2005 Dhimwit of the Month Honors

Dhim·wit (dïm-wît) - A non-Muslim member of a free society that abets the stated cause of Islamic domination with remarkable gullibility and creativity.  A dhimwit is always quick to extend sympathy to the very enemy that would take away his or her own freedom (or life) if given the opportunity.

December 2005 Dhimwit: Steven Spielberg

During the most recent "Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" at the United Nations, Kofi Annan rose with the other attendees to observe a moment of silence in honor of the Palestinian suicide bombers who have caused so much death and destruction on innocent Israeli civilians.  At the same time, the organization was actively refusing to condemn the deadly bombing at an Israeli shopping mall that occurred just days earlier.

Though it's hard to believe, the UN was originally intended to function at the highest level of international objectivity when created in its modern form after World War II.  One of its first major acts, in fact, was to partition the Middle East and form the State of Israel in an arrangement that was fair to both Jews and Arabs. Israel remains one of only two countries in the world to be legally created.  Her citizens continue to court international favor by exhibiting the highest measure of restraint when attacked, limiting their military response as much as possible to enemy combatants - the leaders of terror.

By contrast, the enemies of Israel show not the slightest respect for human rights, as they manage to maximize civilian suffering with an array of cafe, disco, hotel and shopping mall bombings in spite of the monumental security efforts of Israelis to protect themselves.  Palestinians have even resorted to shooting very young children to death in their beds without a hint of remorse or trace of humanity.

How is it that the international community overlooks this barbarity and entertains the delusion that Israel (a country that could destroy its enemies in an hour if it adopted their tactics) is worthy of condemnation, while mass-murdering Muslims are guilty, at worst, of moral equivalence?

The explanation is complicated, of course, and involves the time-tested formula through which enemies of the West achieve their goals in the modern age by adopting language that appeals to the moral sensibilities of those too gullible to recognize that these same schemers have not the slightest obligation toward such principles themselves, either in past history, present action or future design.  But they are aided and abetted by the efforts of others who work behind the lines.  Some, such as CAIR, take on their 5th column duties with a sort of shamelessness that belies their own amazement at being able to get away with what they do.  Others operate under a misguided sense of broad-mindedness, not realizing that they are ultimately undermining the very principles they are assumed to be upholding.  They use democracy to destroy democracy, or employ the vocabulary of human rights to defeat human rights.

Enter Steven Spielberg and his "Munich," a new movie that is specifically intended to turn attention away from the cold-blooded murder of thirteen Israelis at the 1972 Olympics and squarely onto their own country's response.  Not surprisingly, the movie is CAIR-approved.

Quite frankly, a Hollywood movie that criticizes Jews who kill Muslims who kill Jews could only be made by either a Muslim or a Jew.  As we've pointed out, Muslims are curiously exempt from charges of racism or anti-Semitism, even when they condone or carry out the worst acts of homicidal bigotry against innocent Israeli citizens.  A Jew, by definition, is immune from being labeled an anti-Semite, regardless of how self-loathing the behavior appears.  Hollywood apparently reserves its highest standards of moral petulance for openly Christian projects like Mel Gibson's "Passion."

Spielberg is certainly not anti-Jewish, as his support of the Shoah Holocaust archives attests.  In his movie, "Private Ryan," he actually exaggerates the Jewish presence at Normandy and uses over-the-top casting to dramatize a contrast between bespectacled Jewish intellectuals and thick-necked German brutes.  He makes no attempt in "Munich" to imply that the Israeli athletes deserved their fate as individuals, but he severely manipulates the historical record in order to condemn the country they represent.

A popular misconception is that a movie billing itself as a "docudrama" is supposed to present fact, but Spielberg only presents fiction with the disclaimer that it is "inspired by real events."  "Munich" is based on a 1984 book that was written from the perspective of a single source and was almost immediately discredited by both Palestinian and Israeli insiders shortly after being published.  It is used as a foundation for the film merely because it provides the preferred conclusion that the Spielberg's audience is meant to reach.

Spielberg wants people to believe that the "Wrath of God" operation, approved by Prime Minister Golda Meir to hunt down the terrorists responsible for the Munich slaughter, was at least as bad - and perhaps worse than - the actual mass murder of innocent Israelis.  Toward accomplishing this goal, he employs what we'll refer to as the "Singapore Strategy."

Many people remember the well-known case of Michael Fay, the 18-year-old American arrested and caned in 1994 by Singaporean authorities for vandalizing cars.  The authorities did something rather clever at the time to spoil public outrage even as the punishment was administered.  They announced that Fay "took [the beating] like a man" and "shook hands" with the person who caned him afterwards.  Whether this was true or not, painting this noble picture of Fay brilliantly reduced the likelihood that he would perpetuate the controversy by whining about his treatment, as it would tarnish the image.

Spielberg anticipated outrage from the Jewish community over his framing the response to the terror attack in morally equivalent terms with the actual killing of the athletes.  One heavy-handed way that he sought to neutralize it was by casting the son of one of the victims in the role of his father, thus giving the film an air of legitimacy.  But a more subtle tactic of blunting criticism was to appeal both to the ego and dignity of the Mossad agents tasked with the operation and the larger Jewish community in general.

In the movie, the Mossad characters become angst-ridden with their assignment.  They go beyond feeling guilty over the loss of innocents in the operation (which in real life was both minimal and unintended) and actually begin to empathize with the terrorists they are hunting.  The director naturally tries to make the Palestinians sympathetic characters, who kill Jews not out of any social conditioning or Qur'anic imperative, but simply because they want a homeland.  The real emphasis, however, is on the sensitivity and moral sensibilities of the Jewish agents, who are such decent human beings that they begin to hate themselves for taking human life "in vengeance."  Ironically enough, a movie that tries to blur the distinction between peoples ultimately shouts, "We're Jews. We're better than that!"

Many of those who participated in the "wrath of God" operation are still around to dispute Spielberg's interpretation, and fortunately most don't mind speaking out about their pride of involvement in what they firmly believe to have been a righteous cause.  Though Spielberg blatantly distorts the way they are portrayed in his film (the character of one, for example, eventually refuses to live in Israel out of conscience - while his real-life counterpart is actually quite happy and proud to make his home there!) it doesn't mean that the former agents are less noble than their fictional counterparts.

The reason for this is that Spielberg entirely misses the point of the Israeli response to Munich. It wasn't about vengeance. It was about justice.

After being captured and imprisoned by the authorities, all of the Munich terrorists were released only weeks later as the German government capitulated to a hijacking demand by Palestinian terrorists.  They received safe haven in a series of Muslim countries, which made no effort to try them for their crimes and instead treated them as heroes.

What choice did the Israelis have?

Steven Spielberg is one of the wealthiest and most privileged men in the world.  He grew up in comfortable circumstances and has never known tragedy. In short, he is well insulated from the realities of life that most of us have to deal with.  He's able to wine and dine with Fidel Castro, who imprisons and executes political dissidents, and call it the "eight most important hours of my life."

It's easy for him to tell others to be all-forgiving because this magnanimous advice, while granting him the esteem of Hollywood peers and like-minded elitists, costs him absolutely nothing.

"What is the point of killing a terrorist when another is there to take his place?" muse the characters in "Munich."  Maybe because there'll be one terrorist instead of two, perhaps?  Why not substitute the word 'terrorist' with 'Nazi' and see how that sounds?   The logic is no different. Either we confront evil in the world or pretend that it will just go away if ignored or appeased.  Those of us who can't afford personal security guards the way that Spielberg can (and does) depend on our government to protect and defend us from enemies foreign and domestic.

Although "Munich" wasn't intended to excuse the actions of terrorists, or the countries that harbor them, it does exactly that by reducing the Israelis to the level of terrorists in the minds of the audience.  It would have been more courageous (and constructive) to confront the erroneous reasoning that lies behind the unceasing effort to wipe Israel off the face of the globe and boldly challenge Muslim countries (and the PA) to extradite terrorists.  As it is, Spielberg merely lends credibility to their position, thus fueling the bigotry against Israel and perpetuating the violence.

With Jews like Spielberg creating films that dismay supporters of Israel while delighting her enemies, is it any wonder that the UN shamelessly honors terrorists and shuns their victims?

(For a balanced account of Black September and the Israeli response, we recommend One Day in September : The Full Story of the 1972 Munich Olympics Massacre and the Israeli Revenge Operation "Wrath of God")

November 2005 Dhimwit: Ramsey Clark

The name is familiar to occasional news-watchers, but few Americans really remember who this Dhimwit used to be, or is today - and for good reason.

Though Clark was once the U.S. Attorney General under Lyndon Johnson, it would be cruel and unusual to punish Democrats by identifying him as one of their own.  As a non-partisan site, TROP has no problem acknowledging that Clark is disowned by the mainstream of both parties.

The pampered son of a Supreme Court Justice, Clark found himself as head of the Justice Department by a bigger fluke than Jesse Ventura's election to Minnesota governor.  Johnson appointed him for the sole reason of forcing a vacancy on the Supreme Court (his father had to resign under a conflict of interest) and Clark served less than two years in the position.

Though undistinguished as an Attorney General, Clark has been riding the coattails of his former position to attract attention to anti-American causes ever since.  In the last thirty-five years Clark has defended:

• David Koresh - Cult leader and pedophile.
• Leonard Peltier - Killer of two very young FBI agents.
• Charles Taylor - Brutal African warlord.
• Radovan Karadzic - Serbian war criminal.
• Slobodan Milosevic - Serbian war criminal.
• Elizaphan Ntakirutimana - Leader in the Rwandan genocide.

Ramsey Clark went so far as to attend an anti-American conference in Tehran, even as American hostages were being held there by the Iranians.  He defended the PLO against the family of Leon Klinghoffer, the wheelchair-bound elderly man that was thrown overboard by Jihadis in the Achille Lauro cruise ship attack.  He also defended the mastermind behind the first World Trade Center bombing.

Now Clark has joined the defense team of Saddam Hussein, a man responsible for the mass murder of somewhere between 300,000 and one million of his own people.  This is an example of what happens when anti-Americans go wild.  They find themselves in bed with monsters simply because of a shared animosity toward the United States.

What would the world look like if such Dhimwits get their way?

October 2005 Dhimwit: Charles, Prince of Wales

Only weeks after the September 11th attacks, as Ground Zero crews were sifting through the rubble and bagging body parts, Prince Charles addressed a delegation of senior Muslims in London and expressed his concern that the United States might not have an appreciation for Islam, given its "confrontational" rhetoric (following the fresh mass murder of 3,000 citizens in the name of that religion).  Such timely statements clearly illustrate the contrast between the royals past and present.

During World War II the prince's grandmother, the late Queen Mum, insisted on sharing the fate of the British people by refusing to leave London as it was under extended bombardment from the Luftwaffe.  If Charles had been around at the time, he no doubt would have criticized her "confrontational" stance and advocated greater appreciation for German Nationalism.

Of course, no one in modern times has done more to demean the institution of British royalty and bring its relevancy into question more than Prince Charles himself, with well-known antics that will not be discussed here, except to say that the greatest accomplishment of most of his predecessors - the successful wearing of clothes - may not have applied quite as strictly to him in all circumstances.

His status as a Dhimwit, however, was handily confirmed when he made a 1993 promise to alter his royal title upon assuming the throne to the "Defender of [all] Faiths," rather than a defender of the mere Christianity to which Europe owes its heritage of achievement.  (By the way, when this presumptuous act of appeasement does occur, don't expect to see any such reciprocation in the Muslim world, where Dhimwits are certainly relished, but never emulated).

Prince Charles is currently making headlines as he travels to the United States to "plead" the "cause" of Islam to the President and lecture Americans over their supposed "lack of tolerance" and "unthinkable prejudice" against the religion.  Apparently the prince is a great admirer of the Prophet's legacy, although it isn't clear how well he understands it.  Despite having visited several Islamic countries as of late, including last month's trip to Iran (where the president has called for the obliteration of Israel) it does not appear that the prince makes any similar appeal for Muslims to become more tolerant of its own victims.

Now, surely the prince is not speaking of the America we know, where Muslims are quite at liberty to practice their faith free from harassment, particularly as compared to the plight of religious minorities in Islamic countries.  He could not mean the nation whose leaders responded to the cold-blooded hate crime on 9/11 with calls for acceptance, as well as a ridiculous insistence that "Islam is a Religion of Peace."  Isn't this the America whose citizens rightly declined to burn down mosques or take the lives of Muslim-Americans in retaliation for the horrific barbarism of Islamic terrorists?

Short of establishing Sharia, wrapping her women in veils, and strenuously advocating the destruction of Jews, there aren't many more "acts of tolerance" that pluralistic America can take to make Muslims feel more at home.  Yet, the U.S. is accused of having a tolerance problem - rather than Muslims overseas, who celebrated the 9/11 attacks and continue to exhibit remarkable indifference to the thousands of other murders that have occurred in the name of their religion since.

Beheadings, throat-slittings, suicide bombings…?  Nothing is said to rise to the level of the "unthinkable prejudice" that is supposed to be taking place on American shores.

Of course, the prince provides no specifics. Nothing similar, say, to the mountain of evidence that we at TROP offer to support our claim of Islamic intolerance - page after page of verifiable and deadly terror attacks with date, location and description.  Such standards of proof apparently don't apply to the enemies of the West, who never miss an opportunity to hold one side of the "confrontation" to impossible ideals while overlooking the horrible atrocities of the other.

Perhaps on his visit, the notorious CAIR will provide the prince with its lackluster list of vandalism, slur, Qur'an dropping, fish dumping, and finger-raising to make him feel as if he isn't completely talking out of his royal throne cushion, but how will all of these put together compare to a single one of the many thousands of innocents who are brutally slaughtered each year by Allah's "holy warriors"?  How will it compare to the four hijackings on September 11th, the beltway sniper shootings, or even to the L.A. airport murders?

When did the rhetoric of victims, even if it is confrontational, somehow become more appalling than the very deadly actions of terrorists?  What sort of world is Charles living in?

Apparently one that is very well-insulated, according to friends of TROP from the Isle, one of whom wryly notes that a man who has a servant to put toothpaste on his brush is not exactly someone who's opinion begs to be taken seriously.

We would suggest that the prince take his pleas for asymmetrical acceptance back home to the mangled victims of the 7/7 bombers or the family members of murdered commuters.  These are the kafirs who are most at risk of losing the prince's self-defeating vision of blind tolerance, as they suffer the natural consequences of their country overrun by the likes of Omar Bakri Mohammed and his homicidal virgin-seekers.  Go and convince them that failing to appreciate Islam is somehow worse than accommodating those openly advocating their destruction.
 

September 2005 Dhimwit: George Galloway

British government workers hauling the trash down to the curb.

"Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability."

So spoke British Member of Parliament George Galloway to Saddam Hussein in the months leading up to the Iraq war.  Galloway was not alone in his support for Hussein’s efforts to avoid compliance with inspections agreements, but he is the face of the international movement that is more responsible for the war than anyone else on the planet.

Saddam Hussein never intended to wind up in a spider hole or on trial facing a death sentence.  It was the George Galloways of the world who gave him the confidence to thumb his nose at international law and violate the inspection agreements that he had signed.  Had these demagogues used their influence to demand Saddam’s compliance, rather than obsess in anti-American bigotry, the war would not have happened.

Even after the dictator was toppled, Galloway and others have done their best to keep the misery alive.  In 2003 he personally challenged the Arab world to fight the Americans.  "Iraq is fighting for all the Arabs. Where are the Arab armies?" he asked.

Even in his recent debate with Christopher Hitchens, Galloway legitimizes the barbaric terrorist campaign against the people and government of Iraq as a “liberation struggle.”  He did not say what sort of plans the “liberators” have in mind for Iraq if they are successful, nor did his audience seem to care, as enamored as they were with his pulpit theatrics, in which he rocks back in forth while spitting out words staccato-like in a thick Scottish accent.

He has also done his best to weaken the democratically-elected government of Iraq by calling it a “puppet regime.”  His support for Iraqi leadership is apparently limited to genocidal Sunni dictatorship.

Of course, the elected government of Iraq is not paying him to moralize on their behalf as Saddam Hussein once was with bribes from the oil-for-food program.  Throw a little money in Galloway’s direction and he may start to encourage the democratic and rebuilding process as enthusiastically as he once lent support to the regime responsible for mass graves and chemical weapons casualties.

Doing one’s best to see that Iraq endures an extended terror campaign or slides into civil war is not necessarily what qualifies Galloway as a Dhimwit this month, however.  Rather, it is a recent incident in which the arrogant little man confronted author Salmon Rushdie at a debate in Edinburgh.

Rushdie’s life has been threatened for many years by an Islamic fatwa issued over his book, “The Satanic Verses,” which is unflattering of the Muslim faith.  His Iranian translator was killed in 1992.  Should this popular work of fiction be adapted to a screenplay?

Galloway’s answer was that TV executives would have consequences to deal with if they did.  “You have to be aware that if you do [offend people’s beliefs] you will get blowback,” he announced.  “If you don’t respect [Islam], you will have to suffer the consequences.”

This is the mind of a future dhimmi at work.  Rather than condemn Islamic intimidation of free expression and thought, Galloway instead requires us to do our best to understand and appease the violence by suppressing our own critical ideas and language.

With Dhimwits like this, can the death of the West be far behind?

August 2005 Dhimwit: Cindy Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan is the woman whose son was killed in Iraq, and now stands outside the President’s ranch claiming that he won’t see her.  A great deal of sympathy has been extended to her for her loss.  If this weren’t the case, then we would feel compelled to offer her at least that, even though it is far more than she allows the Israeli victims of terror or the victims of Saddam Hussein, whom she coldly disregards because they “aren’t American.” 

Her son was a hero, whose death was a loss for the nation.  He volunteered not only for Iraq, but for the very battle that took his life.  From what we know about him, it’s probably fair to say that he is done a disservice by his mother’s fervent exploitation for the causes of anti-Semitism and the abandonment of the Iraqi people (personal ambitions that long predate her son’s sacrifice).

When Cindy Sheehan first appeared on the scene, she neglected to tell the people around her that she had already met with the President and described him afterwards as a sincere man who felt her pain and wanted freedom for the Iraqis.  By the time the full truth came out, Sheehan’s profile in the media and eye of the public was too high for those in the anti-war movement to gracefully retract her.

These activists (who recently blamed a Texas fire ant outbreak on Karl Rove) may be getting good mileage out of the occupational griever, but behind the nervous smiles is the fading hope that her status as the mother of a dead soldier can insulate her indefinitely from criticism for stated opinions that border on lunacy.  Although everyone knows that she lost her son, few realize that she has refused to pay taxes until she “gets him back.”  She also believes that Osama Bin Laden was made the scapegoat for 9/11, when America and Israel were really to blame; and she has said that George Bush is “the greatest terrorist on the planet” (which is hardly an effective means of continuing her dialogue with the President – if that were truly her goal).

We don’t have much pity for Cindy Sheehan anymore because her egocentric crusade encourages the insurgency, prolongs the conflict, and ensures that more Americans will lose loved ones.  If her movement is ultimately successful and America abandons Iraq to the forces of terror, then far more people will lose their lives and the world will become a much more dangerous place.

What earns her a seat of honor in the Dhimwits Hall of Fame, however, is a speech in which she reveals her secret weapon for domestic defense (presumably after the rest of the planet has fallen to totalitarianism and we have our backs against the wall):

"If we’re attacked, we would all go out. We’d all take whatever we had. I’d take my rolling pin and I’d beat the attackers over the head with it.”

Waiting to join the fight until it’s much too late is the hallmark of a future dhimmi, although at least the stupidity isn’t genetic.

Get yourself fitted for the hijab, Cindy, because that rolling pin won’t mean much to a Jihadi suicide bomber.

July 2005 Dhimwit: Peter Jennings

Regrettably, the longtime ABC News anchor passed away this month before he could see the dream of Islamic domination become reality, but he is certainly remembered for having done his best for the cause.

During the 1972 Munich Olympics, Jennings managed to avoid using the term "terrorist" when reporting on the cold-blooded killers of Israeli athletes, a position that he held throughout the rest of his career.  His bias against Israel and the U.S. was legendary.

When Islamic terrorists committed yet another cold-blooded hate crime by murdering 3,000 innocent Americans, Jennings gave Osama Bin Laden a platform to speak to Americans through a "special guest" named Tariq Hamdi (who coyly explained that the solution to the violence was for Americans to learn more about Islam).

He prevented ABC from calling Hamas a terror organization, even after the group killed Americans.  He also kept the network from covering pro-troop rallies, while providing pessimists and fringe groups ample coverage with little qualification.

The legacy of Peter Jennings is seen in ABC's recent broadcast of an interview with the mastermind behind the slaughter of hundreds of innocent children in Beslan, at a time when the TV networks refuse to accept advertising from anti-terror organizations.

Rest in peace, Peter - just like the thousands of innocents killed by those whose cause you never failed to justify, including the murdered athletes who did not live to see even a third of your years.

June 2005 Dhimwit: Senator Dick Durbin

One really wonders what goes through the head of a United States Senator when he compares American guards at Guantanamo Bay to "Nazis" and likens the prison itself (where inmates are fed better food than U.S. soldiers) to a "concentration camp."

Does he not understand that people will die because of this unbalanced anti-American screed?  Does he not see that it merely causes his country's enemies to think that their depraved acts of violence are justified? 

What would cause an otherwise normal person to lose such moral perspective.  Why would he disparage those serving their country in battle with terrorists who have not the slightest concern for the welfare of captives?

In choosing to reserve criticism not for the Islamists that torture and behead their abductees, but rather for those trying to stop them, we can only guess that Dick Durbin is trying to make a name for himself .  Let's hope he succeeds.

Current Year Dhimwits
Dhimwits for 2009
Dhimwits for 2008
Dhimwits for 2007
Dhimwits for 2006

Go back to the List of Islamic Terrorist Attacks

TOP