Eyeless as well as shoeless

Submitted by Ivan (Australia), Jul 3, 2007 at 13:54

Why does GW not speak the name of the ancient religious fuel-osophy powering 21st century terror which itself dare not speak its Islamist name? OUR JOURNO HACKS WON'T SPEAK IT FOR FEAR OF OFFENDING MOSLEM CITIZENS who know how to jump up and down ,pretending that today's terror has nothing to do with their religion. The trusting journalists don't seem to have heard of the Hudabaiah syndrome, medieval and modern.

At least our politicians are opening up the problem and bringing the public along with them. But local Islamists continue to intimidate media and some in parliament. Just as they seem to have done effectively in the U.K. with the 'doctors' plot'.

In this Australian election year, is it any surprise that locals like Sheik Mousselmani and Keysar Trad [AKA Sheik Hilali], join 12 Arab Ambassadors, led by the mendacious Syrian Tammam Sulaiman, simultaneously pressuring Australian politicians for ‘a coupla little things'. These are: (A) Reverse the designation of Hezbollah as a terrorist gang and (B) Be more even-handed yet again, between Fatah terror, Hamas terror, Hezbollah terror on one hand -- and Israel on the other.

Four observations are relevant.

(1) If Hezbollah ain't one, then no Arab or Moslem grouping is a terror organisation; not the plotting doctors, not Jemmah Islamiyah, not Fatah al Islam, not the Popular front, not Al Quaeda, etc, etc, etc……...

(2) In a famous recent radio talkback interview, that same Syrian envoy Tammam confronted us with lie upon shameless lie. He now re-appears, undiplomatically implying reprisals against this country by 22 Arab states, if Australia doesn't buckle under and comply. Under similar threat, won't the next demand be for Shari'a?

(3) I know an even-handed lady who, when eating cake, always divides the next piece in two. She then concentrates on devouring only one of her portions before she again divides the diminishing remainder.

(4) Unlike the ambassador and his colleagues, I don't regard the leaders of bipartisan Australia as born yesterday.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".