Just War: Why Christians Should Not Falter in Support of Israel

By Julian Dunraven, J.D., M.P.A.

Honorable friends:

The Holy See permanent observer to the United Nations has quoted Pope Benedict XVI as saying of the conflict in Gaza “that the military options are no solution and that violence, wherever it comes from and whatever form it takes, must be firmly condemned.” Naturally, I would expect the pontiff to be praying for peace. However, I am surprised that the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would make such a careless comment so wildly out of line with the Church’s teachings. Such slips only encourage the type of behavior I saw this weekend from a few guests at a wedding who, though totally uneducated on the subject, pronounced their condemnation of both Israel and Palestine while piously declaring that war is always wrong. Such statements are as contemptible as they are intellectually lazy, and I grow weary of listening to them.

While Christianity has perhaps lamented that war is always tragic and unfortunate, it has never declared that war is always wrong. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single mainstream Christian Church so foolish as to make such a declaration. Certainly, Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be called wrong by any rational observer. To fully understand how incredibly imbalanced the ethics of this conflict are in favor of Israel, there is no better teacher than Charles Krauthammer in his last two columns, “Excruciating Moral Clarity,” and, “Ending Hamas Rule.”

However, for those of you who, like me, have an assortment of Christian friends who refuse to sanction any war no matter how powerful the justification or how clear the moral reasoning, I suggest you refer them to the Christian Just War Doctrine. Going all the way back to Saint Augustine of Hippo, it predates all the schisms and is a part of every mainstream form of Christianity.

The Just War Doctrine, codified in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, states in §2308 that, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.” Section 2309 goes on to list the conditions under which a just war may be prosecuted:
· the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
· all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
· there must be serious prospects of success;
· the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

Considering what we know of Gaza, despite all international effort over the past several decades, no authority has been successful at persuading the Palestinian militants to desist from launching rockets into Israel. As Mr. Krauthammer points out, rocket fire on the Israeli population has continued unabated even after Israel withdrew all settlers and military, and ceded governmental control to the Palestinian Authority in 2005—effectively doing everything the Palestinians had demanded for an end to hostilities. Negotiations have gone on for decades, yet only Israel attempts to abide by any of the agreements reached. There is nothing more Israel can offer save its own annihilation. Thus, I would say negotiation has proved most ineffective.

Israel does have a good chance of permanently ending this conflict, though, if its assault can topple Hamas’ control and demonstrate that Islamic militants will succeed only in bringing greater hardship down on Palestinian people. The hardship endured by the Palestinian people is indeed unfortunate, but Hamas has deliberately orchestrated that hardship by using its own civilian population and humanitarian centers as shields against Israeli counterstrikes. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) acknowledges that the problem of proportionality is “aggravated if one side deliberately positions military targets in the midst of a civilian population.” Though Israel is doing all it can to minimize civilian casualties, they are inevitable. Nonetheless, after so many decades of failed negotiations, if Israel can succeed in destroying Hamas utterly, the permanent peace to follow will be worth the terrible price.

As the Catechism states in §2304, the peace Israel fights for is “not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is ‘the tranquility of order.’ Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.” According to Pope John Paul II in his World Day of Peace Message of 1982, “Unconditional and effective respect for each one's unprescriptable and inalienable rights is the necessary condition in order that peace may reign in a society.” Currently, only Israel offers such respect—going so far as to offer warnings and aid to enemy noncombatants in its quest for peace. Hamas, on the other hand, is dedicated to the complete destruction of Israel. Unless it is clearly defeated, that ideology of hate will remain as an impenetrable barrier to peace for yet more decades to come.

As the USCCB states, “This is why Christians, even as they strive to resist and prevent every form of warfare, have no hesitation in recalling that, in the name of an elementary requirement of justice, peoples have a right and even a duty to protect their existence and freedom by proportionate means against an unjust aggressor.”

Rather than making foolish statements about how all war is evil, if Christendom truly wants to see an end to conflict in the Middle East, they would do well to bring real pressure to bear on Hamas, Palestine, and their Arab allies to prevent the continual flow of weapons and armaments into Gaza, and to enforce real consequences for mortar attacks beyond occasional dispatching another diplomat for talks while the militants rearm. The USCCB reminds us that a true “Christian has no choice but to defend peace, properly understood, against aggression. This is an inalienable obligation.”

Liveblogging "Why We Want To Kill You"; Update--"Wake Up And Smell The Hummus;" Former MSA Student Removed, Audio Of Event Posted

"Wake up and smell the hummus!"--Walid Shoebat and Kamal Saleem

**Update 2--former Muslim Student Association president removed by police (scroll for video)

**Update--here are some pics from the Walid Shoebat/Kamal Saleem "Why We Want to Kill You" event:


There was a heavy police presence, with CU-Boulder, Boulder PD and Boulder County Sheriffs out in force


Spring was in the air, and were soon to be joined by the local MSM's broadcast signals


Attendees waited their turn to empty their pockets and get the wanding treatment, as security was tight, including metal barricades


Once inside, placed upon every seat was a "formal warning" flier about disturbances, interference, etc.--it was clear that any moonbattery would be dealt with quickly

Audio--Walid Shoebat (48 minutes) and Kamal Saleem (27 minutes)

Recap from the Daily Camera:

Two ex-terrorists who have caused controversy with their criticisms of Islam told a University of Colorado crowd to "Wake up and smell the hummus" Tuesday night.

Walid Shoebat and Kamal Saleem, whose talk was titled "Why We Want to Kill You," spent 90 minutes in the Glenn Miller Ballroom detailing their terrorist experiences and explaining flaws in American terrorist policy.

"I am standing on (America's) wall, crying out, saying, 'Wake up, wake up,'" Saleem said. "We have a saying that goes, 'Wake up and smell the hummus. If you don't, you'll be smelling it for a long time.'"

They say Americans don't understand the resolve of Islamic fundamentalists and that the public should do more to understand the dangerous aspects of the religion.

The speakers have drawn criticism at many of their tour stops in support of Shoebat's book of the same name. They drew a crowd of roughly 1,000 on Tuesday night.

Striking a tone of urgency, both speakers felt it important to remind the audience of the threats faced by America, Israel, and the West.

But of course, much attention in the MSM and at the event centered around the fees involved:

The College Republicans invited the speakers to CU, and $10,000 in student fees was used to pay for the event.

According to Kathleen Patrick, College Republicans chairwoman, roughly $5,000 of that was paid to the speakers, while the rest went to a large security presence and other logistical costs. The speakers said they spent $20,000 to come to CU.

Shoebat challenged his opponents in the audience to prove that he and Saleem were making a huge profit from the event--essentially marketing fear and cashing in on anti-Muslim sentiment (as they had been accused of in media leading up to the event, and during the Q & A).

Neither Shoebat or Saleem made the kind of broad generalizations that opponents have alleged they make about all Muslims, and in fact, repeated several times the distinctions between radical jihadist elements planning operations in the West to the vast majority of Muslims. They did note, however, that Muslim affinities and opinion polls suggested that in some cases more than a majority of Muslims in a given area supported jihad, terrorist organizations, attacks on the West, etc. These factors could not be denied:

Both claim to have been Islamic terrorists in the Middle East and to have converted from radical Islam to Christianity. They said they are not anti-Islam and that criticizing a religion is not racism.

The discussion was mainly civil until the end of the question-and-answer portion. Several shouts of "What is your message?" came from the back of the hall. Shoebat's response was, "What is my message? My message is, 'Shut up.'"

There were no organized protests, and no one was removed from the room.

Shoebat told the crowd that Islam isn't just a religion but a "constitution" and that Muslims are told to "fight all nations until they all say they are Muslims." He also told a story in which a Muslim man was killed as a suicide bomber and his family held a celebration.

Saleem also criticized moderate Muslims in the United States. He said he wants to see those Muslims "wearing the American flag." But he also said several times that not all Muslims are terrorists.

"Don't go outside and hate Muslims," he said. "Know who's who, and that some are here for propaganda, and some are not."

Note the bolded section--no organized protests or removals. Au contraire--though the students did not have any coordinated efforts, it was clear that the student opposition was intentionally positioned throughout the venue, and offered clear support to the few who managed to ask questions of the speakers. Not to mention the self-proclaimed former Muslim Student Association president who was escorted from the ballroom, and just so happened to be sitting next to yours truly:



Thankfully, both speakers noted that although the university setting should, in theory, provide an open venue for the exchange of ideas, it was in fact these exact places that offered the most in the way of preconceived opposition and a clear disregard for alternative opinions or even an opening of debate:

The speakers' tour hasn't been confined to college campuses, but they criticized the American university structure. Shoebat said, according to statistics he didn't specifically cite, that for every seven leftist professors on campuses, there is one "for America, you know, 'God bless America.'"

Shoebat asked if it was worth risking his life to educate others about the dangers of Islam. His answer was, "Yes, but I'm not so sure on university campuses."

Even the 7-to-1 ratio sounds a bit low. Especially for CU-Boulder.

More at 9NEWS (video), who sat with Shoebat and Saleem for an interview, and have a brief glimpse of one of the hecklers from the Muslim Student Association accusing the speakers of fostering Islamophobia by attacking "one fifth of the world's population."

---

Liveblogging from the BlackBerry--should any "spontaneous" moonbattery
break out.

Got the camera with video ready to catch it all, despite a bright pink
flier on every seat warning that any "interference" will not be
tolerated, violators will be suspended or expelled (students) and
subject to prosecution (everyone).

Geesh!

Walid Shoebat Interview; CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper Rails Against CU Boulder Appearance

"What part of ‘kill’ do you Americans not understand?” he says, adding that sharia “is not a set of religious laws for the sole purpose of spiritual raising, raising people spiritually. No, no, no. It is a set of constitutional laws, and that’s the problem"--Walid Shoebat

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, reached via phone in Washington, D.C., called Shoebat the a darling of the “extreme wing of the pro-Israel lobby” and said Shoebat’s observations appear designed to do nothing more than whip up the post-9/11 hysteria that Muslims are only out to destroy Americans and Jews



We've been tracking the upcoming Walid Shoebat lecture "Why We Want to Kill You"--and the Boulder Weekly now has a featured interview with the ex-jihadist:

And on April 29, likely amid tightened security, Shoebat will speak to the University of Colorado on the invitation of the campus’ College Republicans. He expects to touch on the topic of his book, Why We Want to Kill You: The Jihadist Mindset and How to Defeat it.
. . .
Asked if in his mind Muslims have any redeemable qualities, he says, “I think the Muslims are redeemable, but Islam as a principle is not.” He points to Islamic sharia law and says it is used as a justification to kill outsiders.

“What part of ‘kill’ do you Americans not understand?” he says, adding that sharia “is not a set of religious laws for the sole purpose of spiritual raising, raising people spiritually. No, no, no. It is a set of constitutional laws, and that’s the problem.”

Look at the fawning reception CAIR receives in the following description:

Such statements explain why the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the nation’s largest Islamic civil liberties group, chided the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs for having Shoebat and other self-described “former terrorists” speak at a prestigious conference earlier this year meant to provide recommendations on “dismantling terrorism” to Congress and the military/intelligence community.

CAIR, which seeks to further America’s understanding of roughly seven million Muslims and battle “Islamophobia,” issued statements to the press and school claiming that Shoebat and his associates had made “bigoted and inaccurate” statements in the past. CAIR cited several examples, including Shoebat’s claims to Missouri’s Springfield News-Leader newspaper a year ago that there are “many parallels between the Antichrist and Islam.”

“Islam is not the religion of God — Islam is the devil,” Shoebat told the paper.

CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper, reached via phone in Washington, D.C., called Shoebat the a darling of the “extreme wing of the pro-Israel lobby” and said Shoebat’s observations appear designed to do nothing more than whip up the post-9/11 hysteria that Muslims are only out to destroy Americans and Jews.
. . .
Shoebat’s invitations to lecture at universities disappoint Hooper.

“It’s disturbing that he’s invited to credible events held by credible groups,” Hooper says.

How magnanimous--the event and the hosting group, the College Republicans--are "credible" in the view of CAIR.

Second look at CAIR? Oh, nevermind.

Now for the "cost" of the event, something that is never discussed when Leftist moonbats are invited to campus:

And bringing Shoebat to CU is costly — roughly $30,000. Shoebat says the expenses are largely security-driven because he has weathered past threats for expressing his views, at times fearing for his life.

Some colleges have struggled with Shoebat’s appearances, including Columbia University, which prior to a recent Shoebat lecture revoked at the last minute many of the invitations sent out by the school’s campus Republicans, citing safety concerns.

CU is aware Shoebat’s visit could spark controversy and is ready to address the accompanying security issues, says Bronson Hilliard, university spokesman.

“There are always security concerns for these kinds of visits,” he acknowledges.
. . .
Hilliard added CU’s College Republicans are bringing in Shoebat and CU’s administration is extremely hesitant to play “Big Brother” or “micromanage” student events, except in rare cases where a speaker could pose a high threat to public safety.

There are always safety concerns because the moonbat opposition groups hate any speech that they disagree with--and show up to protest and disrupt the events. A look back at how Columbia "uninvited" guests to Shoebat's lecture two years ago.

While there is no confirmed oppositional strategies, one can be assured the event won't go smoothly:

Jack Anthony Roldan, vice chairman of the College Republicans, has yet to hear any rumblings of a protest. The group, he says, wants to highlight the issue of terrorism.

“We felt this would be a unique opportunity for students and community members to hear from two individuals who not only know terror organizations well, but were also a part of them and, at one point, our adversaries,” Roldan explains. “With the events of Sept. 11, the Madrid bombings, the nightclub bombings in Bali and the London bombings, it is evident this threat is growing and it is important for all of us to understand the roots of terrorism and what we can do to ensure our quality of life sustains.”

The event will also include another “former terrorist,” Kamel Saleem. The university’s cultural events board is providing about $10,000. The Walid Shoebat Foundation, according to Roldan, will provide the remaining amount.

CU Diversity Thugs Oppose Ex-Terrorist Speakers At "Why We Want To Kill You"

Last week we brought you news of an upcoming CU College Republicans event--"Why We Want To Kill You"--Ex-Terrorists Walid Shoebat And Kamel Saleem At CU-Boulder.

CU's resident "diversity groups" are now peddling the line that the speakers "will spread hateful, anti-Islamic messages":

Two self-labeled terrorists-turned-peace activists will speak next week on the University of Colorado campus -- and some students, in anticipation of the visit, say they fear the paid guests will spread hateful, anti-Islamic messages.

The Cultural Events Board, which doles out money to student groups to pay for speakers, granted the College Republicans' request to fund the controversial, $10,000 campus talk: "Why We Want to Kill You."

Walid Shoebat and Kamal Saleem — former Islamic terrorists who are popular guests in the college-speaking circuit and on conservative talk shows — will speak at 7 p.m. April 29 in the Glenn Miller Ballroom on CU’s campus.

The speakers say they will “share their personal experiences and stress the dangers that the Western world faces today, as Islamic Fundamentalism grows with fervor around the globe.”

Shoebat said college campuses are fertile recruiting grounds for the radical Islamic movement.

In advance of the meeting, an e-mail circulated Monday among CU student-diversity groups and the Muslim Student Association urging students to research the speakers and expose them, saying Shoebat is a “hateful liar” and classifying the event as “completely anti-Islam.”

Is this just frustration at the lack of attention with other events at CU this week, as well as a desire to shut down down any speech that might offend or offer a critique of Islam?

The Muslim Student Association this week is hosting an Islamic Awareness Week, with student panels and other events.

Shoebat said his speaking engagements are often met with hecklers and demonstrators, but he said college students are getting a one-sided view on the war on terror and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Criticizing a religion is not racism,” he said in a telephone interview Monday. “Critiquing a religion is a form of speech. If people cannot critique religion in this country, then we are beginning to see a downfall.”

Will there be protests? Of course!

Kelly Brewer El-Yacoubi, a member of CU’s Muslim Student Association, said the group doesn’t have a planned protest but encourages students to research the speakers.

“MSA is not a political organization in nature, as compared to other student groups, and we believe in a message of peace,” she said. “We have positive events. We play offense rather than defense.”

She said she realizes that some campus events are meant to provoke students.

“We really value the equality of people, and if there’s a racist event, we would never support it,” she said.

Repeat after me, Islam is not a race.

Whenever moonbat speakers are invited to CU, it is praised as promoting "diversity" and bringing "alternative viewpoints" to the campus. If conservatives/Republicans bring out a speaker, then it is time to review the funding process!

CU students pay about $20 a year to two organizations — the Cultural Events Board and Distinguished Speakers Board — that bring in speakers. Together, that amounts to less than 3 percent of the annual, mandatory $670 student-activity fee package.

Bronson Hilliard, spokesman for CU, said the administration does not “micro-manage the speakers list that comes forward from our student groups.”

A review this school year, conducted by CU’s Internal Audit Office at the regents’ request and agreed upon by student leaders, found that the way the student union funds its guest speakers is in line with university rules, and the paid guests represent a diversity of viewpoints. But there were no records for unfunded events, and auditors recommended the student leaders strengthen their compliance by documenting denied proposals.

In the past ten years at CU, conservative groups including the CUGOP have brought out speakers like Charlton Heston and Ann Coulter. The innumerable moonbats, often flying below the radar of visibility (or credibility, for that matter) have included Howard Dean and Angela Davis.

But it is the speaker fees for conservative groups that not only call into question the speaker funding process, but also boldly proclaim the amount ($10,000) that the forced speaker tax has provided for this event alone. A quick scan of the remaining speakers invited by the intellectual whizzes at the Cultural Events Board will not only reveal an ideological imbalance of immense proportions, but also the lack of judgment on the part of the student legislators and the failure of CEB itself for not recruiting quality speakers to promote "alternative viewpoints" at CU.

"Why We Want To Kill You"--Ex-Terrorists Walid Shoebat And Kamel Saleem At CU-Boulder

Just when I thought my former organization (I was a CRs chair in 2000 at CU-Boulder) had fallen off the radar, they send me this (Walid Shoebat archives via LGF):



I hope to snag have a ticket, courtesy of CU College Republicans, and will report on any protests.

If you live around Denver/Boulder, shoot them an email for a ticket, and mention you heard about the event from LGF, via Slapstick Politics.

Conference On World Affairs: Monday Recap; Fmr. US Ambassador To Pakistan--Muslims' Dislike Of United States Is Our Fault

Both the Rocky Mountain News and the Boulder Daily Camera sent out some intrepid reporters to "blog" the day's events, no doubt inoculated against boredom with copious amounts of caffeine in order to withstand the intellectual onslaught that is the annual CU-Boulder "think fest." The CWA is offering live webcasts from two of the venues, featuring some of the key panels and topics (these feeds will resume tomorrow morning).

No bombshells were revealed today, but blame, however, made an early appearance.

From today's keynote speech--U.S.-Mideast Relations: The Cost of a Damaged Dialogue (or, how it is all really our fault that Islamic jihadists hate us):

Wendy J. Chamberlin, president of the Middle East Institute, is not focusing on the Israel-Palestinian conflict or the war in Iraq in her speech today.

Instead, she is speaking on a broader but no less challenging subject: understanding how mainstream Muslims perceive the United States.

She began by using polls and statistics to paint a picture for the audience of the mainstream Muslim community, which, according to her, admires our civil freedoms, education and entrepreneurship.

On the other hand, Chamberlin said that Muslims hold a strikingly low opinion of the United States, with only 10 percent saying the United States is a trustworthy ally.

The second half of Chamberlin's speech attempted to explain the contradiction, asking why the majority of Muslims share our values but don't like us.

"The explanations are in our actions and foreign policy," Chamberlin said.

She pointed to several contributing factors in damaging the dialogue between the US and the Middle East including:

— The high presence of U.S. troops on Muslim soil

— The treatment of Muslims at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo

— Racial profiling in the U.S. after 9/11

— A foreign policy that does not accept democratically elected leaders who hold certain views

— Rhetoric such as the "War on Terror" and "You're either with us, or against us"

— A media that focuses on the violent, extremist minority

Of course, this explains nothing--especially since most of these factors, even taken at their most negative--occurred after 9/11.

So what made them hate us before? And why does asking questions about the violence of Islam result in threats of violence from Islam?

Kind of disappointing from the former U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, but not surprising given the venue.

Geert Wilders' "Fitna" Released

Hot Air has the video.

Michelle Malkin has a roundup, and a list of other blogs supporting Wilders' film.

Mohammad Cartoon Reprint

Michelle Malkin reminds us on the second anniversary of the Mohammad cartoon outrage that a handful of jihadists have been arrested following their plot to assassinate Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist who drew this rendition of the big Mo:



SP joined dozens of other bloggers in reprinting the dreaded cartoons of blasphemy, and here is some of our coverage of those events two years ago:
Furor Over Cartoons Not Funny
There Is No South Park In Islam. . .

Diana DeGette Refuses To Recognize Christmas, Christian Faith Citing "Separation Of Church And State" Concerns

More moonbattery from "my" representative, Democrat Diana DeGette:

One Republican House lawmaker is taking offense at nine Democrats for what he said should have been a no-brainer: recognizing the importance of Christians and Christmas.

In the end, the House on Tuesday supported Rep. Steve King's resolution to recognize "the Christian faith as one of the great religions of the world" and acknowledge "the international religious and historical importance of Christmas and the Christian faith."

But King, of Iowa, is upset that not everyone voted for his bill two weeks before an estimated 225 million Americans celebrate the Christian holiday even though the vote by usual standards would be a solid margin. The measure passed by a 372-9 vote, with 10 recording a neutral "present" vote and 40 members not voting.

"The naysayers didn't make it to the floor to debate. I would like to know how they could vote 'yes' on Islam, 'yes' on the Indian religions and 'no' on Christianity. The foundation of this nation and this culture is Christian. ... I think there's an assault on Christianity in America," King said in a release Wednesday.

Speaking with FOX News Wednesday, King said he was motivated to push the resolution because of liberal activists and "secularists in the country who are trying to eradicate Christ from Christmas."

"It's time we stood up and said so and said to the rest of America, 'Be who you are, and be confident, and let's worship Christ and celebrate Christmas for the right reasons'," he said.

King said he was upset with the nine lawmakers — all Democrats — who voted against his resolution even they did not vote against two earlier measures, one supporting Islam and the holy month of Ramadan, and the other supporting a number of Indian religions..

Those in King's crosshairs are Reps. Gary Ackerman and Yvette Clarke of New York; Diana DeGette of Colorado; Alcee Hastings of Florida; Jim McDermott of Washington; Bobby Scott of Virginia; and Barbara Lee, Pete Stark, and Lynn Woolsey of California.

All voted "yes" on both measures with the exception of Hastings and Lee. Hastings supported the Ramadan measure but did not vote on the Indian religion measure. Lee was the reverse: she supported the Indian religion measure, but did not vote on the Ramadan measure.

DeGette's chief of staff, Lisa Cohen, told FOXNews.com that she had not heard King's comments until she spoke with a reporter, but DeGette previously has opposed similar bills on Christianity because she "has concerns about separation of church and state." Other lawmakers' offices did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

Does DeGette really believe that by affirming a resolution such as this that she is somehow establishing Christianity as the state religion? I'm sure the raging Christianists in liberal Denver will riot in the streets over this offensive dismissal of their religion. Oh wait, they won't. But nice to see DeGette buy into the conspiratorial "Christians are trying to subvert the Constitution by establishing it as the state religion" moonbattery.

Out And About

Taking his gloves off once again to confront Islam's nasty illiberalism, Pope Benedict XVI called Muslims to task (h/t Weasel Zippers):

Yesterday, near Rome, the 80-year-old pontiff made a speech in "defence of religious liberty", which, he said "is a fundamental, irrepressible, inalienable and inviolable right".

In a clear reference to Islam, he said: "The exercise of this freedom also includes the right to change religion, which should be guaranteed not only legally, but also in daily practice."

Addressing the problem of Islamic extremism, he added: "Terrorism is a serious problem whose perpetrators often claim to act in God's name and harbour an inexcusable contempt for human life."

---

Roger Fraley runs the numbers and asks, "My only question is how, given these frightening histories, can any thinking person be on the left?"

---

$2 million Columbine Memorial opens 8 1/2 years after massacre

Rocky Mountain Jihadis?

Courtesy of Gates of Vienna, via Michelle Malkin (click image for link)

Or just skittish videographers?

Three suspicious incidents in downtown Denver this summer have triggered a notice to law enforcement officials stating someone in the area may be conducting surveillance activity.

According to an internal document obtained by the Rocky Mountain News today, a man was seen about 6:30 p.m. on July 11, standing on Tremont Street between 16th and 17th streets.

He was outside one of the buildings there, videotaping the security desk through a window. The man, described as "believed to be of Middle Eastern descent," then walked to 16th and Tremont, where he filmed more of the outside of the building.

When a security guard tried to approach the man, he "started running down 16th Street and was lost in the crowd," according to the bulletin.

As of yet, investigators have not determined any motive for the man’s actions, and it is not certain how significant the incident is, said Lance Clem, a spokesman for the Colorado Information Analysis Center, a branch of the state’s Homeland Security Agency.

Similar reports arise on average about once a month, he said.

"It’s not unusual — put it that way," he said.

The same man was alleged to have mumbled some Arabic, including the phrase "Al-Aqsa".

Until more information is available (if ever), this seems to be insignificant, BUT we should not let our guard down, thinking a city like Denver would be too remote for potential terrorist activity--did anyone consider the possibility that an unarmed man with mental issues would enter the state capitol just a few weeks ago, declaring himself emperor and forcing law enforcement to shoot him, thus necessitating that Governor Ritter and the state legislators would have to reconsider capitol security? Didn't think so.

So what should we do?

Clem confirmed the contents of the bulletin, but refused to comment on any details. He did say reports to the CIAC may vary in severity, some spotty like this bulletin, but all are treated the same.

"We don’t always know why some people do things like this (suspicious surveillance of buildings)," he said. "But whenever we get reports, they’re taken seriously and they’re handled seriously.

"We don’t want to discourage people from filing reports. Anytime they see anything that’s out of place, they should let us know."

Vigilance does not equal vigilantism. But just don't let CAIR know about you, John or Jane Doe.

In The News--With Some Chinablogging

"I am both Muslim and Christian"--right, and I'm Santa Claus!

Separatist graduations proliferate at UCLA--disunity in diversity.

Chinese gold farmers--so that's why I couldn't get a seat in a Chinese internet café!

Hong Kong dissidents, autonomy, and China's mainland--murky ambiguity.