Muslims stay away, Fitna debate cancelled

Friday 09 May 2008

Anti-immigration MP Geert Wilders has cancelled the first of a series of debates on the ‘islamisation of the Netherlands’ because not enough Muslims have agreed to attend, news agency ANP reports on Friday.

Wilders pledged discussions on the issue as a follow-up to his anti-Koran film Fitna, which links Islam with violence and terrorism.

Of the 175 people who signed up for the debate in Waddinxveen on May 16, only a handful are Muslims, says ANP.

‘This is not enough for a constructive and open debate on the real dangers of the islamisation of the Netherlands and the failure of immigration and integration politics of the past decade,’ says Wilders’ PVV party in a statement. The party has nine seats in the 150-seat parliament.

Six imams and a local politician turned down an invitation to appear at the debate because they were not allowed to contribute to the agenda and their call for an independent chairman was rejected, says ANP.

Imam Yassin Elforkani told ANP that Wilders was not prepared to give Muslims any influence over the meeting in line with normal procedures. ‘Wilders wants to do everything himself. He does not want a balanced debate,’ said Elforkani. - © DutchNews.nl

Submit to our control or we won’t debate you! And the protests against Fitna are going strong in Pakistan - check out the ‘tiny minority of extremist’ pictures from MEMRI!

Women in Islam: Suffering the Barbary of an Ideology

April 04, 2008

News spread quickly that anti-Islamofascism activist Dr. Wafa Sultan has gone into hiding, along with her family. They are in hiding because of her participation in a recent debate on Al-Jazeera in which she challenged Egyptian Islamist Talat Rheim over Dutch cartoons of Mohammed and the ideology of Islam in general. For her truthful criticisms of Islam Dr. Sultan earned a fatwa, a “religiously” decried death sentence, from an Islamic scholar. That she criticizes Islam is enough justification in the eyes of the radical Islamist to kill her. That she is a woman infuses into the fatwa an unbridled viciousness and a need for expediency.

In the al-Jazeera interview, Dr. Sultan proclaimed:

“…any belief that chops off the heads of its critics is doomed to turn into terrorism and tyranny. This has been the condition of Islam, from its inception to this day. Islam has sentenced [its critics] to prison, and whoever crosses the threshold of that prison meets his death… If you want to change the course of events, you must re-examine your terrorist teachings, you must recognize and respect the right of the other to live, you must teach your children love, peace, coexistence and productive work. When you do that, the world will respect you…”

Not long after Dr. Sultan’s remarks, Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of Islam’s most respected scholars, presented his religious edict and denounced Dr. Sultan, calling for her death. Qaradawi, it should be noted, has also declared the killing of American soldiers in Iraq and suicide bombings against Israel as a religious obligation for all Muslims. Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, describes Qaradawi as, “one of the world’s pre-eminent Islamofascists.”

To date, Dr. Sultan and her family are living clandestinely, in a world of anxiety and inconvenience. She can’t work; her family cannot have contact with their friends; and they are all constantly looking over their shoulders for the jihadi threat. That we would ever know sacrifice as this brave woman does.

Incredulously, but for her notoriety, the dangers and treatment of Dr. Sultan would be unremarkable in fundamentalist Islamic culture.

A traditional Islamic saying is that, “A woman’s heaven is beneath her husband’s feet.” In the Islamic culture, to show someone the bottom of ones shoes, to figuratively place them beneath ones feet, is an insult of the highest order.

The fact of the matter is that women in the fundamentalist Islamic world are relegated to the status of possessions. They are subjected to incredibly harsh and degrading cultural edicts where transgressions are punished – justified under Sharia Law – by whippings, beatings, stoning and death.

The penalty of death is imposed quite frequently on women in the fundamentalist Islamic culture. Offenses that warrant a death sentence under Sharia Law range from un-Islamic dress to being in the presence of an unrelated male.

The revered Islamic scholar, Abu Hamed Mohammad al-Ghazzali, who has been called ‘the greatest Muslim after Muhammad,’ writes that the role of a Muslim woman is to:

“…stay at home and get on with her sewing. She should not go out often, she must not be well-informed, nor must she be communicative with her neighbors. She should only visit them when absolutely necessary; she should take care of her husband…and seek to satisfy him in everything…Her sole worry should be her virtue…She should be clean and ready to satisfy her husband’s sexual needs at any moment.”

This totalitarian screed, we will soon learn, would be the least of a woman’s concerns where life in fundamentalist Islamic culture is concerned. In fact, the litany of transgressions against female humanity at the hand of fundamentalist Islam is countless.

▪ The testimony of a woman in courts of law that use Sharia as their basis for justice recognizes the testimony of women as only half that of a man. This presents an almost impossible scenario for equity and fairness in matters of marriage termination. In fact, in countries that practice strict Sharia Law – such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt – all a man has to do is recite the verse “I divorce you” three times and under Sharia Law he is divorced.

▪ A husband has the right to beat his wife for perceived disobedience or misconduct. According to Islamic law, a husband may strike, a husband may beat his wife for any one of the following four reasons:

- If she does not attempt to make herself beautiful for him
- If she refuses to meet his sexual demands
- If she leaves the house without his permission or a “legitimate reason”
- Or if she neglects her religious duties

Any of these are also sufficient grounds for divorce.

The president of Cairo’s Al-Azhar University described the proper method of wife-beating in a television interview: “It’s not really beating,” Sheikh Ahmad Al-Tayyeb explained, “It’s more like punching.”

▪ Girls as young as nine years old are routinely sold into marriage, often to men many decades their senior. A father receives a monetary dowry in return. These young girls, prepubescent children, are treated as slaves during the day and as unwilling sexual conquests at night.

▪ Women are routinely subjected to the Islamic cultural malady known as honor killing, where a woman may be killed at the hand of a male relative for even the intimation of dishonor. These honor killings take place with no consequence for the murderer, no justice for the murdered.

▪ A disrespectful – or perhaps even an unlucky – wife can be sequesters into what are known as “wife rooms.” These are rooms within the family home in which women are confined with no food or water for a length of time determined completely by the level of tyranny possessed by her captor husband. In many cases, these rooms serve as chambers of horror where women wait between severe beatings from their husbands, their captors, to die. Many do.

Interestingly, delinquently, appallingly, women’s groups around the world, especially the progressive, pro-feminist groups such as the National Organization for Women, pay little more than lip-service to an issue that should illicit outrage of the highest order.

Columnist Jeff Jacoby, in a December 2007 article for the Boston Globe titled, The Islamist War on Muslim Women, lists an enumeration of outrages perpetrated against women at the hand of fundamentalist Islam:

In Pakistan, a tribal council ordered a woman to be gang-raped as punishment for her brother’s supposed liaison with a woman from another tribe.

In San Francisco, a young Muslim woman was shot dead after she uncovered her hair and put on makeup in order to be a maid of honor at a friend’s wedding.

Newsweek Editor Declares America #2

In the “a picture is worth a thousand words” category, Newsweek has apparently tried to take disrespect for America a few steps further than TIME magazine did a few weeks ago. In doing so, Newsweek uses a rear view of the Statue of Liberty as well as a “USA #2″ image to signify their view of America’s decline.

In the latest edition of Newsweek, Fareed Zakaria writes, “The world has shifted from anti-Americanism to post-Americanism,” and goes on to describe the ‘rise of the rest’ of the world.

A Muslim, born in India, Zakaria also writes off terrorism and suggests that Americans are more likely to drown in their bathtubs than be the victim of a terrorist attack. He adds that deaths by organized violence is in a downtrend, that Al-Qaeda in Iraq is more anti-Shiite than anti-American, that Al-Qaeda “used to do terrorism, now they make videotapes”, and that such groups along with Iran are much less of a threat than Germany or Russia did during the 20th century. He also uses the crutch all Muslims and Muslim apologists lean on, “But it is increasingly clear that militants and suicide bombers make up a tiny portion of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims.” Of course he offers no evidence for this fact nor does he pontificate on the hundreds of thousands of Muslims around the world, including the U.S., who regularly protest against non-Muslims, burn flags and effigies, and carry signs advocating death to non-Muslims.

While acknowledging America is still the most competitive economy in the world, Zakaria goes on to suggest that the solution to America’s woes are more immigration, and more acceptance of and participation in globalization, and to help bring the rising powers into the global economy rather than obsessing over our own short-term interests. “If China, India, Russia, Brazil all feel that they have a stake in the existing global order, there will be less danger of war, depression, panics, and breakdowns.”

If one looks at the Newsweek pictures and reads the words carefully, he/she may get the impression that some would prefer America relinquish all nationalism and pride for the sake of a new era where an economy of equally distributed wealth would lead to a peaceful, terror-free world.

As Fareed notes in his opening, “Americans are glum at the moment.” When Newsweek journalists, like Zakaria, are attending secret meetings to brainstorm policies to deal with terrorists, and apparently giving Senators advice on Iraq policy, Americans have ample reason to be glum at the moment.

More:
Fareed’s website is full of stories detailing how bad America is, how America is declining, what America is doing wrong, and how we should submit to “foreignism”.

Investor’s Business Daily: We’re (Still) #1 A must read:

We defeated Nazism, fascism and communism. We will defeat Islamofascism. If an Indian billionaire is now richer than Donald Trump, so what? We made it possible.

Yeah, China is booming and Russia is resurgent, at least in economic terms. But we see nobody sneaking across their borders looking for a better life.

Fitna Still Stirring in Muslim World - Latest Updates

Geert Wilders Fitna is still in the news weeks after it’s release. Without even touching on the 4,000 radical Muslim women protesting Fitna last week, there will soon be five Muslim films available in response to Fitna. The Saudi’s have already released one (or two according to some sources), Iran is planning two, and Pakistan is shooting one. Read the stories below.

Iran to counter Dutch anti-Islam video with two documentaries

Tehran - Iran is to counter the anti-Islamic video Fitna (Discord) made by Dutch legislator Geert Wilders with two documentary films, Fars news agency reported Monday.

The Iranian films are titled Reply to Fitna and Beyond Fitna and aimed at what the filmmakers call neutralizing the “plot” by the Dutch against Islam.

The two Iranian filmmakers have also declared their readiness to have a debate with Wilders over his film.

Tehran has condemned the anti-Islamic video, terming it “insulting and anti-Islamic” and symbolic for the “deep antagonism” of some Western states towards Islam and Muslims.

The Iranian Foreign Ministry last month summoned the Dutch ambassador to Tehran to lodge a protest against Wilders’ video. (dpa)

UN asked to implement Senate resolution against ‘Fitna’ & Pakistani lawmaker offers cash prize to name his anti-Fitna film

PESHAWAR: The United Nations (UN) should implement the Pakistani Senate resolution against the Dutch film, ‘Fitna’, which has hurt the sentiments of Muslims across the world, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) leader Babar Awan said on Sunday….

Awan said he would also make a film, ‘Difa-e-Quran’, in response to ‘Fitna’, adding that the movie would be released in five international languages – English, Arabic, Urdu, Persian and French. “It will be released on the 1st of Ramazan,” he added.

He requested Muslims across the world to suggest a name for his film, saying that the movie had temporarily been named as ‘Difa-e-Quran’. “A Rs 100,000 cash prize will be given to the person whose suggested name is selected,” he said, and asked those interested in the contest to mail their suggestions to his Senate office.

Only Muslims? Why can’t non-Muslims submit a name and claim the cash?

Difa-e-Islam shooting starts this week

ISLAMABAD: People’s Party leader, Senator Babar Awan has said that the shooting of his film `Difa-e-Islam’ (In defense of Islam) would start on Thursday, which in substance would be a rejoinder to the film against Islam, made in Holland.

According to a private TV channel, Senator Babar Awan said that the

Holland’s film `Fitna’ was made for stoking clash between East and West, under the cover of so called “Clash of civilizations,” by presenting a wrong perception about the Holy Quran. He said that the film would be shot in Pakistan and abroad.

Dutch Muslims Scared to Debate Geert Wilders?

Why won’t those moderate Dutch Muslims debate Geert Wilders?

For all the chatter about how Fitna was one-sided, unbalanced, and distorted the true message of Islam, why won’t any confident, peace-loving Muslims not accept any and all invitations to publicly debate Geert Wilders? Such a debate would not only present an opportunity to counter Wilders and Fitna, but could become a very hot online commodity. It’s not likely Youtube or Liveleak would block it. The whole world could see just how wrong Fitna was. If, that is, Fitna was wrong.

A public debate with Wilders may require Muslims to acknowledge some of the truths in Fitna. It would certainly challenge many of the less than peaceful aspects of Islam. It might also give the public a glimpse into how “moderate” Dutch Muslims really feel, how they react to tough questions, and force them to recognize and defend, or reject the violent passages and those who are inspired by such Koranic passages. It might also require Muslims to speak rationally rather than protest irrationally.

Could it be because Wilders has yet to accept the role of dhimmi and remove Fitna and apologize to all Muslims? Not likely. It’s too late to remove Fitna, and there will likely be more Fitna’s. In fact, a debate over Fitna may just be Fitna Part II - and that’s why Muslims are afraid to debate Wilders.

And why is an apology to all Muslims a pre-requisite for a debate with Wilders? Do all Muslims want an apology? According to the mass media and some Muslims, Fitna has proven to be unsuccessful in its attempts to prove Muslims are violent. That the reaction to Fitna was “muted.” If that is the case, was Fitna not a gift to the Islamic world?

Could it be that Muslims are all too aware that Geert Wilders is no dhimmi? That he will not, and can not “remove” Fitna, and that he won’t apologize to “all” Muslims and therefore Muslims can avoid a debate? Hopefully someone steps up to Geert Wilders challenge.

Dutch Muslims reject debate with Islam critic Wilders

Posted : Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:06:01 GMT

Author : DPA

Amsterdam - Attempts by Dutch legislator Geert Wilders to engage in public debate with Muslims about his controversial film Fitna have so far not been successful, reports said Friday. Dutch media reported that Imam Fawaz Jneid from the As-Sunnah- mosque in The Hague demands that Wilders first remove his film from the internet and apologizes to all Muslims. Only if these conditions are met would Jneid consider a public debate with Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV).

Mahmoud el Shershaby, from the El Tawheed mosque in Amsterdam said he is not interested debating with the Dutch politician, while Ahmed Salam from Tilburg has not responded to Geert Wilders’ invitation to engage in a public debate with him. Earlier this week a group of imams from the town of Gouda, east of The Hague, openly rejected Wilders’ invitation to engage with him in a public debate. On Friday May 16, the PVV leader starts his tour of public debates with Muslims in Gouda. Wilders wants to meet common Muslims and imams to engage in public debates with them about what he sees as the problems of contemporary Islam. The umbrella organization of Dutch Muslims NMR says Wilders prevents a fair public debate by not first meeting the conditions of the Muslim community. In late March, Wilders released his 16-minute political film about contemporary Islam. The film warns against Muslim fundamentalism and what Wilders calls “the Islamization of the Netherlands.”

Pakistan Lawmaker to Make Counter Fitna Film

A Pakistani lawmaker, Babar Awan, won’t make a film to counter the jihadists, or convince Muslims not to wage jihad, or to let woman be treated as equals, or challenge any other aspect of Islam. Instead, he’ll make a movie to counter Geert Wilders’ Fitna. Why spend any time convincing Muslims of their misunderstandings and un-Islamic behavior when defending Islam’s honor is at stake?

The last sentence of this article might have been better served up first: “Insulting the Quran or Muhammad is punishable by death under Pakistani law.”

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan: A Pakistani lawmaker said Sunday he will fund a movie to rebut an anti-Quran film made by a Dutch politician that has drawn strong condemnation in the Islamic world.

The Dutch movie — “Fitna” or “ordeal” in Arabic — juxtaposes verses from Islam’s holy book with images of the terror attacks on New York, Madrid and elsewhere, and shows footage of imams saying Islam should dominate the world.

Pakistani Sen. Babar Awan said his film will “answer the malicious propaganda.”

“This film will show Quran’s world view. This film will show Quran’s concept of humanity. This film will show how important human life is,” Awan said at a news conference.

The 15-minute film by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, which appeared on the Internet on March 27, triggered angry street protests in Pakistan, Malaysia and Indonesia, as well as calls in other countries to boycott Dutch goods.

The Dutch government has disagreed with the harsh tone of Wilders’ movie but said the lawmaker has a constitutional right to express his views.

Wilders has said he’s entitled to air his opinions on “the danger and threat of Islam to our country and the West.”

Awan accused the Dutch film of labeling all Muslims terrorists, calling it “misleading, non-representative and very shallow.”

A Tale of Two Movies: Fitna and Schism

Several commenters have suggested we (non-Muslims) should watch Schism the Saudi, anti-Christian response to Geert Wilders’ Fitna. We had already viewed it, and came to some obvious conclusions.

Schism hasn’t received much publicity and where it has, it’s been in exactly the opposite manner of Geert Wilders’ Fitna.

No panic or warnings by governments or the UN. No threats of death, boycotts, or fatwas. Not even a mention from Network Solutions, YouTube, Google, or Liveleak - each of whom played the role of dhimmi for Fitna. No blocked sites. No mass protests, no burnt effigies of the blogger, and no lawyers, ministers, or priests salivating maliciously over Schism.

Even online, the few headlines for Schism were unlike that of Fitna. There were no headlines describing the film maker as right wing, racist, bigoted, inciting violence, or blasphemous. Most headlines simply stated that a Saudi blogger made a Bible version of Fitna and only a few referred to Schism as anti-Christian.

Commenting on other blogs, we questioned whether a blogger in Saudi Arabia could produce such a film without fear of the Kingdom. Why isn’t his blog readily found? Are Bible’s allowed in Saudi? Are bloggers allowed in Saudi? Or was Schism sanctioned and produced by the Kingdom? (update - Slate interviewed the Saudi blogger, one of only 500 blogs in SA…he felt it was his duty to defend his fellow Muslims. Slate even buys into claims that opening scenes depict Christians doing cruel, inexcusable things in the name of God and country - apparently they didn’t watch it).

Luckily for us, and readers, Glen Reinsford, Editor of www.thereligionofpeace.com has analyzed Schism and written an excellent piece on the two movies. He too questions whether Schism was made by a lone blogger and reveals there are actually two different versions of Schism. Read it to find out why.

Two Films About Religion: Is Only One Accurate?

Glen Reinsford

By now, most people have heard of Geert Wilders’ 17-minute film, Fitna, which has predictably outraged the Muslim world by mixing scenes of Islamic terror and oppression with verses from the Koran appearing to support the mistreatment of those outside the religion. The well-publicized death threats against the producers and providers undoubtedly prompted many who would not otherwise have been interested into watching the video over the Internet.

The reaction to Fitna in the Islamic world has been somewhat muted compared to the cartoon protests of two years ago, in which more than 100 people, including a Catholic priest, were killed in the riots and targeted assassinations that followed the printing of Muhammad’s image by a Danish newspaper. Later in 2006, another series of Muslim riots - ironically over the Pope’s suggestion that Islam has a violence problem - left more people dead, including an elderly nun who was shot in the back by a Muslim devotee while working at a children’s hospital.

The reason for better manners this time around may be the gradual realization that Islam’s image suffers when the point of its critics is proven by Muslims childishly acting out over cartoons, or amassing a stack of dead bodies in defense of the “religion of peace.” (That such outrage is conspicuously absent when terrorists kill innocents explicitly in the name of Islam hardly speaks well of the religion’s priorities).

On the heels of the effigy burnings and angry demonstrations over Fitna, however, comes one of the more admirable protests against the film - a slightly shorter video parody that is entitled Schism.

Like Fitna, Schism mixes scenes of violence with verses from a religious text - in this case, the Bible. Allegedly created by a lone Saudi blogger, there appear to be two versions of the video. The earlier one is six minutes long and features four verses from the Old Testament intermingled with footage from Iraq and scenes that appear to be “borrowed” from an American film called Jesus Camp, in which fundamentalist Christians exhort children to a somewhat extreme-sounding religious commitment.

Perhaps because of copyright issues, a longer and better-produced version of Schism quickly followed. Gone were the Old Testament passages and the Jesus Camp clips.

Instead, the new nine minute video includes only three New Testament verses and a hodge-podge of newsreel snippets from Nazi Germany to Srebrenica. If the two versions were indeed produced by the same person, then it would appear that they received a good deal of assistance with the second piece.

Brigitte Bardot Battles Islam, Again

Muslims in France won’t rest until 71 year old bombshell Brigitte Bardot is in jail or dead it seems. For the fifth time she is on trial for stating her opinion on Muslims, or as they refer to that in France - inciting racial hatred. Over at Dhimmi Watch the question asked is, “what race is Islam?”

‘God Created Woman’ … to be silent?

Maybe this video (lyrics) is what really has some French & Muslims annoyed (also banned by the Vatican nearly 40 years ago):

Free Speech Vs. Lawsuit Terrorism

…”civilizations have always died by suicide, not murder.“

Creeping Sharia through litigation jihad from Investor’s Business Daily.

Posted 4/14/2008, IBD

Islamofascism: Suicide bombs aren’t the only chilling weapon Islamists are using in their war to the death with Western civilization. Exploiting the free world’s laws on libel and so-called hate speech, they intimidate truth-telling writers.

When American Center for Democracy director Rachel Ehrenfeld in 2003 authored “Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed — and How to Stop It,” she was intellectually taking part in the global war on terror. But she also ended up becoming enmeshed in an international legal war.

Saudi banker and suspected al-Qaida financial supporter Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz and his sons were named in the book and Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel in Britain — although only 23 copies of the American-published “Funding Evil” were purchased there, online.

British libel law is notoriously geared to the advantage of the plaintiff. So Ehrenfeld chose not to defend her case, and in 2005 High Court Justice Sir David Eady pronounced a default judgment ordering Ehrenfeld to apologize and pay $225,000.

Ehrenfeld countersued in the U.S., but the courts ruled they had no personal jurisdiction over Mahfouz under New York state law. As a result, Ehrenfeld is now discouraged from traveling abroad to promote her important, potentially life-saving work. And publishers, too, will be discouraged from printing her future books by the fear of being sued for large sums of money.

This is but one case in an intensifying global jihad against those who dare to exercise free speech to expose the tactics of terrorists, or criticize Islamic extremism.

Even the oldest publishing house in the world, Cambridge University Press, which printed its first book over 420 years ago, last year sullied its prestigious reputation by melting before a separate Mahfouz libel suit.

Watching Al-Jazeera English could make a world of difference?

Wow, talk about dhimmitude.

Aaron Barnhart of the Kansas City Star must have run out of stories to write about. Instead, he reprinted this story from July 2007. Apparently he wasn’t aware that former “Nightline” reporter Dave Marash had quit Al-Jazeera English, because of the anti-American bias at the network.

So why is it that Barnhart finds it necessary for Americans to watch al-jiz tv everyday? Will watching the Arab bias suddenly shine the light of sharia on us all? Will it prevent Muslims from misinterpreting the Quran? Maybe we should all just learn Arabic and watch the full blown version of anti-western news. Or maybe Barny is angling to fill Marash’s spot. He left enough info on al-jiz at the end of his article that he could be earning commissions on new subscribers. His phone/web site are there too. Ask him.

The news you won’t see - Watching Al-Jazeera English could make a world of difference, but good luck getting it.

By AARON BARNHART
The Kansas City Star, Posted on Thu, Apr. 10, 2008

This story originally appeared in the Sunday, July 1, 2007 edition of The Kansas City Star

The summer of 2001 was a low point for TV news, what with wall-to-wall coverage of a missing Washington, D.C., intern and shark attacks.

Then came 9/11. In an instant, the American media’s gaze turned beyond our borders in a way it hadn’t since World War II — a shift especially noticeable on television. For a while, viewers ate it up.

Since then, of course, cable news — like Robert De Niro’s character in “Awakenings” — has reverted to its pre-9/11 state. Meanwhile, a new wave of international news channels has sprung up to expand viewers’ horizons.

We just can’t watch any of them here.

One of these upstarts has a familiar-sounding name: Al-Jazeera English. Launched last fall by the same oil-rich emirate of Qatar that runs the Arabic Al-Jazeera, it was offered free to cable companies across America. Exactly one took up the offer — a tiny carrier in Vermont serving fewer than 2,000 households.

Even at no charge, it seemed, adding Al-Jazeera English wasn’t worth the potential backlash from customers who consider Al-Jazeera the official network of Osama bin Laden and every nut job with a jihad to declare against the West.

I’ve been monitoring the new channel for several months over the Internet, paying $6 a month to watch a video stream supplied by Real Networks. And I am convinced it is the most important English-language cable channel to come along since Fox News.

It’s everything our cable news isn’t: global, meaty, consequential and compelling in the best sense of the word. And I’m not the only one who thinks so.

“I’m sitting in the Ambassador Hotel in Arab East Jerusalem glued to the TV,” veteran Chicago City Hall reporter Ray Hanania wrote on his blog during a recent trip. “I’m watching the Al-Jazeera English-language satellite news station report things about the world that we never hear about in America. It’s amazing.”

I called Reese Schonfeld, the first president of CNN. Still going strong after 50 years in the business, the ageless Schonfeld is active as a consultant and writer. He’s also an occasional guest on Fox News Channel and an Iraq War supporter. He had sampled Al-Jazeera English online, and I wanted to know what he thought.

“It’s a legitimate news service,” he said. “They’ve told me things I never knew before, which surprised me. Their reports are much longer than American news reports. They pick their stories carefully. They’re as straight and narrow as Fox is.”

You may not agree with Schonfeld’s last assessment, but this much is undeniable: Fox’s critics haven’t done a thing to dent its growth. By contrast, the minuscule opposition to Al-Jazeera English has effectively kept it off American cable and satellite systems, even as our allies scoop it up. (It’s in about 80 million homes worldwide and already a success in Israel, Pakistan and Germany.)

Obama’s Plan: Talk with Iran and Withdrawal from Iraq

6,000 centrifuges later, the French, and the Iranian Resistance call for more sanctions on Iran, not talks. Who has more experience on the matter? Poland says Iran has no place in int’l community.

If Obama was Iranian, and tried to bring change in Iran what might he get? Jail.

On withdrawal from Iraq, the picture below says it all. But we may have to add another lie to Obama’s long list of lies. He told General Petraeus he doesn’t want a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Yet in his Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 he proposed this:

SCOPE AND MANNER OF REDEPLOYMENT- The redeployment of the Armed Forces under this section shall be substantial, shall occur in a gradual manner, and shall be executed at a pace to achieve the goal of the complete redeployment of all United States combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008

Substantial, all combat brigades redeployed in less than a year. Just words? Is that not precipitous?

Update: Maybe this is why Obama wants to talk with Iran - they have so much in common: Iran Rejects U.S. Claim That Tehran Funds Shiite Militias in Iraq