Port authority

I caught a few minutes of Bill O'Reilly at lunch today. DISCLOSURE: I'm not really an O'Reilly fan. I think he's too inconsistent in his arguments, not that that ever detracts from his own colossal ego. Today, he was opining about the sale of the control of American ports to Dubai Ports World, which is owned by the United Arab Emirates. His argument is that there is no security reason to oppose the deal, since the UAE copmany is run by Brits at the top of their company ladder and the same personnel currently running the ports will remain in place. Any foreign nationals coming in would have to get a visa through Homeland Security, so there shouldn't be any security holes. And they are the friendliest Arab country to us, and rejecting this deal would needlessly alienate an otherwise allied country and possibly inflame the Muslim world because of racism and isolationism.

He's wrong. Let's grant that 1) the company is funtionally run by Brits, Aussies, and Anglophones, 2) the OAE is a friendly Arab country without direct and/or positive ties to terrorism, 3) the primary reason to oppose the sale is because they are Arab and Muslim, not because of any questions of competence, honesty, whatever, and 4) acting because of #3 will antagonize an already volatile population. I have conceded every one of his arguments. He is still wrong. Very very wrong. And I can sum up why in one word:

Iran.

Where was Iran in 1975? Modern, Western, friendly to America. By 1979 they were slaughtering their ruling class, kidnapping and torturing Americans, and funding, planning, and supporting terrorist networks globally. They have dedicated themselves to eradicating Israel and are pursuing a nuclear program to rain blood upon the West and the Jews and usher in a millineum of 12th imams and sharia law. It was the Islamicists, the sheikhs and imams and mullahs and their followers, who overthrew their own government and have kept their people in a stranglehold for thirty years.

Fast forward to now. Hamas beat out Fatah. Syria controls Lebanon. Egypt and Saudi Arabia both teeter on the edge of civil war. Then there are the civil wars in Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan, Indonesia, and other Muslim countries. Like it or not, the UAE has strong ties to the Saudis, Osama bin Laden, and other terrorist groups. Coups happen. Muslims fight wars with each other to gain power. Even if we grant that the UAE is fine now, how fine will they be in five years? Or one?

Yes, Britain has extremists who blow up buses and children, and Britons safely managed our ports. But Britain is still predominantly our ally and they are decades away from becoming an Islamic state. That doesn't make Britain a bad security threat or mitigate the UAE enough to make it a good one. Would O'Reilly object to Russia handling our ports? Turkey? Mexico? These are our allies, and having them as gatekeepers would be a security disaster. Move on a little -- would he want Germany or France in charge? If France ran New York Harbor, how many Palestinians and/or North Africans could slip in through French channels? As for depending on Homeland Security to keep tight control over the visas -- yes, yes of course they would. Right up to the point that Bush gives amnesty to every willing worker to come here to do the jobs no American wants done. Twelve million illegal Mexican aliens and tweleve Arab hijackers on expired visas are enough of a reasonable doubt for me to want something else done.

Something rotten in the state of Denmark.

And the Phillipines, Thailand, Nigeria, Italy, Syria, and a bunch of other Muslimic nations. (New word. Quote me.) There is a bizarre kind of irony and humor in headlines like "Cartoon Death Toll Rises to Nine"--until you realize that some people actually think it's rational to slaughter people over a cartoon.

Other people have said a lot about this already. To rehash it briefly, there is simply no equivalence between drawing a cartoon and mobbing and killing and raping and burning. Around the globe. For no apparent reason. Seriously -- almost five months after they were published? These people are monsters. They are inhuman. Their offenses are as psychotic as they are. It's like trying to have a rational discussion over enhanced recission authority or local school board elections with a schizophrenic doped up on Prozac and tangled in a straightjacket. You just can't do it. One party isn't only not participating, they can't process the words in the order they're spoken. That's where we are with the Muslim street.

That's where I part company with Jim Geraghty for the moment. "It's good that moderate Muslims in America are expressing themselves through peaceful protest," he wrote in TKS, "but I hope they understand that Islam's reputation isn't being shaped by their lawful actions; it's being shaped by the arson and murder overseas."

Except that this is a pained translation of "peaceful." About like calling Islam a religion of peace. These images (via Michelle Malkin) are not peaceful.




Again -- this doesn't compare to the people spouting off about beheading people who insult the Dear and Glorious Prophet of Peaceful Jihad, a seventh century Martin Luther King. But is this what you would term a peaceful protest? What are they protesting? Why here? Because InstaPundit posted two of the pictures? Because a handful of newspapers put links on their websites? For this Islam must dominate? And, as Michelle Malkin pointed out at the DC pro-jihad rally, these keynote speakers and leaders are supporting bounties on the heads of Danish cartoonists, while spouting off in public venues protected by the Constitutional rights for assembly and, yes, speech. Whaddup?

I am sick of these Muslims. Blowing up double decker buses and subways and airplanes and trains and buildings gets Muslims out in the street -- dancing for joy around burning flags and screaming about hate crimes and vicitmization (of them and their terrorist buddies, not the charred bodies and grieving widows). They come out in the street to kill people and burn churches and businesses and embassies. They offer death threats with state-funded, or at least state-sanctioned, rewards. And a peaceful protest (of what? For the love of my tripartite God -- what were they protesting?) consists of them threatening to "dominate" and to "bring down the wrath of Allah." Lovely. So when has any group of them ever stood up and said that not only is the murdering wrong, but celebrating it is wrong? We can't get them to admit killing people is bad. We're a few yards away from convincing them being happy people got killed is bad, too. And that is true of the culture and the religion. It is true across borders and ethnicities. There is a common thread. Islam is the problem. And I'm sick of it.

Explaining the absence

I started a new major project (tech writing is fun!) in late December, and I've had a couple of smaller projects on the side as well. I went to Connecticut for almost a week (a fun adventure vacation in Hartford -- double fun!) at the beginning of January. And since I've been as good about answering my email as I have about blogging, I've been avoiding the computer with guilt and shame. But I'm sort of back, as much as I ever was. Which was never much to brag about.