paid so (ridiculously) well to do, would then have been sending a message to the Godless murderers that they, like us, will not cower in the face of Evil.

But, following the spineless retreat of the England cricketers in their hosts’ hours of need, many Indians – even cricket fans – might not welcome them back. And Israelis – knowing better than most the value of moral support at such times (and, also, more than their fair share of tour cancellations) – would understand them.

Why I am not happy about a black President

“I don’t know whether I’m happy about Obama”, my friend Rachel, a fellow Brit, informed me this morning as we walked our dogs down Rothschild Boulevard, “but it’s great that there will be a black President”.

Why is it so “great”? And why should we be happy?

There has never been a turquoise President. And I wouldn’t be shouting from the rooftops if one of those got elected. Nor has there been a Hispanic/Latino (they outnumber African Americans in the US), Asian, or Native American President.

Would I particularly want a Jewish President? I wasn’t doing cartwheels of joy when Al Gore selected Joe Lieberman as his running mate in 2000, not because Lieberman isn’t a good man or wouldn’t have done a good job, but because we Jews are always rather reticent about having other Jews in highest public office. There was a hushed sigh of relief from many British Jews when Michael Howard resigned as leader of the Conservative Opposition in 2005, and a further one when Sir Malcolm Rifkind dropped out of the race to replace him.

Many of the rumours surrounding Obama – that he is a Muslim, for example (not that there would be anything wrong with that, some of my best friends are . . . well, not really, but I did fall for one last year!) – would appear to be just that.

If, however, there is any truth in the suggestion that large portions of his election funds came from shady Middle Eastern sources, then I don’t want a black President.

If Obama’s private views echo those of black Jew-haters like Louis Farrakhan, or even Jesse Jackson or Spike Lee, then I don’t want a black President.

Or if Obama, after taking office, fails to distinguish between the dreams of the large majority of Israelis, to live in peace alongside their Arab neighbours, and those of the large majority of those neighbours, of Israelis floating in the Mediterranean, then I don’t want a black President.

The jury is out. Let’s judge the man on his actions.