CUANAS Will Be Going Dark For A Few DaysIn a fit of pique, I ordered my DSL connection terminated the other day, because it was becoming more and more unstable, thus I was offline more hours everyday.
I have yet to have had time to shop for an alternate connection, thus CUANAS will be down for an undetermined amount of time. Hopefully, just a few days.
In the meantime, I recommend going through my blogroll. Here are some sites that have really been on a roll lately:
Little Green FootballsGates of ViennaThe AnchoressMystery AchievementNo PasaranSee ya soon,
Pastorius
Book Meme (Again)Someguy from Mystery Achievement tagged me with a new book meme. Yes, yes, I know, I just did one a month ago, but it was so fun I'm doing it again. Honestly, I almost feel like making this a regular feature on CUANAS. It's fun to talk about books.
1. Total Number of books I've owned: I don't know, really. Somewhere between 2000-3000. I'm probably in possession of approximately 1,500 of those currently. When I was about 21 years old, I got this odd idea in my head that I had had enough of books, and I began taking boxfuls of books to a local used book store and selling them. That was among the stupidest things I have ever done. Thank God I came to my senses before I sold them all.
2. Last book I bought: Lincoln's Virtues, by William Lee Miller. This is an interesting type of book. It is subtitled "An Ethical Biography." Basically, the book goes through Lincoln's life in chronological order and notes all the ethical issues he faced, and the decisions he made in the face of those issues. The book takes great pains to make clear the definition of words like "Prudence" (as a "Cardinal Virtue" - I would imagine Someguy being Catholic might be able to explain the significance of that term), Responsibility, and Realism, and to explain that Lincoln's vocation was politics and not moralism.
The most interesting passage I have read so far, was the one I read right before my eyelids finally collapsed in a heap atop my still roving eyes. Just preceding this passage, Miller discusses the Free-Soil Party and their take-no-prisoners version of politics. The Free-Soilers were a one-issue dominated third party (anti-slavery) who had no chance of winning, and would only serve to throw the election to the more pro-slavery Democrats. Lincoln stood against them in the interest of realism, and Prudence. In this passage, Miler compares and contrasts the unrealistic moral absolutism of the Free-Soilers with the realism of Lincoln's political approach:
That essay of Weber's (referring to Max Weber's Politics as a Vocation) would seem to disparage an ethic of unconditional and peremptory absolutes and enodorse exclusively an ethic of calculating responsibility. Beu then at the end of his essay, perhaps to the surprise of the reader, he describes the "immensely moving" occasion when the two ethics come together, and a mature man - no matter whether old or you in years - following an ethic of responsibility somewhere reaches the point where he says (as Weber's hearers would know, a quotation from Martin Luther): "Here I stand; I can do no other."
Lincoln, at his core a surpassingly dutiful man, would certainly come to such occasions. This book from one angle may be seen as the story of Lincoln's coming to that point. Weber's provision that the occasion involve a mature person, and that it represent not the overcoming of one by the other but the combining of those two kinds of ethics, suggests what is surely true in Loncoln's case: that the occasion on which he said his version of "Here I stand; I can do no other" were rare, profound, truly the end of all calculating, deeply personal, still not detatched from effects in the real world, and not undertaken for a self-indulgent display of rectitude."
I found this passage both inspiring and convicting. Why? Because CUANAS, while it does have it's mission, is ultimately just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. I have no power to effect any change in the Islamic world, nor in the world of European politics, nor in the American Academy. Having no power, I do not risk losing anything by shooting off my mouth, and criticizing individuals and institutions for their anti-Semitism.
Lincoln however, chose to be a politician, so that he could effect political change. As a politician, he had to shore up power, which meant forging alliances and coming to agreements with individuals and institutions. This always means compromise, a thing I am loathe to do.
Often, we who do not tolerate compromise think that we are "pure" and that we are brave in our moral stand. However, if one does not have power to lose, then what bravery has one displayed by taking a moral stand. The only bravery I display in writing CUANAS is the bravery of expending the precious time alotted to me on such an endeavor. That is as much my families decision as it is mine.
This description of the political Lincoln coming to the point where he says, "Here I stand; I can do no other" is the description of a person who has gained his power on compromises, saying "to hell with the power, no longer will I compromise with you."
Now that is a brave moral decision.
And we see how both Lincoln and America paid for it. A real moral choice for the good does not reward the individual or the institution with a heavenly bounty. Instead it leads to a legion of ugly particulars which need to be fought for in the real world.
I think this is the totality of Christ's message. Certainly, Christ said to himself when eating the last supper, "Here I stand; I can do no other." And in His insistence to us through the Gospels that true Goodness does not lie in the Law, but in seeing the needs of the "least of these" and responding with a sacrifice that meets those needs.
Ok, I guess I should get back to the book meme, huh?
I also recently bought (and am slowly reading)
The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, The Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy, by Peter Huber. That's a provocative title, isn't it? This book will turn your understanding of the politics and economics of energy, on it's head.
3. Last Book I Read:
Roosevel, Champion of Freedom, by Conrad Black. Well, I admit I didn't read the whole thing. I "savored" it, as Someguy so eloquently puts it. But, I did read the parts which were of particular interest, and of particular use, to me.
Uh, I guess I should also mention that I am currently in downtime (having every intention of rebooting) on
Eurabia by Bat Ye'or. It's a book I must read the whole way through, but I think all of us can agree the woman is truly a crappy writer. Very, very difficult.
4. Five Books That Mean A Lot To Me:
1)
The Bible - this goes without saying. However, I'll try to be a little more specific. The book of Romans is one of my favorites, not only because of what it has to say about the relationship of the Church to the Jews, but also because of passages like this:
15For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!"
16The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God,
17and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope
21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.
23And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons,the redemption of our body.
24For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?
2) Thus Spake Zarathustra/Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzche - This is two books, but I'm not going to list them separately because they are of a piece. The philosophy layed out in these two books is the philosophy of raw power. This is the philosophy of theft and murder, raping and pillaging, malevolence and marauding. Such behavior comes naturally to those who do not allow themselves to be guided by moral priniciples. I will be teaching my children these books as they grow older. Because they will need to understand the way the world works.
3) The Book of Common Prayer 1928 Edition - The Morning Prayer opens with the verse, "The Lord is in His holy temple, let all the earth keep silence before him." (I remember sitting in front of a beautiful Catholic Church, just up the hill from Union Square in san Francisco, and watching the sun come up, hearing the birds break out into their alleluias, the whole city waking into a human symphony of wails and groaning. And behind it silence. The Silence of God and all of creation in contemplation. It's there. We're blessed when we can find it.
4)
The Tao Te Ching, the only other scripture that I have ever read which seems to have a kind of divinity to it. (I'd love to hear Christians criticize that statement.) Here's the opening passage:
"The dao (tao) produced the one. The one produced the two. The two produced the three, and the three produced the ten thousand things"Sounds familiar.
5) The Garden of Eden, by Ernest Hemingway. I have tried in this book meme to talk about different books than I did a month ago. However, I will mention this one again, because I think it needs to be considered. In my opinion, it is among his greatest, and is certainly the most distinct. James Mellow wrote a biography of Hemingway called, A Life Without Consequences. To Mellow it seemed that Hemingway was somehow able to live suspended above the physical and emotional impairment of which we mere mortals are victims. In The Garden of Eden, Hemingway pulls back the veil which hid all his doubts and anxieties from the world. He performs an absolutely brutal deconstruction of his own myth.
5. People I will infect with this meme: My fellow CUANAS brother,
Publius. Papijoe at
Marlowe's Shade. Jack, at
Jack of Clubs. Graham, at
Graham Lester's blog. TVD at
Philosodude. I'd also love to know what Baron at
Gates of Vienna is reading, and, oh yes, how could I forget; what about
Screaming Memes?
American Mosques Say Kill Converts, Beat and Rob Homosexuals, Hate The Filthy JewsA Little Green Footballs RoundupFirst off,
10,000 people have run for their very lives to get out of Yala, Thailan (dubbed the "City of Peace" by the UN):
Yala — Fear for their safety has pushed more than 10,000 people out of Yala, the southern city recognised as a “city of peace” last year by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco).
In March last year 77,000 people lived in the municipality. But the latest census reveals the city’s population has dropped by 12,000 to only 65,000.
Pongsak Yingchoncharoen, mayor of the Yala municipality, said people have lost confidence in the safety of their lives and property after the arms robbery at a military camp in Narathiwat’s Cho Airong district on Jan 4 last year. Next up, it seems Democratic Congressman, John Conyers thinks it's time for the United States to take it's first steps towards
Sharia Law:
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives condemning bigotry and religious intolerance, and recognizing that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect.
Whereas believers of all religions, including the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, should be treated with respect and dignity;
Whereas the word Islam comes from the Arabic root word meaning “peace” and “submission”;
Whereas there are an estimated 7,000,000 Muslims in America, from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds, forming an integral part of the social fabric of America;
Whereas the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality; Whereas it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form;
Whereas mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity;
Whereas the infringement of an individual’s right to freedom of religion violates the Constitution and laws of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;
(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;
(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and
(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.
No, sorry Mr. Conyers. We Americans are not falling for it. We love Freedom of Speech. In America, freedom means never having to say you're sorry for submerging a crucifix in a glass of urine, taking a picture of it, and featuring it at your opening at the Museum of Contermporary Art.
The Atlantic Monthly featured a small article recently, about
the radical brand of Saudi-funded Wahabbi Islam which is "widespread" in Mosques in the United States:
Saudi Arabia has long been generous to Muslims in America. Not only does the House of Saud supply funding to build mosques in the United States, but it provides a wealth of religious literature to stock those mosques’ libraries and study halls. What does that literature say? Representatives from the human-rights organization Freedom House spent a year sampling Saudi-supplied literature at mosques in major American cities, and encountered a variety of troubling texts.
Among other things, Muslims are urged to avoid befriending Jews and Christians; to treat their time in the United States as they would a trip behind enemy lines; to revile Sufism, Shia, and other non-Wahhabi variants of Islam; to rob and inflict violence on Muslims who engage in homosexual acts; and to kill Muslims who convert to other faiths.
The usual anti-Semitic slurs are recycled (The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for instance, is treated as a historical document in Saudi-donated textbooks), and many of the publications urge that women be required to wear veils and banned from various jobs. The report allows that most of these documents were supplied in the 1980s and 1990s, and that the government of Saudi Arabia claims to be “updating” its books and study materials. But the researchers add that the titles in question remain “widespread and plentiful” in the United States, and continue to be used in the education of Muslims here.
Think about that; literature spread in houses of worship says to "kill" Muslims who leave the faith, to beat and rob homosexuals, and to hate the Jews because they are plotting to take over the world.
What kind of religion is this that we have allowed to grow and fester under our noses?
If such literature were found in a Christian church - a single Christian church - can you imagine the uproar?
Freedom Is The First PrincipleSome Thoughts On the Exporting Of DemocracyFrom
Marlowe's Shade:
Spengler had a very interesting response to in his letters section to a reader who proposed that the greatest threat to Islam may come from a burgeoning Christian population south of the Sahara. Spengler agreed: Prof Philip Jenkins of Pennsylvania State University predicts an "historical turning point" in Christianity, "one that is as epochal for the Christian world as the original Reformation". In the October 2002 edition of The Atlantic Monthly, he wrote,
"In the global South (the areas that we often think of primarily as the Third World) huge and growing Christian populations - currently 480 million in Latin America, 360 million in Africa, and 313 million in Asia, compared with 260 million in North America - now make up what the Catholic scholar Walbert Buhlmann has called the Third Church, a form of Christianity as distinct as Protestantism or Orthodoxy, and one that is likely to become dominant in the faith." (Click here for the article.) This may look like a "Third Church" to Catholic eyes, but what I perceive is the proliferation of Anglo-Saxon, that is, American, Christianity, albeit in the patchwork raiment of local peoples. Growth of church membership in the southern hemisphere concentrates in denominations of American or British origin.
Observes Prof Jenkins, "it is Pentecostals who stand in the vanguard of the Southern Counter-Reformation. Though Pentecostalism emerged as a movement only at the start of the twentieth century, chiefly in North America, Pentecostals today are at least 400 million strong, and heavily concentrated in the global South. By 2040 or so there could be as many as a billion, at which point Pentecostal Christians alone will far outnumber the world's Buddhists and will enjoy rough numerical parity with the world's Hindus."
He concludes with this fascinating point about the "kernel" of democracy:
The secularists who dominate American foreign policy seem to think that they can export the shell of the American system, namely its constitutional forms, without its religious kernel. It seems that the peoples of the South know better. It is no stranger that America's hold over the world's imagination should find religious expression first and political expression later, than that radical Protestants should have founded America in the first place.
The new Christians of the South will surprise us for ill as well as good. Such matters of the spirit lie beyond anyone's capacity to predict and well may have huge strategic impact, as you observe.
Spengler likes this idea so much he continues the thought in a related letter:
That America's roots are Hebrew rather than Greek is widely argued. See for example the Catholic writer Michael Novak's On Two Wings (San Francisco 2002):
"The way the story of the United States has been told for the past 100 years is wrong. It has cut off one of the two wings by which the American eagle flies, her compact with the God of the Jews - the God of Israel championed by the nation's first Protestants - the God who prefers the humble and weak things of the world, the small tribe of Israel being one of them; who brings down the mighty and lifts up the poor; and who has done so all through history, and will do so till the end of time."
His book contains many an interesting anecdote, although from an American vantage point, therefore, even the crack addict is important in the sight of God (although I believe a crack addict once convicted of a serious offense may lose the right to vote in American elections).
Democracy does not work unless the people truly believe that the individual is sovereign - not the people, I hasten to add. Since the odious J J Rousseau, we have had enough varieties of the "fuehrer principle" to choke on, in which an absolute leader embodies the spirit of the nation, disdaining the vulgarities of democracy in which candidates must persuade even crack addicts. One cannot be a little bit pregnant. Either the individual as a living image of God has such rights as pertain to his station, or not.
If democracy comes to the peoples of the southern hemisphere it will come as a consequence of the evangelizing described above ...not as a set of transitional measures by the political scientists of the Pentagon.
I don't wholly agree with the ideas presented here by Spengler. Spengler seems to be saying that Democracy can only grow in Africa
after Christianity has grown there. Nuh uh, don't agree. Nope, non, nein.
However, I must say, we do need to give careful consideration to the fact that modern Democracy sprang from a society (the first modern Democracy being America) founded on the ideas of the Christian Reformation, melded with a deep understanding of the Hebraic roots of Christ's teachings.
The unique idea of the Christian Reformation is that every individuals has direct access to God, through prayer. No intermediary is needed in the form of a Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, or Pope. It is a very small step from such a notion to the idea that government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.
But, getting back to my disagreement with Spengler, how would he account for Japanese Democracy? Or Indian Democracy? Or the free market Democracies that Hong Kong and Taiwan have enjoyed?
The desire for freedom truly does beat in the hearts of all men. That's the answer. It isn't a "Christian" desire. However, in my opinion, it is a desire put there by the same God who Created us, and sent Christ to Earth to teach us how to love.
And part of freedom is that people need to be able to choose to ignore Christ, to ignore Christianity, and to ignore the Word of God. And no matter how much people ignore God, they still want to be free, and deserve to be free.
I think we need to understand that that's the way God planned it. He wants us to be free to choose for better or worse, richer or poorer, good or evil. So, freedom is the first principle. It comes before everything else. Nothing should get in it's way.
You Will Know Them By Their FruitsThe International Institute for Strategic Studies is hardly a champion of United States policy. But, in this new report they find they have to admit that some of what we do is actually working.From
Little Green Footballs:
LONDON (AFP) - Washington’s policies of promoting democracy in Iraq and elsewhere look “increasingly effective”, and even the threat from terrorism abated slightly during 2004, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said in an annual report.
The London-based think-tank noted however that the situation in Iraq was also creating a recruitment effect for terrorist groups, an aspect which remained “the proverbial elephant in the living room” of US foreign policy.
The report said that the improvement in the overall strategic climate was helped by factors such as the death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, but it added that US President George W. Bush’s foreign policies also seemed to be bearing fruit.
“Even though the Bush policy was bold, controversial and sometimes divisive, his aggressive global agenda of promoting freedom, and democracy appeared increasingly effective,” the IISS said in its 384-page “Strategic Survey 2004-05”.
Counter-terrorism efforts over the period had also seen an overall net gain, the report argued, despite the seemingly “counterproductive” aspects of some of the United States’s self-declared “war on terror”.
Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes.
Taking The Sword From The Thief And Pointing It At His HeartI love it when Christians pick up an idea from secular philosophy, like a victim stealing a sword from a thief, and turning it on him. The secular world is left standing there going, "Wait, you guys can't do that. You're Christians.
Oh, but we can.
Watch here as Ashley Woodiwiss borrows an idea from Deconstructionism (the idea being that we all play a part in determining the narrative of any given text) and decides that we Christians have the right to "Re-narrate" reality without the word secular.
Ah hah, my good man. Touche'.
From
Christianity Today:
As the popular radical philosopher Slavoj Zizek routinely points out to his audiences, in our age of ordained transgressions, there is nothing quite so radical as what G.K. Chesterton called the "thrilling romance of orthodoxy." Thus in our besotted age, orthodoxy becomes for Zizek (the fighting atheist) as for Chesterton (the traditionalist Catholic), "the most dark and daring of all transgressions." We ought not to be surprised then, that at the dawn of the 21st century a movement dubbed Radical Orthodoxy (RO) has emerged at the cutting-edge of theology and postmodern philosophy.After a thorough and searching interrogation of RO by means of his own Kuyperian Reformed tradition, Smith concludes: "Radical Orthodoxy should push us to reconsider our faith and practice in a post-secular world." At its heart, RO might be understood as a massive theological project to re-narrate reality.Its target is the modern notion of the "secular" as an autonomous realm of thought, word, and deed. So the founding text of RO, John Milbank's Theology & Social Theory (Blackwell, 1990), begins like a fairy tale: "Once there was no 'secular.' … The secular as a domain had to be instituted or imagined, both in its theory and in its practice."The totalizing nature of this constructed reality leads adherents of RO into just about all realms of inquiry in a sustained effort at critique. RO interventions can be found in academic disciplines such as politics, economics, linguistics, poetics, history, social and cultural theory, and even the natural sciences. (Pastorius note: Kind of reminds you of Feminist Theory, huh? Christians taking everything and redefining it in our own terms. Uh, and yes, by the way, I am laughing my ass off as I post this.)Not surprisingly, criticism of RO has arisen at each juncture, surfacing from both religious and secular sources. While religious critics often go after RO theorists on theological, denominational, or biblical grounds, more secular critics find the movement, in Smith's words, either "too Christian, too confessional, or too dogmatic."But RO theologians remain undaunted and continue to produce their theologically inspired, postmodern informed re-narrations of economics (Daniel Bell and Stephen Long), culture (Graham Ward), politics (William Cavanaugh), and theology/philosophy (Milbank and Catherine Pickstock). The literature of the movement is often dense, abstract, complex, impenetrable, out-of-reach, and off-putting. (Pastorius note: Once again, taking the gun and pointing it right back at 'em.)And yet as Smith and other critics note, what RO seeks to accomplish is hugely important not only for Christian academics but also (if it can be translated into more common parlance) for the life of the church, especially in the West. For what RO is after is nothing short of what Milbank describes as "an alternative version of modernity." In the RO version, modernity, that historical moment that witnesses the rise of liberal democracy and capitalism must be seen as a pure project of power whereby the church and its account of reality has been forcibly ejected from its earlier and necessary public space whereby it forms the soul according to the truth and beauty of God. As such the modern state has arisen as a device of and for liberal absolutism. Its message is individual human liberty, and it brooks no counter-version to its story.In terms similar to those found in certain postmodern philosophers, from whom they borrow without completely buying, RO theorists and theologians (re-) describe the modern state not as "tolerant," "pluralistic," or "free" in the standard sense of those terms, but rather like Hobbes in Leviathan when he describes the state's sovereign power as that "mortal God." For them, the state has become the actual replacement for the church, replete with its own liturgies, vestments, rites, practices, saints, holy days, and disciplines. Rather than fitting us for heaven, the state and its multiple apparati (media, education, professions, etc.) form us for service and allegiance to the state and its needs. At one time, Christian subjects fought and died, they believed (perhaps mistakenly), for the sake of Jesus; now Christian citizens fight and die for the American way of life. Some would say that this is in fact just what the state (carefully regulated and watched) should be about; and that a certain amount of material or cultural excess is well worth the price for a secured personal and religious liberty. After all, soul-crafting as the hobby of states leads almost inevitably to internal oppression and external war. But the concern for RO theologians extends beyond a critique of the modern state and its operations; it extends to why we as Christians must recognize what modernity (with its liberal state and free market) is really up to. So in the words of William Cavanaugh (the most accessible RO theologian):The invention of religion as a private leisure activity allows people to fit into the state and market without conflict, … Private religion is meant as a refuge, a solace for tired shoppers and harried office workers. Religion helps us escape from or cope with, but not change, the frenetic pace of life in consumer society.What Smith from his Reformed tradition, and RO theologians from their more Anglo-Catholic perspectives, seek is to re-direct Christian loyalties and re-form Christian affections away from the state (unlimited power) and market (unbounded desire), and bend them back towards the church which exists in the world, through God's Spirit, as the singular exemplary human community.And that would make orthodoxy radical indeed.What it comes down to is, we Christians will not allow everyone else to define the world for us, just as non-Christians, understandably, will not allow Christians to define the world for them.
Defining reality is the essence of Free Speech after all.
Like I said, Touche'. This ought to be a fun joust.
Al Jazeera Confirms ItAmerican War Plans Are WorkingAl Qaeda's Chief in Iraq, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi is reportedly dying from a gunshot wound suffered in Operation Matador. But, that didn't stop Al Jazeera from running footage of an old interview with him recently. From
Front Page Magazine:
Yesterday, as part of a special background profile, Al-Jazeera aired the first known video footage of Al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi. The following are excerpts from the profile. To view the clip, visit here.Reporter: "Perhaps no man has experienced the paradox of living in the dark while all the world's spotlights are focused on him as much as the mysterious Jordanian, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi. "This makes him somewhat similar to Osama Bin Laden and the rest of the Al-Qaeda leaders. He differs from them in that he has refrained from sending televised messages, especially in the past two years, in which his star shone as the most brutal leader of the armed militants fighting the Americans in Iraq. "Before that, only a few people had heard the name Al-Zarqawi or knew what he looked like. But when he began to be pursued as America's most wanted man in Iraq, this myth gave rise to attempts to describe him as a symbol of the struggle by some, and a horrifying nightmare by others, while questions regarding his personality and goals still arouse much controversy."
Voice of Al-Zarqawi: "With Allah's help, we raid them as they raid us, and attack them as they attack us."
Reporter: "Al-Zarqawi, whose real name is Ahmad Fadil Nazzal Al-Khalayla, was born in 1966 in the Jordanian city of Zarqa, to a family from the Bani Hasan tribe. He spent his childhood in a poor and crowded environment, and in his teens, he became what they call a neighborhood bully. He soon turned to religion and began to frequent mosques, where he made friends with members in Islamic groups calling for Jihad.
"In the late 1980's, Al-Zarqawi joined the so-called 'Jihad against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.' There he met a man named Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdissi, and after returning to Jordan, the two formed what came to be known as the 'Al-Tawhid' group. Its members were arrested by Jordanian security forces in 1994, and were tried in the State Security court.
"Al-Zarqawi's five years in jail shaped his personality more and more. The court later sentenced to death in absentia after convicting him of planning the assassination of the American diplomat Thomas Foley [sic. The diplomat's real name was Laurence Foley] in Amman. His personality led him to Iraq, where he engaged in bloody incursions with both the Americans and the Iraqi security forces.
"This enabled him to reach an agreement with Osama Bin Laden. The two united, and Bin Laden appointed Al-Zarqawi 'Emir' of the so-called 'Qaedat Al-Jihad in the Land of the Two Rivers (Iraq).'"In case you missed it, that's Al Jazeera confirming that the Americans war plans are working. Take the fight to Arab turf, and the terrorists will come from all corners of Dar al-Islam (Land of Islam) to meet us in battle. Official confirmation: Al Qaeda is in Iraq, with Bin Laden's blessing.
For those of you keeping score at home, that means we're fighting them
there in Iraq,
rather than them fighting against us here in the U.S.
Woman Outside U.S. Embassy In Jakarta, Indonesia
Anti-Semitism In The Global VillageYes, that's right, in Indonesia, where they've never even seen a Jew, still they hate the Jews.
A-freakin'-mazing, huh?
Oh, what a world, what a world.
Anyway, I guess such insanity leads to
this kind of insanity (via LGF):
JAKARTA (Reuters) - The death toll from two explosions that ripped through a crowded market place in eastern Indonesia on Saturday rose to 19, El Shinta radio reported.
“Based on data provided by the Central Sulawesi police, so far 19 people have died,” El Shinta, Indonesia’s top news radio station, reported.
To the Jew first, and then the Gentile.
King Fahd Is Dead?Long Live The KingConsidering the surreal circus that developed around the death of Arafat (where for several weeks after his apparent date of death, we were treated to alternating reports that he was dead, or not dead, or improving, or even iceskating. Ok, I made that last one up, but still...) it could be that King Fahd is already beneath the sod. From
Associated Press:
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) - King Fahd, whose efforts to strengthen ties between Saudi Arabia - the world's largest oil exporter - and the United States provoked the wrath of Islamic militants, was hospitalized Friday, apparently suffering from pneumonia.
Fahd's half brother, Crown Prince Abdullah, has been Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler since Fahd suffered a debilitating stroke in 1995. Abdullah is expected to become king should Fahd die.
Fahd's hospitalization triggered reports that an emergency had been declared in the kingdom.
Officials said on condition of anonymity that an alert had been declared and that military leaves had been canceled or at least discouraged. However, this was firmly denied by the Interior Ministry.
"This is absolutely not true," ministry spokesman Mansour al-Turki said. "There's no canceling of leaves and no state of emergency or anything."
The official Saudi Press Agency said that Fahd, who is believed to be 82, was admitted to King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh for unspecified medical tests.
But reports of Fahd's deteriorating health had been blamed for sending the Saudi stock market tumbling 5 percent earlier in the week. Friday's news that he was taken to a hospital helped push crude oil futures to near $52 a barrel ahead of the U.S. Memorial Day holiday weekend, the start of the American summer driving season.
Saudi Arabia's strategic importance as the holder of the world's largest oil reserves and the fact that it is home to Islam's two holiest shrines means even a stable succession could impact world markets and have widespread political fallout.
"We ask God to keep and protect the Custodian of the Two Holy Shrines, grant him health and well-being," said the royal office statement announcing the hospitalization, carried by the Saudi Press Agency.
During his rule, Fahd brought the kingdom closer to the United States. His most significant action was a step that enraged many Islamic extremists - allowing the basing of U.S. troops on Saudi soil after the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Bin Laden, the al-Qaida leader, cited the U.S. troops' presence as a main provocation for launching the Sept. 11 attacks as well as a wave of violence inside the kingdom.
The U.S. military withdrew all its combat forces from Saudi Arabia in 2003 after major combat operations in Iraq were declared over. But a small military contingent stayed behind in a training and advisory role to Saudi armed forces.
The United States and Saudi Arabia have been talking in recent months about organizing joint training exercises for U.S. and Saudi ground combat forces on Saudi territory.
During his rule, Fahd tried to balance overtures toward the West with concessions to hard-liners, hoping to boost his Islamic credentials.
Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your EnemiesFrom
Little Green Footballs:
Tehran, 27 May (AKI) - Hojatolislam Gholam Reza Hasani, a representative of Iran’s supreme spiritual leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, in Iranian Azerbaijan, has no doubts as to who to vote for in the next presidential elections on 17 June. “You need to vote for Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani,” said Hasani. “This way we will finally be able to have for ourselves the atomic bomb to fairly stand up to Israeli weapons,” said Hasani.
“Freedom, democracy and stupidities of this type cannot be carried over to any part, and these concepts are out of sync with the principles of Islam,” said Hasani, the imam who led Friday prayers in the main city of western Iranian Azerbaijian.
“Islam always spoke with the sword in the hand and I don’t see why now we have changed attitudes and talk with the other civilisations.”
You just gotta love your enemies, when they tell the truth. Thanks, Hojatolislam Gholam Reza Hasani. Now, we know where you stand.
Wow, and you work for Iran's Supreme Spiritual Leader? You can't get much more representative of Iranian thought than that.
The Correct Unified Comprehension Of IslamFrom
The Weekly Standard:
ON MAY 14, 2005, PAX-TV's Faith Under Fire broadcast a debate that I took part in against Mahdi Bray, the executive director of the Muslim American Society's (MAS) Freedom Foundation. Bray had selected the debate topic in advance, and chose to argue about "The United States of Islam?"--that is, whether American Muslims wanted to see Islamic law (sharia) implemented in the United States. While I unwaveringly agreed that most American Muslims don't want to see the United States ruled by Islamic law, I nonetheless jumped at the chance to debate this topic against Bray. After all, the Chicago Tribune recently published a story detailing how the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood operates in the United States as none other than MAS. So while most American Muslims don't want to see the United States governed by sharia, Bray's organization does. And while researching for the debate, I found that MAS--except in its most public of statements--is quite open about its agenda and allegiances. Even a brief review of various MAS chapters' websites provides a revealing look at what the national organization is teaching its members.
THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD is an international Islamist group that largely operates underground and behind the scenes, with branches in about 70 countries. The Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna, an Egyptian schoolteacher who--in the wake of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and abolition of the caliphate--bemoaned the sickness of the Ummah, or larger Muslim community.
The Brotherhood's response to this perceived sickness was to emphasize doctrinally that Islam encompasses all the affairs of man. As al-Banna wrote, "Islam is faith and worship, a country and a citizenship, a religion and a state. It is spirituality and hard work. It is a Qur'an and a sword." The group also emphasizes that Islam is a universal faith. As al-Banna put it, Islam "has encompassed all aspects of human life, for all peoples and nations, and for all times and ages."
Because the Brotherhood views Islam as all-encompassing and universal, one of its highest goals is to spread Islamic law. The Chicago Tribune explains that the controversial "ultimate goal" of the U.S. Brotherhood is "to create Muslim states overseas and, they hope, someday in America as well."
Brotherhood members did emphasize to the Tribune that they operate within the laws of the countries where they live:
They stress that they do not believe in overthrowing the U.S. government, but rather that they want as many people as possible to convert to Islam so that one day--perhaps generations from now--a majority of Americans will support a society governed by Islamic law.
Despite these pronouncements, the Muslim Brotherhood has not always been known for non-violence. The "Qur'an and a sword" outlook trumpeted by al-Banna is, for example, evident in the organization's militant motto: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." Consistent with this motto, Muslim Brotherhood members have been involved in such episodes as the assassination of Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmud Fahmi Nokrashi and the attempted assassination of Gamal Abdel Nasser.
One of the Muslim Brotherhood's most violent theoreticians was Sayyid Qutb, whose ideas heavily influenced Osama bin Laden's current conception of jihad. The 9/11 Commission Report explains Qutb's writings:
Three basic themes emerge from Qutb's writings.
First, he claimed that the world was beset with barbarism, licentiousness, and unbelief (a condition he called jihiliyya, the religious term for the period of ignorance prior to the revelations given to the Prophet Mohammed). Qutb argued that humans can choose only between Islam and jihiliyya.
Second, he warned that more people, including Muslims, were attracted to jihiliyya and its material comforts than to his view of Islam; jihiliyya could therefore triumph over Islam.
Third, no middle ground exists in what Qutb conceived as a struggle between God and Satan. All Muslims--as he defined them--therefore must take up arms in this fight. Any Muslim who rejects his ideas is just one more nonbeliever worthy of destruction.
While MAS leaders admit that their organization was founded by the Muslim Brotherhood, they claim that the two are now completely distinct. For example, MAS official Shaker Elsayed told the Chicago Tribune, "Ikhwan [Brotherhood] members founded MAS, but MAS went way beyond that point of conception." The fact that a MAS spokesman such as Bray feels comfortable publicly arguing that MAS does not want to see an Islamic state in America demonstrates the strength of its public disavowal of the Muslim Brotherhood.
On Faith Under Fire I stated that, consonant with the Muslim Brotherhood's agenda, MAS has made clear that it would like to see our constitutional order replaced with rule according to the Koran and Sunnah. In response, Bray stated definitively, "I would be very happy if we could just maintain the constitutional principles that we have in the United States."
He went on to say that, for the past two years, the MAS Freedom Foundation has been training Muslims about the Constitution and showing them how to "take full benefit of those beautiful things called the Bill of Rights." In fact, he accused me of taking words from MAS's websites out of context, and claimed that MAS's true agenda was "to support . . . the U.S. Constitution and to defend the Constitution against enemies both domestic and foreign."
Let us examine what MAS stands for today--with reference only to its own material that is readily available on the internet--and determine who was taking MAS's agenda out of context.
MAS's outlook is best reflected in its curriculum. While any Muslim can join MAS by paying $10 a month in dues, the group has various gradations of membership. MAS's highest membership class is "active" membership. To attain active member status, a Muslim must complete five years of community service and education. The website for MAS Minnesota outlines the objectives of MAS's active member program. These objectives include:
(1) Continue building the correct unified comprehension of Islam as outlined in the Message of the Teachings by Imam Al-Banna. . . .
(9) Make the member fulfill his duties as outlined in the Message of the Teachings by Imam Al-Banna.
Even a cursory review of The Message of the Teachings indicates that al-Banna's "unified comprehension of Islam" falls short of a call to defend the Constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic. In that book, al-Banna tells his fellow Muslims that they must work toward "[r]eforming the government so that it may become a truly Islamic government, performing as a servant to the nation in the interest of the people.
By Islamic government I mean a government whose officers are Muslims who perform the obligatory duties of Islam, who do not make public their disobedience, and who enforce the rules and teachings of Islam."
Moreover, al-Banna implores his followers to "[c]ompletely boycott non-Islamic courts and judicial systems. Also, dissociate yourself from organisations, newspapers, committees, schools, and institutions which oppose your Islamic ideology."
Al-Banna flatly states in The Message of the Teachings that violence is an acceptable means for spreading Islamic ideology: "Always intend to go for Jihad and desire martyrdom. Prepare for it as much as you can."
Nor is al-Banna's work the only one in MAS's curriculum to advocate the promotion of Islam through violence. MAS's adjunct members are required to read Syed Qutb's Milestones. Among other things, Milestones contains Qutb's exposition on "Jihad in the Cause of God," which is a refutation of those who claim that jihad encompasses only defensive warfare. Qutb states that jihad is, in fact, justified when the sole purpose is the establishment of Islam:
While Bray pointed out in our debate that MAS has educated Muslims about the American judicial system, that is not the issue. Muslims in America have no choice but to use the U.S. courts. Rather, the issue is one of respect for the liberal democratic traditions at the bedrock of our culture. While Bray tries to portray MAS as an organization that embraces these shared values, the group simultaneously teaches its members that all government should become Islamic and that non-Islamic judicial systems should be boycotted.
MAS has long played a double game where, despite its fringe outlook, it attempts to pass itself off as mainstream. When the Chicago Tribune began to lift the curtain on this deception with its investigative report, MAS's leadership quibbled with the portrait that the newspaper painted. Yet an even bigger indictment lies in the material that MAS requires its members to read--and in the book that it touts as "the correct unified comprehension of Islam."
Truth is, Christianity has the same goal. Ask any Christian what is your "Commission," and they will tell you it is to "go into all the world and preach the Gospel."
Difference is, Christians "preach" the gospel. They do not fight for it. Christians do not conquer in the name of Christianity, and force conversion. If a person rejects the Gospel, they are still afforded the same rights as Christians in Judeo-Christian societies such as America and Europe.
Point is, I don't believe there is anything inherently wrong in a person, or a group of people having an idea that they would like to spread to the whole world. When it comes right down to it, that's what Capitalism is all about.
I love that.
So, if there is nothing wrong with a group of people attempting to spread their idea to the whole world, then what do I find wrong with the MAS? The answer is simple; Sharia Law.
Sharia Law (the law of the land in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and several other Islamic nations) is the system of Law given to Mohammed by Allah, and layed out in the Koran. Under Sharia, the punishment for adultery is stoning. The punishment for Homosexuality is stoning. The punishment for stealing is the cutting off of a hand. Under Sharia, women are treated as second-class citizens, worth half as much in inheritance, their word not accepted equally in a court of Law.
This is not acceptable, and that is why I object to the MAS, and other organizations which would like to spread Sharia to the whole world.
Islam I have no problem with. Worship Allah, but do not expect to be able to force others to live under Sharia.
If A Tree Falls In The Forest ...Joel Mowbray looks at what happens when a Muslim group throws a March Against Terrorism. From
Front Page Magazine:
In the first of its kind for an event organized by a major national Muslim organization, Kamal Nawash and the Free Muslims Coalition (FMC) recently held the Free Muslims March Against Terrorism. Not surprisingly, the leaders of every other major Muslim organization shunned the march and declined to take a public stand against terrorism and extremism. Noticeably missing from the list of over 80 sponsors Nawash rounded up was any of the Muslim groups that claim to be moderates, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). Though these groups pay lip service to opposing terrorism, they couldn’t put their money where their mouth is and bring themselves to stand side-by-side with the Free Muslim Coalition.
The reasons for the absence of the major national Muslim groups are obvious. The empirical evidence has clearly demonstrated where the true loyalties of organizations such as CAIR and MPAC lie. In this particular case, it is anathema for many Muslim groups to identify themselves with the unambiguous message of the rally. Nawash is among the few Muslim leaders—and certainly one of the very few leaders of the overtly political Muslim groups—to explicitly confront the real threat, the real root cause of terrorism: radical Islam.
Where most prominent Muslim leaders prefer ambiguity and moral equivalence, Nawash stakes out an unmistakable position, not only opposing just violent jihad, but the doctrines of Wahhabism and political Islam, as well. Nawash is, without exception, against the creation of Islamic states—anywhere. The other major Islamic organizations simply can’t take this position. Their refusal to back even Nawash’s message exposes their true sympathies.
If other Muslim groups could even go as far as condemning specific acts of Islamic terror, that would be a step in Nawash’s direction. But organizations such as CAIR, for instance, have pointedly refused to condemn Islamic terrorist organizations, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, or even specific Islamic terrorist attacks. The best example of the latter occurred after the murder, burning, stoning, and mutilation of four American contractors in Fallujah, Iraq. CAIR only condemned the mutilation as contrary to Islam, but did not specifically condemn the murder, burning, or stoning of the men—a position that was also taken by a leading Fallujah cleric.
MPAC’s terror apologist agenda has also become transparent. In a June 1999 publication, MPAC argued that Hezbollah’s 1983 attack killing 241 Americans in Lebanon was not a terrorist attack. From its “Position Paper on U.S. Counterterrorism Policy”: “Yet this attack, for all the pain it caused, was not in a strict sense, a terrorist operation. It was a military operation, producing no civilian casualties—exactly the kind of attack that Americans might have lauded had it been directed against Washington’s enemies.”
For participation in the rally, Nawash set a very low threshold: opposing terrorism. (Almost every speaker, though, was careful to condemn Islamic terrorism, and not just terrorism in the abstract.) By his own account, and by that of others, Nawash actively tried to enlist the support of other Muslim groups—but to no avail. Nawash most likely realized that no matter how low he set the bar, none of his counter-parts would endorse an event sponsored by a Muslim who unequivocally denounces Islamic terrorism and just as enthusiastically supports free societies for Muslims everywhere.
CAIR, MPAC, MAS and other Islamic leaders – shown up by the real moderate Muslims who locked arms with Nawash – were both testy and defensive. CAIR forwarded all calls to Hussein Ibish, the former Communications Director at the Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), an avowedly secular Muslim who nevertheless does the dirty work of Islamists and radical Muslims. MPAC did not return calls seeking comment, and did not appear to have given comment to any other media outlet regarding the rally.
Of the two Muslim leaders who shunned the rally who were willing to give comment—Ibish and MAS Executive Director Mahdi Bray—both resorted to attacking the messenger.
In two rambling smear jobs at MuslimWakeUp.com, Ibish labeled Nawash’s FMC as “the ugly” among leading Muslim groups, and called Nawash’s invitation for other Muslim leaders to denounce radicalism a “crude ploy.” Ibish went so far as to say that Nawash’s contention that other Muslim leaders don’t denounce radical Islam is an “odious lie.” While Ibish find Nawash’s message “odious,” it’s flat-out wrong to say it is a “lie”—especially when applied to Ibish himself.
Appearing on CNN in August 2002, Mr. Ibish was asked about a 1991 fund-raising letter from suspected (and now indicted) terrorist Sami al-Arian that read, in part, “Jihad is our path! Victory to Islam! Death to Israel and victory to Islam! Revolution, revolution until victory! Rolling, rolling to Jerusalem!”
Rather than criticize those plainly radical—and violent—words, Ibish played defense. “‘Death to Israel’ does not necessarily mean violence. Jihad can mean a lot of things,” he explained. Ibish then abruptly switched the topic. “I’ll tell you who is advocating violence. It is Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, who advocated torturing people.”
Nawash has clearly taken his lumps from the supposed moderate Muslim leaders, but that’s not to say he’s without a following. But think in the mode of the “silent majority,” although in Nawash’s case, sadly, it’s almost certainly the “silent plurality”—for now.
Common are e-mails and phone calls to Nawash where Muslims tell him how important his message is, and how glad they are to finally have a Muslim leader delivering it. But most still won’t side with Nawash publicly, which partly helps explain the rally’s modest turnout of roughly 150-200. Yet the rally was attended by several respected Muslim leaders, who gained a much wider audience with the rally’s repeated airings on C-SPAN.If there’s one thing that Nawash hopes to accomplish, it is to encourage other Muslims to speak up just as he has. Notes Nawash, “People who might want to speak out want somebody else to go first. Nobody wants to be a lone voice.” Though not exactly a lone voice, Nawash must feel like one some days—especially when he looks at his colleagues at the other national Muslim organizations.
Amnesty International's Political AgendaFirst, from
National Review:
Amnesty International’s 2005 “Report” on worldwide human rights was released this week, and its contents have justly outraged Americans who support U.S. efforts in the war on terror — including the Washington Post which noted that Amnesty had “lost its bearings” and joined “in the partisan fracas that nowadays passes for political discourse.” Among other things, the report accuses the United States of “war crimes,” and openly compares the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, with the Gulag Archipelago. In addition, the executive director of Amnesty International USA has called on foreign governments to seize and prosecute American officials traveling abroad, just as a Spanish judge attempted to prosecute former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1998. In fact, the report says much more about the nature of Amnesty International — and the agenda of similar left-wing nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) — than it does about the human-rights record of the United States.
First and foremost, Amnesty’s report is emphatically not an honest assessment of American compliance with international law. Rather, it is an assessment of how well the United States complies with Amnesty International’s political and ideological agenda — equivalent to the grading of individual members of Congress by domestic advocacy groups.
This is obvious from the report’s three fundamental measures of a good human-rights record, which are applied to every included state:
(1) whether the death penalty has been retained;
(2) whether the International Criminal Court treaty has been ratified; and
(3) whether the U.N. Women’s Convention, and its Optional Protocol, has been ratified.
All of these criteria involve controversial political issues where there is fundamental disagreement between right and left and — from Amnesty’s perspective — George Bush’s America fails on all counts. This, of course, is what you would expect, since the president is a conservative, elected by increasingly conservative American voters.
Go read the rest.
Do It YourselfFrom
National Review:
Not long ago Pepsi Cola’s chief operating officer, Indra Nooyi, gave an address to the graduating class at Columbia Business School. In it, she metaphorically likened America to the middle finger on the global hand. Denunciations and anger arose from her use of the silly metaphor.
Then came her employer’s obligatory explication that she really did not mean what she said. And soon her defenders claimed hypersensitive Americans could not take well-meaning admonishment. Pepsi is a $27 billion company. Those who run it, like Nooyi, make big money from its global sales and take-no-prisoners marketing approach. Pepsi is not known for worrying too much about putting indigenous soft-drink makers out of business. Here at home it does not often allow small businesses to offer both Coke and Pepsi in a spirit of consumer convenience and choice. Roughshod, no-holds-barred business gets such a company to the top — and allows multimillion-dollar salaries for its grandee hardball officers.
Former cricket-star-turned-Pakistani-politician Imran Khan in some ways jumpstarted the Newsweek-induced frenzy when in a May 6 press conference he demanded an apology for the alleged slight to the Koran. “This is what the U.S. is doing,” Khan boomed, “desecrating the Koran.” His mischaracterization, based on a lie, was then beamed across the Middle East — and, presto, Mr. Khan got the anti-American outburst he apparently wanted.
Khan may have made his fortune and name in the British tabloids as a soccer star and international playboy of the London salons, a lifestyle that had strong affinities with the West rather than the madrassas. But now he is back in Pakistan crafting a political career and catering to the Islamists, even though religious extremism is antithetical to what allowed him to succeed and prosper abroad. Yet this same demagogue earlier urged Hindu extremists to remain calm during a recent cricket match between India and Pakistan. After all, religious extremism is valuable to beat up the West and the United States — but not to the point that such fervor might endanger playing a Western sport amid frenzied Hindus. Left unsaid is that there is no place for an Imran Khan in the world of the Taliban, where soccer stadiums were used to lynch moderate Muslims, not enrich pampered athletes.
Arundhati Roy, the Booker-prize-winning novelist, has developed a second career critiquing the United States, especially its promotion of the free markets and capitalism that she believes are the catalysts for righteous hatred against America.
Roy doesn’t quite get that the reason that the UK recognizes an Indian novelist like her, writing halfway across the globe — and that she is able to jet over to the United States for lucrative speaking engagements, and that her books are mass-produced and hawked aggressively over global Internet book marts — is precisely the system that this child of capitalism so vehemently detests.
Pakistan, well before 9/11, was the recipient of billions of dollars in U.S. aid, and, in response, its intelligence services created the Taliban that in turn helped al Qaeda pull off September 11. India is making billions from an American free-trade policy that encourages outsourcing business overseas, even if it means the loss of U.S. jobs. Neither country has much of a legitimate gripe against the United States, and surely has not objected that its elites are going to the West to be educated, to profit — and, in these above cases, apparently to master the easy anti-Western rhetoric.
But note the anti-American two-step. Immediately after her silly remarks, the corporate mogul Nooyi provided a recant. Neither Khan nor Roy has vowed to stay out of the U.K. or the U.S., where the Koran is supposedly not respected and where the homeless starve as a result of capitalism — a system that both created and enriched them all and which they apparently love to chide.
There are easily identifiable constants in these sad examples. Rhetoric is always at odds with lifestyle: A novelist who tours and writes in English is the epitome of the Western liberal tradition that allows freedom of expression, promotes book sales through open markets, and enjoys unfettered peer review. Ms. Roy will always operate deeply embedded in the system she ridicules, and Western grandees will always pay her well for making them feel badly for a few hours. Islamists, Communists, and theocrats — in a Saudi Arabia, Iran, Cuba, or China — would not only not pay her, but might well issue a fatwa, jail time, or a death sentence for what they didn’t like to read or hear.
As a cricketer Khan made a fortune doing what most normal Westerners do not do. By some reports, corporate grandee Nooyi took in $5 million-plus a year — and lives a life that most Americans outside of Greenwich, Connecticut, and without her access to a globalized captain’s seat at PepsiCo could only dream of.
So it is not just the West per se that has enriched these megaphones, but the hard-driving, over-hyped culture of the West, as exemplified by marquee sports, highbrow publishers, and the Pepsi Corporation.
In other words, Khan, Roy, and Nooyi are, by their own volition, knee-deep in the supposed greed of the West in a way that most ordinary Americans surely are not. ... these ungracious operators all seem to gravitate to, profit from, and then spite the paradigm that created rich global business, media, publishing, and entertainment conglomerates — and themselves.
A final suggestion for these unhappy and privileged few: To end your obsessions with the pathologies of America and the West, find a way to create your own alternative sports, literature, corporations, soft drinks, and filmmaking in the non-West.
It is not that we Americans are mad at what you say. It is just that you have all become so hypocritical, then predictable, and now boring — you are all so boring.
I like sports, movies, books and Coca Cola. Is it really to much to ask that who make their fortunes off these quintessentially American (well, maybe not books, but free speech) American institutions should like them also?
And, is it too much to ask that these gods and godesses of Capitalism realize that their fortunes were made because of the freedom of Capitalism?
By the way, I want to note that Victor Davis Hanson started to shape a pretty interesting question in this essay, but never quite finished it. The question is:
If America is the Middle Finger of the Global Hand, then is Pepsi the free market equivalent of an exposed anus in a really florid, dropped-the-pants-and-bend-over, BA?
Official Palestinian Authority TV PreacherCalls For Death To America And Death To JewsFrom
Front Page Magazine:
Under Yasser Arafat, Palestinian Authority sermons were filled with incitement, including calls to kill Jews and destroy America. Few in the West at the time understood the danger posed by these religious proclamations; those intimately involved in the peace process were often willing to overlook them.
The Khatibs, or preachers, who give such sermons, are paid employees of the PA. Their messages are broadcasted live every Friday at noon from mosques controlled by the PA and appear on official PA TV.
Sheikh Ibrahim Mudeiris was a favorite Khatib of Arafat. Mr. Mudeiris is based at the Sheikh 'Ijlin Mosque in Gaza and makes regular appearances during the coveted Friday noon timeslot. One of his notable proclamations about America, from September 5, 2003, was, "America will collapse ... we consider America to be our no. 1." On May 21, 2004, Mr. Mudeiris made reference to America again: "the American dog, the Byzantine dog of our days ... To the Byzantine dog, you son of a bitch, I have brought an enormous army upon you, that starts here and ends here." In sermon from March 21, 2003, he said, "Allah will drown the little Pharaoh, the dwarf, the Pharaoh of all times, of our time, the American president. Allah will drown America in our seas, in our skies, in our land ... America will be destroyed."
When Abu Mazen came to power following Arafat's death, he promised to end incitement. On December 3, 2004, he appeared live on PA TV at the President's Mosque as an audience member of an exceptionally moderate sermon calling for Palestinians to recognize and tolerate others, and to avoid extremism. Mr. Mudeiris was notably absent at the President's Mosque, but quietly reclaimed his pulpit and TV spot soon afterward.
Recent sermons by Mr. Mudeiris include one from April 15, 2005, in which he said that Muslims prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan were forced to convert to Christianity. In his sermon on February 4, 2005, he called for Palestinians to conquer Israel. This year's New Year sermon was devoted to the destruction of America: "America has reached the top and we admit it, but it is headed for a bottomless pit, Allah willing. America, which is being led by its current president, to a bottomless pit. He leads it to death and destruction, Allah willing. America's grave was dug by Bush the day he invaded Afghanistan. Bush prepared this grave on the day he invaded Iraq."
Throughout the year leading up to Arafat's death, Mr. Mudeiris kept busy inciting Palestinians. In reference to Jews and Israel on November 5, he blamed "these apes and pigs" for Arafat's death. On March 12, 2004, he explained "the Jews today ... are avenging their ancient forefathers, the sons of apes and pigs ... They deserve death ... We strike more fear into their hearts than their Maker."
Unlike American officials involved in the peace process under the Clinton administration, the Bush administration has been clear in its demands that Arab incitement end. When Abu Mazen visits the White House this week, he should be asked why an official religious representative of the PA has not only been inciting Palestinians against Jews and Israel, but also calling for the destruction of America.
Islamofascists Are Not InsurgentsInsurgents Rise Up Against An OppresorIslamofascists Stamp Down The OppressedFrom
Melanie Phillips:
A great piece by Christopher Hitchens skewers the moral bankruptcy of the language used by the New York Times when it talks about the 'insurgency' in Iraq:
'I don't think the New York Times ever referred to those who devastated its hometown's downtown as "insurgents." But it does employ this title every day for the gang headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. With pedantic exactitude, and unless anyone should miss the point, this man has named his organization "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia" and sought (and apparently received) Osama Bin Laden's permission for the franchise...
'A letter from Zarqawi to Bin Laden more than a year ago, intercepted by Kurdish intelligence and since then well-authenticated, spoke of Shiism as a repulsive heresy and the ignition of a Sunni-Shiite civil war as the best and easiest way to thwart the Crusader-Zionist coalition. The actions since then have precisely followed the design, but the design has been forgotten by the journal of record....
'In my ears, "insurgent" is a bit like "rebel" or even "revolutionary." There's nothing axiomatically pejorative about it, and some passages of history have made it a term of honor. At a minimum, though, it must mean "rising up." These fascists and hirelings are not rising up, they are stamping back down.
It's time for respectable outlets to drop the word, to call things by their right names (Baathist or Bin Ladenist or jihadist would all do in this case), and to stop inventing mysteries where none exist.'
But of course, as Hitchens implies, the reason why the NYT does not call the terror in Iraq by its proper name is because it is not seen for what it is -- the regional fulcrum of the global jihad against free societies -- but is viewed instead through the distorting prism of opposition to the toppling of Saddam, that morally compromised position at the dark heart of the madness that has all but consumed public debate in the west.
Amnesty International To World Governments
Arrest Bush
From
Little Green Footballs:
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 26 (OneWorld) - Rights watchdog Amnesty International urged foreign governments Wednesday to investigate and prosecute President George W. Bush much as they once did former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet.
”If the United States permits the architects of torture policy to get off scot-free, then other nations should step into the breach,” William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said in a statement launching Amnesty’s annual report.
Bush is among a dozen former or current U.S. officials who should be probed by foreign governments because Washington has failed to conduct ”a genuinely independent and comprehensive investigation” of torture allegations against U.S. troops, commanders, and their civilian overseers, Schulz said.
Others on the Amnesty list of potential targets for investigation and prosecution include Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) chief George Tenet.
”If the U.S. government continues to shirk its responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior U.S. officials involved in the torture scandal,” Schulz said.
”If those investigations support prosecution, the governments should arrest any official who enters their territory and begin legal proceedings against them,” he added. ”The apparent high-level architects of torture should think twice before planning their next vacation to places like Acapulco or the French Riviera because they may find themselves under arrest as Augusto Pinochet famously did in London in 1998.”
Rainbow Parties? What the ...?From
Michelle Malkin:
So, what's a rainbow party?
Here's a rich irony: I'm writing today about a new children's book, but I can't describe the plot in a family newspaper without warning you first that it is entirely inappropriate for children.
The book is "Rainbow Party" by juvenile fiction author Paul Ruditis. The publisher is Simon Pulse, a kiddie lit division of the esteemed Simon & Schuster. The cover of the book features the title spelled out in fun, Crayola-bright font. Beneath the title is an illustrated array of lipsticks in bold colors.
The main characters in the book are high school sophomores supposedly typical 14- and 15-year-olds with names such as "Gin" and "Sandy." The book opens with these two girls shopping for lipstick at the mall in advance of a special party. The girls banter as they hunt for lipsticks in every color of the rainbow:
"Okay, we've got red, orange, and purple," Gin said. "Now we just need yellow, green, and blue.""Don't forget indigo," Sandy said as she scanned the row of lipstick tubes."What are you talking about?""Indigo," Sandy repeated as if that explained everything. "You know. ROY G. BIV. Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet.""That's seven lipsticks. Only six girls are coming. We don't need it."
What kind of party do you imagine they might be organizing? Perhaps a makeover party? With moms and daughters sharing their best beauty secrets and bonding in the process?
Alas, no. No parents are invited to this get-together. A "rainbow party," you see, is a gathering of boys and girls for the purpose of engaging in group oral sex. Each girl wears a different colored lipstick and leaves a mark on each boy. At night's end, the boys proudly sport their own cosmetically-sealed rainbow you-know-where bringing a whole new meaning to the concept of "party favors."
Why on earth would a publisher market such smut to kids? Says author Ruditis:
Ruditis says the book was never meant to sensationalize sex parties. "We just wanted to present an issue kids are dealing with," he says.
Moreover, Ruditis told Publisher's Weekly:
"Part of me doesn't understand why people don't want to talk about [oral sex]," he said. "Kids are having sex and they are actively engaged in oral sex and think it's not really sex. I raised questions in my book and I hope that parents and children or teachers and students can open a topic of conversation through it.
Rainbow parties are such an interesting topic. It's such a childlike way to look at such an adult subject with rainbow colors."
The truth is, while most 14 year-olds probably have sexual feelings, and sexual fantasies, most 14 year-olds do not actually want to be engaging in oral sex, or any kind of sex for that matter. Note that I am not making a categorical statement. I am saying most don't want to.
I remember what it's like to be fourteen. You're nervous and scared at that age. You're wondering about what life is about, and you are seeing things anew and with a sense of wonder. You don't want things to happen too fast, because something tells you that those wondrous things which are just coming into view, are very, very powerful.
In short, teenagers may think about sex, they may think they want to have sex, but most of them don't actually want it. Not right away.
I love sex. I'd like to have sex all day long. I'd rather have sex, than write about anti-Semitism, that's for sure. I'd rather write a sex blog, than an anti-Semitism blog. Yes, yes. Sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex, sex. It's great.
I say this just to let you know that not only am I not a prude, I probably err pretty far on the other side of the issue. My mouth has definately gotten me into trouble. (That's not a oral sex reference by the way. :) but I guess you can see what I mean when I say my mouth gets me into trouble.
Anyway, the point is, while I wish my world were even more filled with sex than it already is, I do not wish this on others. Particularly not on children.
I am a parent, and I must say, I am bothered by networks like Disney Channel and Nickolodeon. These networks market themselves as childrens programming, but if you leave you kid alone watching Sponge Bob for a half an hour, you're liable to come back and find them watching a show about dating. Yes, that's right. They transition seamlessly from shows for young children to shows with teenage topics.
I've had to eliminate those networks as options. I don't want my kids to start seeing life through the eyes of a teenager when they are only five.
Childhood is a great time. Why are we trying to steal it from our kids?
U.S. Official Says N. Korea May CollapseFrom
Associated Press:
WASHINGTON - A top State Department official predicted on Thursday that North Korea's decision to remain isolated internationally will eventually lead to the collapse of its communist government. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said North Korea is showing no interest in taking lessons from the successes neighboring China has enjoyed from its reform program.
"It's a real problem," Hill said, alluding to North Korea's self-imposed isolation. "And it's a problem that will ultimately be their undoing." He said chronic food production problems along with a dysfunctional health care system are raising doubts about the sustainability of North Korea's rigid communist system.
Really? A communist government isn't viable? Hey Noam, Howard, I guess it's back to the drawing board.
In Which Pastorius Comes Out As A SupporterOf The "New Third Reich"WARNING TO EVERYBODY: This post is from Mother Jones magazine. It is attacking America. It is long and repetitious. You might want to skip right past it and go on to my other posts.
In my opinion , this article makes some valid points. That is to say, it asks the question, why did Bush aides tell members of Blair's cabinent that they were already set on war with Iraq, when they hadn't yet made their case to the UN? Just so you'll understand why I am posting this, a friend of mine who really, really hates George Bush (in fact, he says the Bush Administration is the "new Third Reich") asked me to read
this article from Mother Jones about how Bush and Blair conspired to "fix" the evidence about WMD's. I said I would.
Thing is, I don't read articles the whole way through unless I'm going to blog about them, so here we go:
In its June 9 issue (on sale this week), the New York Review of Books will be the first American print publication to publish the full British "smoking gun" document, the secret memorandum of the minutes of a meeting of Tony Blair's top advisors in July 2002, eight months before the Iraq War commenced. Leaked to the London Sunday Times, which first published it on May 1, the memo offers irrefutable proof of the way in which the Bush administration made its decision to invade Iraq -- without significant consultation, reasonable intelligence on Iraq, or any desire to explore ways to avoid war -- and well before seeking a Congressional or United Nations mandate of any sort.
By July, as the British officials reported, the decision to invade was already in the bag. The only real questions -- other than those involving war planning -- were how to organize the intelligence in such a way as to promote the war to come and how to finesse Congress (and the UN). While people often speak of the "road to war," in the case of the invasion of Iraq, as this document makes clear, a more accurate phrase might be "the bum's rush to war." The Review is also publishing an accompanying piece on the secret memo and what to make of it by their regular Iraq correspondent, Mark Danner, and its editors have been kind enough to allow Tomdispatch to distribute the piece early on-line.
Congressman John Conyers has just sent a letter, signed by eighty-nine Democratic congressional representatives, to the President demanding some answers to the document's revelations. And articles by good reporters in major papers finally did start to appear late this week -- but those of John Daniszewski at the Los Angeles Times and Walter Pincus at the Washington Post were typically tucked away on inside pages (meant for political news jockeys), and they had a distinctly just-the-facts-maam, nothing-out-of-the-ordinary feel to them.
But shouldn't it be a front-page story that, as Danner points out below, all the subsequent arguments we've had to endure about the state of, and accuracy of American intelligence on Iraq, were actually beside the point?
After all, as the smoking-gun memo makes perfectly clear, the decision to go to war was made before the intelligence -- good, bad, or indifferent -- was even seriously put into play.
As the secret memo also makes clear, administration officials, and the President himself, had already rolled the dice and placed their bet -- on the existence of WMD in Iraq as an excuse for the war they so desperately wanted. (Their Iraqi exile sources had, of course, assured them that it was so and, as the Brits reported in July 2002, they were already wondering, "For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one [of an invasion].") After all, it seemed so logical. Saddam had used such weapons in the 1980s in the Iran-Iraq War and against Kurds in Iraq. American troops and UN inspectors had found such weaponry in profusion after our first Gulf War. So why not now as well?
The least commented upon aspect of the smoking-gun memo has been its military side.
It is, in significant part, a military document, reflecting how much serious thinking and planning at the highest levels in the U.S. and Britain had already gone into the question of how to have a war by July 2002. The question of how technically to launch the "military action" -- whether by a "generated start" or a "running start" -- was, for instance, front and center. Also addressed was the mundane but crucial issue (for the Pentagon) of where, around Iraq, to base forces. "The US," reads the memo, "saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either [the generated or running start] option." Diego Garcia is the British-controlled Indian Ocean Island that was already a stationary American "aircraft carrier" and from which, 8 months later, B-2s would fly on Baghdad. Since Danner -- whose book Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror does much to explain the nature of the fix the Bush administration now finds itself in -- covers the British document in great and fascinating detail below, let me just add a final note: To me, perhaps the most telling line in the memo, given what's happened since, is the observation of Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of M16 (the British CIA equivalent), just back from a U.S. visit, that "[t]here was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
This line not only represented the greatest gamble the Bush administration's top officials would make, but the hubris with which they approached the taking of Iraq. As the British smoking-gun memo indicates in that single classic line, they placed their deepest faith in their conviction that, once the invasion was completed successful and Saddam had fallen, everything else in Iraq would simply fall into place as well.
Secret Way to WarBy Mark Danner
1.
It was October 16, 2002, and the United States Congress had just voted to authorize the President to go to war against Iraq. When George W. Bush came before members of his Cabinet and Congress gathered in the East Room of the White House and addressed the American people, he was in a somber mood befitting a leader speaking frankly to free citizens about the gravest decision their country could make.
The 107th Congress, the President said, had just become "one of the few called by history to authorize military action to defend our country and the cause of peace." But, he hastened to add, no one should assume that war was inevitable. Though "Congress has now authorized the use of force," the President said emphatically, "I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary."
The President went on:
"Our goal is to fully and finally remove a real threat to world peace and to America. Hopefully this can be done peacefully. Hopefully we can do this without any military action. Yet, if Iraq is to avoid military action by the international community, it has the obligation to prove compliance with all the world's demands. It's the obligation of Iraq."
Iraq, the President said, still had the power to prevent war by "declaring and destroying all its weapons of mass destruction" -- but if Iraq did not declare and destroy those weapons, the President warned, the United States would "go into battle, as a last resort."
It is safe to say that, at the time, it surprised almost no one when the Iraqis answered the President's demand by repeating their claim that in fact there were no weapons of mass destruction. As we now know, the Iraqis had in fact destroyed these weapons, probably years before George W. Bush's ultimatum: "the Iraqis" -- in the words of chief U.S. weapons inspector David Kaye -- "were telling the truth."
As Americans watch their young men and women fighting in the third year of a bloody counterinsurgency war in Iraq -- a war that has now killed more than 1,600 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis -- they are left to ponder "the unanswered question" of what would have happened if the United Nations weapons inspectors had been allowed -- as all the major powers except the United Kingdom had urged they should be -- to complete their work. What would have happened if the UN weapons inspectors had been allowed to prove, before the U.S. went "into battle," what David Kaye and his colleagues finally proved afterward?
Thanks to a formerly secret memorandum published by the London Sunday Times on May 1, during the run-up to the British elections, we now have a partial answer to that question. The memo, which records the minutes of a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair's senior foreign policy and security officials, shows that even as President Bush told Americans in October 2002 that he "hope[d] the use of force will not become necessary" -- that such a decision depended on whether or not the Iraqis complied with his demands to rid themselves of their weapons of mass destruction -- the President had in fact already definitively decided, at least three months before, to choose this "last resort" of going "into battle" with Iraq. Whatever the Iraqis chose to do or not do, the President's decision to go to war had long since been made.
On July 23, 2002, eight months before American and British forces invaded, senior British officials met with Prime Minister Tony Blair to discuss Iraq. The gathering, similar to an American "principals meeting," brought together Geoffrey Hoon, the defense secretary; Jack Straw, the foreign secretary; Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general; John Scarlett, the head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, which advises the prime minister; Sir Richard Dearlove, also known as "C," the head of MI6 (the equivalent of the CIA); David Manning, the equivalent of the national security adviser; Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the chief of the Defense Staff (or CDS, equivalent to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs); Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff; Alastair Campbell, director of strategy (Blair's communications and political adviser); and Sally Morgan, director of government relations.
After John Scarlett began the meeting with a summary of intelligence on Iraq -- notably, that "the regime was tough and based on extreme fear" and that thus the "only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action," "C" offered a report on his visit to Washington, where he had conducted talks with George Tenet, his counterpart at the CIA, and other high officials. This passage is worth quoting in full:
"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."
Seen from today's perspective this short paragraph is a strikingly clear template for the future, establishing these points:
1. By mid-July 2002, eight months before the war began, President Bush had decided to invade and occupy Iraq.
2. Bush had decided to "justify" the war "by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."
3. Already "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
4. Many at the top of the administration did not want to seek approval from the United Nations (going "the UN route").
5. Few in Washington seemed much interested in the aftermath of the war.
We have long known, thanks to Bob Woodward and others, that military planning for the Iraq war began as early as November 21, 2001, after the President ordered Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to look at "what it would take to protect America by removing Saddam Hussein if we have to," and that Secretary Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks, who headed Central Command, were briefing American senior officials on the progress of military planning during the late spring and summer of 2002; indeed, a few days after the meeting in London leaks about specific plans for a possible Iraq war appeared on the front pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post.
What the Downing Street memo confirms for the first time is that President Bush had decided, no later than July 2002, to "remove Saddam, through military action," that war with Iraq was "inevitable" -- and that what remained was simply to establish and develop the modalities of justification; that is, to come up with a means of "justifying" the war and "fixing" the "intelligence and facts...around the policy."
The great value of the discussion recounted in the memo, then, is to show, for the governments of both countries, a clear hierarchy of decision-making. By July 2002 at the latest, war had been decided on; the question at issue now was how to justify it -- how to "fix," as it were, what Blair will later call "the political context."
Specifically, though by this point in July the President had decided to go to war, he had not yet decided to go to the United Nations and demand inspectors; indeed, as "C" points out, those on the National Security Council -- the senior security officials of the U.S. government -- "had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record." This would later change, largely as a result of the political concerns of these very people gathered together at 10 Downing Street.
After Admiral Boyce offered a brief discussion of the war plans then on the table and the defense secretary said a word or two about timing -- "the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections" -- Foreign Secretary Jack Straw got to the heart of the matter: not whether or not to invade Iraq but how to justify such an invasion:
"The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss [the timing of the war] with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
Given that Saddam was not threatening to attack his neighbors and that his weapons of mass destruction program was less extensive than those of a number of other countries, how does one justify attacking? Foreign Secretary Straw had an idea: "We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force."
The British realized they needed "help with the legal justification for the use of force" because, as the attorney general pointed out, rather dryly, "the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action." Which is to say, the simple desire to overthrow the leadership of a given sovereign country does not make it legal to invade that country; on the contrary. And, said the attorney general, of the "three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or [United Nations Security Council] authorization," the first two "could not be the base in this case."
In other words, Iraq was not attacking the United States or the United Kingdom, so the leaders could not claim to be acting in self-defense; nor was Iraq's leadership in the process of committing genocide, so the United States and the United Kingdom could not claim to be invading for humanitarian reasons.[1] This left Security Council authorization as the only conceivable legal justification for war. But how to get it?
At this point in the meeting Prime Minister Tony Blair weighed in. He had heard his foreign minister's suggestion about drafting an ultimatum demanding that Saddam let back in the United Nations inspectors. Such an ultimatum could be politically critical, said Blair -- but only if the Iraqi leader turned it down:
"The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD.... If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work."
Here the inspectors were introduced, but as a means to create the missing casus belli. If the UN could be made to agree on an ultimatum that Saddam accept inspectors, and if Saddam then refused to accept them, the Americans and the British would be well on their way to having a legal justification to go to war (the attorney general's third alternative of UN Security Council authorization).
But there was a problem: as the foreign secretary pointed out, "on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences." While the British considered legal justification for going to war critical -- they, unlike the Americans, were members of the International Criminal Court -- the Americans did not. Mr. Straw suggested that given "US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum."
The defense secretary, Geoffrey Hoon, was more blunt, arguing "that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the U.S. did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush."
The key negotiation in view at this point, in other words, was not with Saddam over letting in the United Nations inspectors -- both parties hoped he would refuse to admit them, and thus provide the justification for invading. The key negotiation would be between the Americans, who had shown "resistance" to the idea of involving the United Nations at all, and the British, who were more concerned than their American cousins about having some kind of legal fig leaf for attacking Iraq.
Three weeks later, Foreign Secretary Straw arrived in the Hamptons to "discreetly explore the ultimatum" with Secretary of State Powell, perhaps the only senior American official who shared some of the British concerns; as Straw told the secretary, in Bob Woodward's account, "If you are really thinking about war and you want us Brits to be a player, we cannot be unless you go to the United Nations." [2]
2.
Britain's strong support for the "UN route" that most American officials so distrusted was critical in helping Powell in the bureaucratic battle over going to the United Nations. As late as August 26, Vice President Dick Cheney had appeared before a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and publicly denounced "the UN route." Asserting that "simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction [and] there is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," Cheney advanced the view that going to the United Nations would itself be dangerous:
"A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of his compliance with UN resolutions. On the contrary, there is great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow 'back in the box.'"
Cheney, like other administration "hard-liners," feared "the UN route" not because it might fail but because it might succeed and thereby prevent a war that they were convinced had to be fought.
As Woodward recounts, it would finally take a personal visit by Blair on September 7 to persuade President Bush to go to the United Nations:
"For Blair the immediate question was, Would the United Nations be used? He was keenly aware that in Britain the question was, Does Blair believe in the UN? It was critical domestically for the prime minister to show his own Labour Party, a pacifist party at heart, opposed to war in principle, that he had gone the UN route. Public opinion in the UK favored trying to make international institutions work before resorting to force. Going through the UN would be a large and much-needed plus."[3]
The President now told Blair that he had decided "to go to the UN" and the prime minister, according to Woodward, "was relieved."
That September the attempt to sell the war began in earnest ... At the heart of the sales campaign was the United Nations. Thanks in substantial part to Blair's prodding, George W. Bush would come before the UN General Assembly on September 12 and, after denouncing the Iraqi regime, announce that "we will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions." Though "the UN route" would be styled as an attempt to avoid war, its essence, as the Downing Street memo makes clear, was a strategy to make the war possible, partly by making it politically palatable.
As it turned out, however -- and as Cheney and others had feared -- the "UN route" to war was by no means smooth, or direct. Though Powell managed the considerable feat of securing unanimous approval for Security Council Resolution 1441, winning even Syria's support, the allies differed on the key question of whether or not the resolution gave United Nations approval for the use of force against Saddam, as the Americans contended, or whether a second resolution would be required, as the majority of the council, and even the British, conceded it would. Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador to the UN, put this position bluntly on November 8, the day Resolution 1441 was passed:
"We heard loud and clear during the negotiations about 'automaticity' and 'hidden triggers' -- the concerns that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action.... Let me be equally clear.... There is no 'automaticity' in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required.... We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities."
Vice President Cheney could have expected no worse. Having decided to travel down "the UN route," the Americans and British would now need a second resolution to gain the necessary approval to attack Iraq. Worse, Saddam frustrated British and American hopes, as articulated by Blair in the July 23 meeting, that he would simply refuse to admit the inspectors and thereby offer the allies an immediate casus belli. Instead, hundreds of inspectors entered Iraq, began to search, and found...nothing. January, which Defence Secretary Hoon had suggested was the "most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin," came and went, and the inspectors went on searching.
On the Security Council, a majority -- led by France, Germany, and Russia -- would push for the inspections to run their course. President Jacques Chirac of France later put this argument succinctly in an interview with CBS and CNN just as the war was about to begin:
"France is not pacifist. We are not anti-American either. We are not just going to use our veto to nag and annoy the US. But we just feel that there is another option, another way, another more normal way, a less dramatic way than war, and that we have to go through that path. And we should pursue it until we've come [to] a dead end, but that isn't the case."[4]
Where would this "dead end" be found, however, and who would determine that it had been found? Would it be the French, or the Americans? The logical flaw that threatened the administration's policy now began to become clear. Had the inspectors found weapons, or had they been presented with them by Saddam Hussein, many who had supported the resolution would argue that the inspections regime it established had indeed begun to work -- that by multilateral action the world was succeeding, peacefully, in "disarming Iraq."
As long as the inspectors found no weapons, however, many would argue that the inspectors "must be given time to do their work" -- until, in Chirac's words, they "came to a dead end." However that point might be determined, it is likely that, long before it was reached, the failure to find weapons would have undermined the administration's central argument for going to war -- "the conjunction," as ?C' had put it that morning in July, "of terrorism and WMD." And as we now know, the inspectors would never have found weapons of mass destruction.
Vice President Cheney had anticipated this problem, as he had explained frankly to Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, during an October 30 meeting in the White House. Cheney, according to Blix,
"stated the position that inspections, if they do not give results, cannot go on forever, and said the U.S. was 'ready to discredit inspections in favor of disarmament.' A pretty straight way, I thought, of saying that if we did not soon find the weapons of mass destruction that the US was convinced Iraq possessed (though they did not know where), the US would be ready to say that the inspectors were useless and embark on disarmament by other means."[5]
Indeed, the inspectors' failure to find any evidence of weapons came in the wake of a very large effort launched by the administration to put before the world evidence of Saddam's arsenal, an effort spearheaded by George W. Bush's speech in Cincinnati on October 7, and followed by a series of increasingly lurid disclosures to the press that reached a crescendo with Colin Powell's multimedia presentation to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003.
As the gap between administration rhetoric about enormous arsenals -- "we know where they are," asserted Donald Rumsfeld -- and the inspectors' empty hands grew wider, that gap, as Cheney had predicted, had the effect in many quarters of undermining the credibility of the United Nations process itself. The inspectors' failure to find weapons in Iraq was taken to discredit the worth of the inspections, rather than to cast doubt on the administration's contention that Saddam possessed large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
Oddly enough, Saddam's only effective strategy to prevent war at this point might have been to reveal and yield up some weapons, thus demonstrating to the world that the inspections were working. As we now know, however, he had no weapons to yield up.
As Blix remarks, "It occurred to me [on March 7] that the Iraqis would be in greater difficulty if...there truly were no weapons of which they could yield possession.'" The fact that, in Blix's words, "the UN and the world had succeeded in disarming Iraq without knowing it" -- that the UN process had been successful --meant, in effect, that the inspectors would be discredited and the United States would go to war.
President Bush would do so, of course, having failed to get the "second resolution" so desired by his friend and ally, Tony Blair. Blair had predicted, that July morning on Downing Street, that the "two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work." He seems to have been proved right in this. In the end his political strategy only half worked: the Security Council's refusal to vote a second resolution approving the use of force left "the UN route" discussed that day incomplete, and Blair found himself forced to follow the United States without the protection of international approval.
Had the military plan "worked" -- had the war been short and decisive rather than long, bloody, and inconclusive -- Blair would perhaps have escaped the political damage the war has caused him. A week after the Downing Street memo was published in the Sunday Times, Tony Blair was reelected, but his majority in Parliament was reduced, from 161 to 67. The Iraq war, and the damage it had done to his reputation for probity, was widely believed to have been a principal cause.
In the United States, on the other hand, the Downing Street memorandum has attracted little attention. As I write, no American newspaper has published it and few writers have bothered to comment on it. The war continues, and Americans have grown weary of it; few seem much interested now in discussing how it began, and why their country came to fight a war in the cause of destroying weapons that turned out not to exist.
For those who want answers, the Bush administration has followed a simple and heretofore largely successful policy: blame the intelligence agencies. Since "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" as early as July 2002 (as "C," the head of British intelligence, reported upon his return from Washington), it seems a matter of remarkable hubris, even for this administration, that its officials now explain their misjudgments in going to war by blaming them on "intelligence failures" -- that is, on the intelligence that they themselves politicized.
Still, for the most part, Congress has cooperated. Though the Senate Intelligence Committee investigated the failures of the CIA and other agencies before the war, a promised second report that was to take up the administration's political use of intelligence -- which is, after all, the critical issue -- was postponed until after the 2004 elections, then quietly abandoned.
In the end, the Downing Street memo, and Americans' lack of interest in what it shows, has to do with a certain attitude about facts, or rather about where the line should be drawn between facts and political opinion. It calls to mind an interesting observation that an unnamed "senior advisor" to President Bush made to a New York Times Magazine reporter last fall:
"The aide said that guys like me [i.e., reporters and commentators] were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism.
He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
Though this seems on its face to be a disquisition on religion and faith, it is of course an argument about power, and its influence on truth. Power, the argument runs, can shape truth: power, in the end, can determine reality, or at least the reality that most people accept -- a critical point, for the administration has been singularly effective in its recognition that what is most politically important is not what readers of the New York Times believe but what most Americans are willing to believe.
The last century's most innovative authority on power and truth, Joseph Goebbels, made the same point but rather more directly:
"There was no point in seeking to convert the intellectuals. For intellectuals would never be converted and would anyway always yield to the stronger, and this will always be 'the man in the street.' Arguments must therefore be crude, clear and forcible, and appeal to emotions and instincts, not the intellect. Truth was unimportant and entirely subordinate to tactics and psychology."
My answer to all this is it could very well be true. It does seem like the Bush Administration had it's mind set on war with Iraq, well before the UN had dealt with the issue. I remember noting this fact, in conversation with my relatives in Europe, at the time that these events were taking place.
Ok, so Bush pushed a war through based upon charges which seem not to have stuck. That still leaves the big question:
Why did France, Germany and England think there were WMD's in Iraq?
But, besides that, let's deal with another issue. I always thought that the real reason we attacked Iraq first (after Afghanistan) is because Iraq was the only country we had legal reason to attack. After the Gulf War, Hussein terms of Peace included the establisment of a Northern no-fly zone. The U.S. and Britain were to patrol this area with their jets, to make sure Saddams military stayed out of the Northern region of the country. When they did, which was every day, Saddam ordered his military to shoot at our jets.
That's provocation enough for a resumption of the war, and for the removal of his entire government from power.
This is the issue upon which Bush should have made his case for war. But, it seems, he thought the WMD case would make more sense to people. And his allies already believed that Hussein had WMD's, so why not make that the case.
Now, of course the writers of this Mother Jones article are implying that the Bush Administration knew that Iraq had no WMD's. Or, maybe just that he didn't care. I believe it is clear that the people who planned the war believed that Iraq had chemical weapons at their disposal considering all soldiers were outfitted with chemical suits.
I guess Mother Jones and her people would simply say the chemical suits were a ruse.
That's the way conspiracy theories work.
Anyway, I do believe it is possible, or even likely, that the Bush Administration didn't much care whehter or not the UN approved of US actions. I don't think the United States was much inclined to listen to the UN's opinion then, and I think we are even less so now.
My friend tells me he thinks Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror. He believes the Iraq War is part of some grandiose plan the Bush family has had in place for generations. I guess history will tell us if this is true.
I think it's like this; since Iraq was a legally justifiable war, we would wage it and hope the war brought all the terrorists to the country of Iraq. I think also the idea was that as Iraq lies in the center of the Middle East, it was a good place to set up shop and intimidate all the other rogue regimes of that region.
In fact, both of these strategies have panned out remarkably well. It would be hard, even for Mother Jones, to deny that.
I guess when it comes down to it, I am such a hardcore supporter of the War on Terror that this argument seems silly to me. I believe that Iraq should be only the beginning. I believe there are several more "regimes" (Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, just to start) that have got to go.
When it comes time to end them, I don't much care the legal reason we use to justify our aggression, because here is my reason; these countries are run by medieval fanatics who refuse to live in the modern world, and yet are hard at work aquiring the weapons of the modern world. Additionally, these countries do not respect human rights, most egregiously in the case of women, who are treated as slaves. Niether do they respect the rights of Jews, homosexuals, or "infidels." In the case of North Korean, they have a totally hererogeneous population, but their leader is killing them and depriving them of their human rights anyway.
In my opinion, this is not an acceptable state of affairs. And if you want to start an argument with me that goes along these lines; "Well, what about all the other human rights abusing regimes in the world?" Then I say, ok, when we are done with those who are the biggest threat currently, let's move on to the rest.
You see, I am a maniac. A supporter of the "new Third Reich." I want women, Jews, infidels, and homosexuals to have equal rights. Oh man, am I off the handle, or what?
The EU Dictatorship?From
The Eurabian Times:
The E.U., hardly noted fans of listening to the people who they claim to represent, says that countries which reject the constitution should should hold second referendums:
France and the Netherlands should re-run their referendums to obtain the "right answer" if their voters reject Europe's constitutional treaty in imminent national ballots, Jean-Claude Juncker, the holder of the EU presidency, said on Wednesday.
"The countries which have said No will have to ask themselves the question again. And if we don't manage to find the right answer, the treaty will not enter into force," he said in an interview with the Belgian Le Soir newspaper.
Pro-constitution politicians across Europe have been sounding increasingly alarmist about the consequences of a No vote. "If the No side wins on Sunday, it will be a catastrophe for France, for Chirac, for everyone," Mr Juncker said in his interview.
Well, let's see. When a leader of a country becomes a leader by the vote of a people, but then never allows another vote, or when he does, the election is set up so that only he can win, what do we call that?
A dictatorship.
Ok, so when a country (or in this case a "Union") holds elections over and over until the citizens vote the way the leaders want them to vote, what should we call that?
Hmmm.
Allawi Says, Saddam "Sponsored" Al QaedaFrom
Front Page Magazine:
The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period. "Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri – then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.
According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said.
Allawi's remarks come after statements to al-Hayat by King Abdallah II of Jordan over Saddam's refusal to hand over al-Zarqawi to the authorities in Amman. On this question Allawi said: ''The words of the Jordanian King are correct and important. We have proof of al-Zawahiri's visit to Iraq, but we do not have the precise date or information on al-Zarqawi's entry, though it is likely that he arrived around the same time."
In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he said.
The former prime minister claims that Saddam's regime sought to involve even Palestinian Abu Nidal - head of a group once considered the world's most dangerous terrorist organisation - in its terrorist circuit. Abu Nidal's organisation was responsible for terrorist attacks in some 20 countries, killing more than 300 people and wounding hundreds more. He added that Abu Nidal's refusal to cooperate with Islamist groups was the reason for his death in Iraq, in the summer of 2002.
"The Day Will Come When We Will Rule Again"From
Melanie Phillips:
For those who think that
a) Mahmoud Abbas is genuine in his commitment to rid the Palestinian Authority of incitement against the Jews
b) although Hamas are genocidal fanatics the PA is 'moderate'
c) that the war against Israel has nothing to do with the global jihad and
d) that the global jihad has nothing to do with Britain,
'With the establishment of the state of Israel, the entire Islamic nation was lost, because Israel is a cancer spreading through the body of the Islamic nation, and because the Jews are a virus resembling AIDS, from which the entire world suffers.'You will find that the Jews were behind all the civil strife in this world. The Jews are behind the suffering of the nations. Ask Britain what it did to the Jews in the early sixth century. What did they do to the Jews? They expelled them, tortured them, and prevented them from entering Britain for more than 300 years. All this was because of what the Jews did in Britain. Ask France what it did to the Jews. They tortured them, expelled them, and burned their Talmud, because of the civil strife the Jews wanted to spark in France, in the days of Louis XIX. Ask Portugal what it did to the Jews. Ask Czarists Russia, which welcomed the Jews, who plotted to kill the Czar - so he massacred them. But don't ask Germany what it did to the Jews. It was the Jews who provoked Nazism to wage war against the entire world, when the Jews, using the Zionist movement, got other countries to wage an economic war on Germany and to boycott German merchandise. They provoked Russia, Britain, France, and Italy. This enraged the Germans toward the Jews, leading to the events of those days, which the Jews commemorating today.'But they are committing worse deeds than those done to them in the Nazi war. Yes, perhaps some of them were killed and some burned, but they are inflating this in order to win over the of the media and gain the world's sympathy. The worst crimes in history were committed against the Jews, yet these crimes are no worse than what the Jews are doing in Palestine. What was done to the Jews was a crime, but isn't what the Jews are doing today in the land of Palestine not a crime?!'Look at modern history. Where has Great Britain gone? Where has Czarist Russia gone? Where has France gone - France, which almost ruled the entire world? Where is Nazi Germany, which massacred millions and ruled the world? Where did all these superpowers go? He who made them disappear will make America disappear too, God willing. He who made Russia disappear overnight is capable of making America disappear and fall, Allah willing.'We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again. The day will come when we will rule America. The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world – except for the Jews. The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature, as they have been throughout history. The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews - even the stones and trees which were harmed by them. Listen to the Prophet Muhammad, who tells you about the evil end that awaits Jews. The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew.'
And this from the body that would have us believe that all it wants is a state of its own to live in peace with Israel.
Prayer Room at University of Michigan Sparks ClashFrom
Little Green Footballs:
FLINT - A room for peaceful reflection and prayer at the University of Michigan-Flint has become anything but. Instead, Room 386 at the University Center - known as the Meditation Room - is at the heart of a months-long religious dispute between Muslim and non-Muslim students.
The non-Muslims began complaining in November that Muslim students were monopolizing the room and filling the tiny space with religious paraphernalia and anti-Israel literature. The Muslim students countered that they were being unfairly targeted and appealed to the university for religious tolerance.
“I do think that the current political climate does contribute to Islamophobia,” said Bishr Aldabagh, a former UM-Flint Student Government Council president and student commencement speaker. “The room serves the needs of students from different religions, but I do think that the reaction would have been different if the room was used predominantly by Christians or Jews.”
UM-Flint student Zea Miller, 22 of Flint asked the university, in a written petition, to allow a more balanced use of the room, urging it to “whitewash” the walls and remove all religious items - a move that he said caused him to be stalked and harassed. The university investigated Miller’s claims about being harassed and said they were unfounded. ...
The walls of the room, about the size of a storage room, once held posters, Muslim Student Association awards and framed pictures. Prayer rugs and other books also were stored in the room. Muslim students use the space to perform religious practices, such as praying five times a day, as required by their faith.
“I took it upon myself to file the petition; I did this on behalf of others who were afraid to,” Miller said. “It was not bigoted. I would have done this against any group who usurped the room. Now, at every move I’m being accused of anti-Muslim behavior. I am not anti-Muslim.”
Some UM-Flint students appear unaware of the dispute or regard it as old news. But the other student religious groups weigh in on both sides.
“We don’t have a problem sharing that room,” said Tom Coy, a member of Students Defending Christian Principles. “(Miller) is using that as a basis for his own intolerance.”
The Hillel Student Organization, a predominately Jewish group, issued an open letter supporting Miller’s petition. “The room is really important to us also, (and) we don’t feel comfortable using it the way it is right now,” said Katie Segal, 20, president of Hillel. “The inside and outside had a lot of anti-Zionist propaganda and pictures and paraphernalia.”
Segal said one of her organization’s members had discussed the matter with members of MSA. “The MSA group had a lot of pro-Palestinian (literature) that I was not bothered by. It was the anti-Zionist stuff,” Segal said.
Let's face it, the Muslim students ought to be allowed to use the room to pray five times a day. If they aren't allowed to use that room, then another room should probably be set aside for them.
But, there is no excuse for "anti-Zionist" literature.
Guilty Until Proven Innocent In NorwayIn followup to the post below about the Italian courts prosecuting Orianna Fallaci for defamation of Islam, read what the Norwegian courts are now doing. From
Fjordman:
Stortinget, the Norwegian parliament, in April 2005 passed a new Discrimination Act. The act says in pretty clear words that in cases of suspected direct or indirect discrimination due to religion or ethnicity, Norwegians are guilty until proven otherwise. To me, it is surprising that they are allowed to pass such legislation at all. Isn't it a fundamental part of all international law that a person should be innocent until proven otherwise? Aren't our politicians thus depriving Norwegians of even the most basic human rights? However, I have heard claims that it is technically legal to do this. The act was passed in April with the approval of all parties in parliament, more than 80 % of MPs, with the sole exception of the right-wing Progress Party.
Immigration spokesman for the Progress Party, Per Sandberg, is deeply disappointed and fears the consequences of the new legislation. "This law will jeopardize the rights of ordinary, law-abiding Norwegian citizens. The principle of reverse burden of proof means that Norwegians are guilty of discrimination unless they can prove otherwise. It will lead to many convictions of innocent people. Reverse burden of proof is also combined with liability to pay compensation, which means that innocent persons risk having to pay huge sums for things they didn't do. "It is unclear why this act is needed at all, given that a survey of immigrants only a few months ago indicates that a vast majority don't feel they've been discriminated against in Norway. Racism appears to be less widespread than earlier believed. And why on earth are we supposed to show this ridiculous reverence and respect for their utterly failed Islamic cultures in the first place? Why should people who come from some of the most advanced countries on the planet have to crawl for those who come from the most backward ones? Read the rest.
Prosecuting a 70 Year-Old Cancer-Ridden WomanFor Writing The TruthFrom The Washington Post, via
Reuters:
ROME (Reuters) - A judge has ordered best-selling writer and journalist Oriana Fallaci to stand trial in her native Italy on charges she defamed Islam in a recent book.
The decision angered Italy's justice minister but delighted Muslim activists, who accused Fallaci of inciting religious hatred in her 2004 work "La Forza della Ragione" (The Force of Reason).
Fallaci lives in New York and has regularly provoked the wrath of Muslims with her outspoken criticism of Islam following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on U.S. cities.
In "La Forza della Ragione," Fallaci wrote that terrorists had killed 6,000 people over the past 20 years in the name of the Koran and said the Islamic faith "sows hatred in the place of love and slavery in the place of freedom."
State prosecutors originally dismissed accusations of defamation from an Italian Muslim organization, and said Fallaci should not stand trial because she was merely exercising her right to freedom of speech.
But a preliminary judge in the northern Italian city of Bergamo, Armando Grasso, rejected the prosecutors advice at a hearing on Tuesday and said Fallaci should be indicted.
Grasso's ruling homed in on 18 sentences in the book, saying some of Fallaci's words were "without doubt offensive to Islam and to those who practice that religious faith."
MUSLIMS HAIL DECISION
Adel Smith, a high-profile Muslim activist who brought the original law suit, hailed the decision.
"It is the first time a judge has ordered a trial for defamation of the Islamic faith," he told reporters. "But this isn't just about defamation. We would also like (the court) to recognize that this is an incitement to religious hatred."
Justice Minister Roberto Castelli, who has a prickly relationship with the Italian judiciary, said the ruling represented an attack on freedom of expression.
"In Europe we are seeing the birth of a movement that is looking to silence those who don't follow a single mindset, within which it is forbidden to speak ill of Islam, of homosexuals or of the children of homosexuals," Castelli was quoted as saying in an interview with Radio Padania.
"In Fallaci's book there is very strong criticism but not defamation," Italian news agency ANSA quoted him as saying.
There was no immediate comment from Fallaci who is in her 70s and suffers from cancer.
The thing is the Koran does
sow hatred in the place of love, and
slavery in the place of freedom.
And if you don't believe the information in those links, then here is a
Koran search, and a
Hadith search. Look it up yourself. And, if you have trouble believing these things are true (after all it does seem insane), write down the verses, and go to Barnes and Noble, and look them up in a Koran for yourself.
Isn't it hard to believe that a Western nation is prosecuting a 70 year-old cancer-ridden woman for writing the truth?
Hysterical Human Rights OrganizationBrands Guantanamo "Gulag Of Our Time"From
Associated Press:
LONDON - Amnesty International branded the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay a human rights failure Wednesday, calling it "the gulag of our time" as it released a report that offers stinging criticism of the United States and its detention centers around the world.
The 308-page report accused the United States of shirking its responsibility to set the bar for human rights protections and said Washington has instead created a new lexicon for abuse and torture. Amnesty International called for the camp to be closed.
"Attempts to dilute the absolute ban on torture through new policies and quasi-management speak, such as 'environmental manipulation, stress positions and sensory manipulation,' was one of the most damaging assaults on global values," the annual report said.
Some 540 prisoners from about 40 countries are being held at the U.S. detention center in Cuba. More than 200 others have been released, though some have been jailed in their countries; many have been held for three years without charge.
"Guantanamo has become the gulag of our time," Amnesty Secretary General Irene Khan said.
A spokesman for the Department of Defense declined to comment on the report, saying he had not seen it. But Navy Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter said the U.S. government continues to be a leader in human rights, treating detainees humanely and investigating all claims of abuse.
At least 10 cases of abuse or mistreatment have been documented and investigated at Guantanamo.
Several other cases are pending.
"During the year, released detainees alleged that they had been tortured or ill-treated while in U.S. custody in Afghanistan and Guantanamo. Evidence also emerged that others, including Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and the International Committee of the Red Cross, had found that such abuses had been committed against detainees," the report said. Let's look a little bit at
what the real Gulag was all about:
Gulag was the branch of the Soviet internal police and security service that operated the penal system of forced labour camps and associated detention and transit camps and prisons. While these camps housed criminals of all types, the Gulag system has become primarily known as a place for political prisoners and as a mechanism for repressing political opposition to the Soviet state. In 1931–32, Gulag had approximately 200,000 prisoners in the camps; in 1935 — approximately 1 million (including colonies), and after the Great Purge of 1937, nearly 2 million people. During World War II, Gulag populations declined sharply, owing to mass "releases" of hundreds of thousands of prisoners who were conscripted and sent directly to the front lines, but mainly due to a steep rise in mortality in 1942–43. After WWII the number of inmates in prison camps and colonies rose again sharply and reached the number of approximately 2.5 million people by the early 1950s. While some of these were deserters and war criminals, there were also repatriated Russian prisoners of war and "Eastern workers", were universally accused of treason and "cooperation with an enemy" (formally, they did work for Nazis). Large numbers of civilians from the Russian territories which came under foreign occupation, as well as from the territories annexed by the Soviet Union after the war were also sent there. It was not uncommon for the survivors of Nazi camps to be transported directly to the Soviet labour camps. The total documentable deaths in the corrective-labour system from 1934 to 1953 amount to 1,054,000, including political and common prisoners; note that this does not include nearly 800,000 executions of "counterrevolutionaries", as they were generally conducted outside the camp system. So, they mention the 1.8 million documentable deaths. They also mention that during WWII there were mass "purgings" of the Gulag system where prisoners were released and "sent directly to the front lines."
You may have heard the number 20 million bandied about when discussing how many Soviet citizens Stalin murdered during his reign. Well, many of those 20 million were Gulag prisoners "sent directly to the front lines."
In other words, Stalin and his Gulag system were responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of people.
Amnesty International is comparing Guantanamo Bay to that. Gantanamo Bay, where 10 documented cases of "ill-treatment" have been discovered by the "Federal Bureau of Investigation."
This is an example of anti-American hysteria on the part of Amnesty International.
Such hysteria takes attention away from the real human rights abuses going on is places such as Sudan, Saudi Arabia, China, and the Congo. Such hysteria is also an insult to the memory of the brave human beings who stood up to the totalitarianism of the Soviet system, and were killed for their efforts.
Amnesty International ought to be ashamed of themselves.
The 1% SolutionWhen this whole war was beginning my liberal friends insisted to me that the whole reason for the war was to establish positioning within the Middle East for the building of a pipeline through Afghanistan. Here's an article that touches on the larger strategic importance of pipelines. From
The London Independant:
The pipeline that will change the world -It is 42 inches wide, 1,090 miles long and is intended to save the West from relying on Middle Eastern oil. Nothing has been allowed to stand in its way - and it finally opens today.
The first drops of crude will snake their way along a pipeline that traverses some of the most unstable and war-ravaged countries on earth. This is the oil flow that was meant to save the West, and this morning the taps were turned on.
Only 42 inches wide, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan was supposed to alter global oil markets forever. The 1,000-mile project has transformed the geopolitics of the Caucasus and its impact is now being felt in the vastness of central Asia.
Output is supposed to reach one million barrels a day - more than 1 per cent of world production - from an underground reserve that could hold as many as 220 billion barrels.
Its architects and investors claimed the pipeline would shore up energy supplies in the US and Europe for 50 years, protecting our gas-guzzling way of life and easing our reliance on the House of Saud.
The goal of the ambitious project, which makes its tortuous way from the Caspian in Azerbaijan, through Georgia to the Mediterranean coast of Turkey, is to ease the reliance of the West on the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) and bring cheaper fuel to our filling stations. The pipe threads its way through the region in a seemingly modest private corridor only 50 yards wide but nothing has been allowed to stand in its way. From forests to labour laws and endangered species to democracy protesters: all have given way to the costliest and most significant pipeline ever built.
The project, known as BTC, has driven a wedge between the US and Russia, triggered political unrest in the countries it passes through and their neighbours and sparked concern at extensive damage to the environment.
Since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US, concern at the West's dependence on Persian Gulf oil has intensified. For Washington, the opening is a cause for celebration. "We view this as a significant step forward in the energy security of that region," said Samuel Bodman, the American energy secretary, who stood next to the three heads of state at today's ceremony.
When big oil companies turned their attentions to the potential Caspian energy reserves released from behind the collapsing walls of the Soviet Union, the region was billed as the "new Middle East". If only the reserves could be securely transported from the landlocked sea to the Mediterranean, the West would be gifted a vital alternative to the volatile Persian Gulf and the region would be freed from the iron grip of Russia, which had previously monopolised the export routes of their former Soviet satellites.
Once the Soviet empire fell, the Caspian found itself surrounded by five nation states - Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan.
The region's supply of cheap oil and key position on the historic border between the West and the East meant that countries quickly moved into position like pieces on a chessboard.
Three rival plans were drawn up - a northern route through Russia, a southern alternative through Iran and the central option through the Caucasus to the Mediterranean.
The winner could be in little doubt: the middle road was the only one which guaranteed Washington and its corporate allies a corridor of control.
The US Vice-President Dick Cheney, who was then chief executive of oil services giant Halliburton, was among the first to be swept away in the excitement.
"I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian," he said in 1998.
Now, more than a decade and $4bn (£2.2bn) later, almost three quarters of which came from bank loans which were underwritten by government agencies and £320m in taxpayers' money, the pipeline is open. But this chapter of what Rudyard Kipling called the "Great Game" - the secret battle to dominate central Asia - has only reached the end of its first phase.
The fanfare at the British oil giant BP's gleaming new terminal at Sangachal in Azerbaijan may yet prove to be premature.
Stripped of the American hype of the 1990s, the crude that began a very modest flow this morning is the first instalment of a reserve many analysts are now convinced is actually only 32 billion barrels - equivalent to that of a small Gulf player such as Qatar.
The game now moves to the transCaspian pipeline and to the immense plains of Turkmenistan and the political cauldron of Uzbekistan, Afghanistan and beyond.
There you go, the next stop is Afghanistan. And, of course, Cheney and Halliburton were mentioned in there as well. And the prescient Rudyard Kipling quote about the "Great Game" - which is defined as "the secret battle" (think Halliburton and Cheney) "to dominate central Asia."
All this for "1% of the worlds production."
And then, it turns out it isn't even that. The reserve is much smaller (Qatar-sized) than anyone had anticipated.
Oh well, next stop Afghanistan.
Ayaan HirsiSomali-born Dutch PoliticianAnd Hero Of Western CivilizationAyaan Hirsi is the Somali-born Dutch politician who made the movie "Submission" with Theo Van Gogh, for which Mr. Van Gogh was murdered by the Islamofasists. Ayaan Hirsi has been living in hiding, under state protection ever since. She sleeps in a different bed every night. Imagine the life.
Yet she still speaks out against the militants who would bring down Western Civilization.
You know why she does this? Because she hopes that by doing so, we will not have live like her in future generations.
As I have said before on this blog, Ayaan Hirsi is my hero.
Here is an interview with her from the French weekly L' Express, translated by John Rosenthal, of Transatlantic Intelligencer, via
Little Green Footballs:
Originally, a member of the Dutch Labor Party, Hirsi Ali left the latter to join the (more conservative) VVD (party). L’Express asked her why. Here is her response:
Because the left is exactly like the Muslims! I wanted to give priority to the defense of immigrant women who are victims of domestic violence. They said to me: “No, that’s not a priority! The problem will take care of itself when the immigrants have jobs and are integrated.”
It is exactly what the Imams say who demand that we accept oppression and slavery today because tomorrow, in Heaven, God will give us dates and raisins…. I think we need first to defend the individual.
The left is afraid of everything. But fear of giving offense leads to injustice and suffering.
The sexual revolution, the affirmation of individual rights, improving the living conditions of immigrants – these were once the great causes of the Dutch left. In their eyes, the simple fact that one belongs to a minority gives one the right to do anything. This multiculturalism is a disaster. All one has to do is scream “discrimination” and all doors are open to you! Scream ‘racism’ and your opponents shut up!
But multiculturalism is an inconsistent theory. If one wants to let communities preserve their traditions, what happens when these traditions work to the detriment of women or homosexuals? The logic of multiculturalism amounts to accepting the subordination of women. Nonetheless, the defenders of multiculturalism do not want to admit it.
Jihadi "Minutemen" Attempt To Blow Up Children ...AgainFrom
Little Green Footballs:
Residents called police about a suspicious-looking car parked opposite the Dijlah Junior High School for Girls in Alwiyah, near eastern Baghdad’s well-known Withaq Square, a Christian neighborhood. As bomb disposal experts approached the vehicle, it exploded and killed six bystanders, said police Capt. Husham Ismael.
Three civilians and one policeman also were injured. No students were believed to be among the casualties.
“May God seek revenge for those who were killed or injured!” an elderly woman screamed outside a hospital where casualties were brought. “We hope that such killers be killed or perished as they kill our youth. Those killers are against homeland, against Islam.”
Just remember, in the interest of being open-minded, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
India Is The New BritainAbout a week ago,
I wrote a despairing post wherein I mused about who are our enemies, and who are our friends. One of the just a little more than a handful of nations I decided we could truly call friends, was India.
Here, from The Australian, is an article which discusses the Bush Administration diplomatic efforts at forging a solid alliance with the emerging Capatalist Democracy:
ITS logic is inescapable yet the idea has been inconceivable: a strategic partnership between the two great democracies, the US and India, long divided by distrust and the Cold War. Yet it is happening. George W. Bush has reached out to India and one of the coming debates in global politics will be over the manner and meaning of his decision to support India's quest to become a global power.
India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will visit Washington in July, with Bush reportedly saying this will be treated as a "grand event", and at the year's end Bush will visit India.
A round of interviews in New Delhi this week elicited a plethora of views as India's political elite debates how far it should enter the US embrace. But India is being wooed and its pride at this is palpable.
The Bush administration, far more cohesive with Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, has launched a diplomatic offensive with India that is stunning in its rhetoric and serious in its content. "India's relations with the US are now the best they have ever been," says Rajiv Sikri, the senior official on East Asia at India's external affairs ministry.
When the two leaders briefly met in Moscow this month at celebrations to honour the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, Bush introduced his wife Laura to Singh, saying, "This is the Prime Minister of India and I'm going to take you to his country this Christmas-New Year so you can see the most fascinating democracy in the world."
The message in New Delhi is that Bush and Singh can do business. How much business they do remains to be seen but the US has set the bar very high. When Rice visited India in March she said: "This is my first stop as Secretary of State in Asia. The President has personally put a lot of time and energy into the relationship. The US has determined that this is going to be a very important relationship going forward and we're going to put whatever time we need into it." The aim was to take US-India ties "to another level."
In a calculated State Department briefing in Washington on March 25 (now famous in New Delhi), the real US purpose was made explicit. The spokesman said that Bush and Rice earlier this year "developed the outline for a decisively broader strategic relationship" between the US and India. When Rice went to New Delhi she presented this outline to Singh, its purpose being "to help India become a major world power in the 21st century", the abiding dream of the Indian elite.
The spokesman continued: "We [the US] understand fully the implications, including military implications, of that statement."
The article goes on to explain some of the ways in which America will help India with it's military and energy needs. Equipment and technology to be shared includes "top-of-the-line" military jets, and help with their satellite systems.
It is rare in the past 100 years that a US president has sent a signal of this dimension. India thinks it can manage this US embrace on its own terms. It knows that China and the world will have to take India more seriously and India will have to give China assurances it is not joining any US "containment of China" strategy. All this is already under way.
Singh's media aide Sanjaya Baru says: "India is an ancient civilisation and has a mind of its own on each issue. But our views are moving in parallel with the US and Anglo-Saxon world." Baru sees a new realism in India's policy that dates from the 1991 economic reform era with growth now running at 6 per cent to 7 per cent each year.
Singh, an economic technocrat, has declared that India's new role in the world will be defined by how it manages globalisation. That is a long advance from Nehru. And it dictates a diplomacy to underwrite entrepreneurship, markets and technology, with all that implies for a more positive view of the US.
I believe this is the right move. India looks like the new Britain; a natural ally, who stands for the same principles, and against the same enemies.
Blessed Is The Whore
For She Shall Be Called The Bride Of Christ
Over at Mystery Achievement,
Someguy wrote a post which he entitled The Roots Of Our Roots. The subject matter is a post by Paul Cella. Someguy takes issue with Cella's, apparent, opinion that American Christianity believes it can declare European Christianity apostate and simply supersede it's history and existence. Cella put it thusly:
That American Christians would come to condemn the threat to the lands from which their faith springs is more than alarming; it is a grave failure of imagination and piety. To my Christian brethren it may be comforting to think of Christianity as a disembodied essence, detached from solid forms of reality such as a church, a community, a nation or civilization; it is easy to make of it a Platonic ideal, perfectly abstract, which at the moment is best approached in America. It is comforting and easy — and it is naturally American — but it is wrong.
St. Paul’s words in the Epistle to the Romans comprise a stirring rebuke to this tendency: “We are members one of another.” Or again in 1 Corinthians: “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.” The concrete, physical imagery here is unmistakable: Christianity is not only a set of ideas, but also a real community of souls ...
Christianity cannot be torn free from its historical body Christendom without the most violent of surgeries. The blow we would sustain if we were to simply give up on Europe would be a cruel and severe one indeed.
Someguy sees in Cella's ideas
...a darker and uglier subtext that informs Cella's work, and explains why he does not understand the real sickness that is destroying European civilization. A clear example of that subtext can be found in an essay he wrot for TCS a year and a half ago, "Why Be Partial to Israel?":
Anyway, the first thing to be said about Israel is that it is a Western nation. It descends from the same cultural matrix from which America does; and as the ties of blood bind men, so the ties of lineage bind nations.
Cella goes on to make political statements about the dubiousness of Israel's quest for peace with the Palestinians. I'm sorry to sum it up that way, because Cella sees himself as a defender of Israel (and I accept that, in a sense), but the specific political conclusions that can be drawn from such beliefs is not the subject matter I want to attack here.
Instead, I want to put in my two cents on the subject of Israel, Christianity and Apostasy. On this subject, Someguy says:
... it is the key notion of Cella's previous paragraph, that "Israel is...a Western nation. It descends from the same cultural matrix from which America does" that explains the false moral equivalency of the paragraph that followed, as well as why he doesn't understand what's going on in Europe.
Both historically and ontologically, Cella has it upside-down. It is not Israel which has descended from us, but we from her. Our institutions are founded on the values in the Tanakh which she received, preserved, and passed on. The modern state draws on the roots of a plant whose seeds she sowed first. And yes, they are also rooted in the other Testament which, I seem to recall, had something to do with a Jew, and his Jewish Mother, and other Jewish followers of His, who went traveling around Europe telling effite Greeks, brutal Romans, and assorted clueless barbarians (you know, Europeans) that they needed to believe in the God of Israel.
And that brings us to Cella's second misperception: his notion that Europe's nations are "the lands from which [the] faith [of American Christians] springs. It is not from being a part of--or allies with--Europe that our faith remains alive, but by being grafted into--and remaining part of--the living olive tree which, in Romans 11, St. Paul identifies as Israel. And it is precisely because of its rejection of the Jews via nationalism and atheistic humanism (and which finds its focus in its foreign policy towards the modern state of Israel) that Europe is teetering on the brink of a new dark age.
In an article in the November 2001 issue of First Things, Fr. Richard J. Neuhaus concisely states by way of a warning the situation in which Europeans find themselves today:
When we Christians do not walk together with Jews, we are in danger of regressing to the paganism from which we emerged. [Franz] Rosenzweig saw that gnosticism, pantheism, and assimilation to the idolatry of culture and nation are constant temptations for Christians.
Ok, so the battle lines are drawn in this argument. Cella says that the spirit of Christianity can not be ripped away from it's European corpus, and Someguy says that Christianity must be seen as being grafted onto the olive tree of the history of Israel and the Jews.
I agree with both.
1) I agree with Cella that Europe was the locus of Christianity in the world, and that we are part of the same body with European Christianity.
and
2) I agree with Someguy that European Christianity, or any Christianity for that matter, is only as strong as its ties to Israel (God’s people), through its study and reverance of the Torah, God's Law.
It is clear to me that the modern state of Israel is the rebirth of the Biblical state of Israel. The modern state of Israel was founded by Jews who, for eons, had promised themselves, "Next year, in Jerusalem," because they believed God’s promise to them, against all odds.
The Jews have carried the Torah forward with them, throughout the generations, even as they have been unfaithful at the same time. They have studiously preserved the Word of God, copied it by hand onto parchment, translated it, and brought it to the world. They have argued it’s meaning, and made it ever meaningful to a changing and confused world. They have done their best to carry the Torah, just as they have also done their best at being unfaithful.
The reestablishment of Israel is according to God’s promises, but that does not mean that the people of Israel are living according to God’s Will. Just as the People of God wavered in their faith when God led them out of captivity in Egypt, and fed them on the miraculous manna from heaven, so His people abound in secularity today, even as the miracles of Israel unfold in the reality of modern-day history.
But, lest we gentile followers of God become arrogant, the secularization and apostasy of the Jews of Israel is parallel to the secularization and apostasy of the Christians of the Western world.
The Christians of Western Europe have cursed God’s people, the Jews. But still, we are one body with European Christians, even as they seem to be rotting of gangrene. And, honestly, I am having trouble seeing the log in my eye, because of the gnat in the eye of Europe. I'm sure America is in the grip of malevolent sin as well. Murder, abortion, the glorification of violence, and the child sexualization rampant in our media, obsession with perversion and drunkeness, the female as workout apparatus mindset which passes for "courtship" in our society; these are our sins. Honestly, they don't smell that bad to me.
But, as bad as our sins look on paper, I agree with Cella: Our apostasy, as individuals, and as the American, or European Church, does not remove us from the blessings of God.
As it says in Romans 11:29, “… the gifts and callings of God are irrevocable.” Once Christ has pursued us, and called us, He does not turn His back on us. This is illustrated in many places in the Word of God. In Romans 8: 38-39 Paul tells us,
“For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nnor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor heights, nor depth, norany other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the Love of God, which is in Christ Jesus the Lord.”
For some reason, the hardest pill for us to swallow is the one that tells us:
“… it (salvation) does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.
Romans 9: 16
Yes, Europe has been an apostate society. The sin of Europe has been frightful. They have spit in the very face of God. They have killed His Chosen People. And, in so doing, they have, yet again, crucified His Son.
But the story of Hosea tells us all we need to know about the fallen state of the Church, and of God’s Love in spite of this fact. Eugene Peterson, in describing the book of Hosea, said:
“We live in a world awash in love stories. Most of them are lies. They are not love stories at all – they are lust stories, sex-fantasy stories, domination stories. From the cradle to the grave we are fed on lies about love.
But when our minds and imaginations are crippled with lies about love, we have a hard time understanding this fundamental ingredient of daily living, “love,” either as a noun or as a ver. And if the basic irienting phrase”God is love” is plastered over with cultural graffiti that obscure and deface the truth of the way the world is, we are not going to get very far in living well. We require true stories of love if we are to live truly.
Hosea is the prophet of love, but not love as we imagine or fantasize it. He was a parable of God’s love for His people lived out as God revealed and enacted it – a lived parable. It is an astonishing story: a prophet commanded to marry a common whore and have children with her. It is an even more astonishing message: God loves us in just this way – goes after us at our worst, keeps after us until he gets us, and makes lovers of men and women who know nothing of real love.”
It will be unpopular for me to say this, but Gods Church, we the Bride of Christ, have acted as a whore. We have slept with others for money. We have run from God, into the beds of other suitors. We have been unfaithful, and we have laughed in God's face when confronted with our transgressions. And yet, still God pursues us.
God’s words to Hosea were,
“Find a whore and marry her. Make this whore the mother of your children. And here’s why: The whole country has become a whorehouse, unfaithful to me, God.”
The marriage bore fruit and God told Hosea to name his children No Mercy, and Nobody, because the people had become nobodies to Him. But the very next verse declares,
“… down the road the population of Israel is going to explode past counting, like sand on the ocean beaches. In the very place where they were once named Nobody, they will be named God’s Somebody.”
The biggest mystery of the Bible lies in the question, how can God love a people who have, not only turned their backs on Him, but outright killed Him, as we all have done to Christ?
Christ did not simply die for our sins, He died of our sins. For nothing else could have killed the Son of God. II Corinthians 5:21 says, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf …” Now, of course, the wages of sin are death. So, in becoming sin, Christ was separated from God, and in being separated from He who sustains all life, Christ died.
This is how far God goes in pursuit of us; all the way unto death, and back. And He has gone this far for all His people, not just the easy cases. He has gone out of His way to marry the whore, and to have children by her. And one day, we will be His redeemed Bride of Christ. Until then, we will be the imperfect stumbling partner that He loves beyond all comprehension.
Magical Realism In The European MediaHow does Europe explain the swing towards Democracy in the Middle East? From
No Pasaran:
Europeans are masters of instant amnesia writes Ralph Peters in the New York Post:
When they find themselves shamed by history, they simply move on. That's what they're doing now.
[Peters recently spent a] week in Europe watching acrobats perform. There were no high-wires or circus tents — just left-wing intellectuals contorting themselves into bizarre shapes as they "explained" the changing Middle East.
A few Euro-papers raised the possibility that Bush might have been right about some things — only to knock down that notion with excuses so convoluted even the writers and editors couldn't begin to believe them. They were trying, desperately, to save face.
The commonly agreed alibi runs that the Middle East was changing on its own, that Anglo-American actions had little or no effect, that the outbreak of democracy has been on the way for years, that the Arabs did it themselves.
Oh, really? Guess our troops overlooked the warehouses full of multi-party ballots when they took Baghdad.
Are The Lights Going Out In Europe?Dymphna, at the stellar blog, Gates of Vienna says that Germany is a country run on a predominantly negative political philosophy. Germany, like France, defines itself in opposition to the United States, and Capitalism. In other words, Germany does not, anymore, define itself by what it is, but instead by what it is not. From
Gates of Vienna:
Looking back at the 1960s and 1970s, when I grew up in Germany, one of the most striking things was that everyone talked about work and money. The country was infuriatingly materialistic. The old West Germany felt more like an economy than a country. It used to have a proper currency, the Deutschmark, but it lacked a proper political capital. At a time when the British believed in incomes policies, capital controls and state ownership, Germany was as laissez-faire an economy as you could find anywhere in Europe.
The Germans were the Americans of Europe, as a friend remarked at the time. Everyone was brimming with confidence and the superiority that comes with the belief that you are running the world’s most superior economy. Then along came re-unification and all its resultant problems.
When I returned to Germany in the 1990s, what surprised me most was not the poor performance of the economy — this I expected. I was most shocked by the extraordinary loss of self-confidence among the political and business elites, combined with a poisonous cocktail of the three big As: anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and anti-capitalism.
Germany has been anti-American for some time. And it’s anti-capitalism is self-evident in its economic decisions.
The absence of a proper market economy means that most people and politicians have no gut-level understanding of how a market economy works. Most Germans do not negotiate their wages. They are paid according to fixed-rate tariffs set in negotiations between trade unions and employers’ associations. Among wealthy nations, Germany has one of the lowest ownership rates of private homes, shares, mutual funds and credit cards.
What makes Germany even more distinct is the universal belief that the primary responsibility of companies is not to make profits but to fulfil a moral duty to their employees and their communities. But it is the growing anti-Semitism, in Germany of all places, that chills:
A cartoon in the latest issue of the house journal of I.G. Metall, the German engineering union, depicts what appear to be American-Jewish investors as insects with long noses sucking the lifeblood out of the German economy. It is quite shocking to see how the present generation of centre-left leaders uses symbols of racism with such carelessness, considering that their predecessors — political leaders like Konrad Adenauer, Willy Brandt and Helmut Kohl — have spent decades dispelling the ghosts of the past ...
Well, it appears to be an image only, not a reality. Nor is Germany is alone in its thinking. Spain’s now-suspect 3/11 fix, Britain’s increasingly uncivil public spaces, the anti-Semitism and cesspit of the no-go areas of suburban Paris, Italy’s loud anti-Americanism, the darkening skies in Sweden and Norway: they are all of a piece.
So it may be that the lights are going out all over Europe. Again. This time, there may not be the American will to save them from themselves.
I've been thinking a lot about how I post articles like this on a regualr basis. I must seem like Chicken Little squaking about the perilous position in which the sky is perched.
Yes, I know that, in Europe, everything seems fine. I know that, for the most part, Europe is fine. I know the Euro is performing better than the Dollar. I know that Europe's economic slump, and increasing unemployment, is subject to the vagaries and fluctuations of the marketplace, and that things could just as well turn around for them.
However, I also know about the rising tide of anti-Semitism in their media. I know that Europe is defining itself by being in opposition to the U.S. I know that this means that they have many strange bedfellows among the Islamists and Chinese and North Koreans. I know about the demographic timebomb of their Muslim population, which is weaned on a militant Islamism, funded by Saudi Arabian Wahabbi ideology.
And most of all I know that, given Europe's history, there could be a dangerous collision between economic recession and anti-Semitism. And, as the last few generations of the European population have been weaned on Pacifism and polical correctness, I don't necessarily think that such a collision of forces will result in Europe fighting off those who truly threaten them within their borders, but instead I worry that Europe will turn against America, and against it's own history.
These are my fears. I don't think they are completely unfounded. Europe has been extremely self-destructive for almost 100 years now.
There is nothing I would like more than for Europe to look with pride on the great Western Civilization it has bequethed to this world. There is nothing I would like more than for Europe to join us in defending the Civilization they birthed.
Will it happen? Or will they turn out the lights, shut the doors, and hang an out of business sign in the window.
Coulda, Shoulda, HudnaFrom
The Eurabian Times:
People with an extreme right-wing agenda, who are unwilling to tolerate any compromise with the Arab world and the Palestinian people in an effort to obtain peace agreements, figure prominently among Sharansky's supporters in the Jewish world.
Sharansky's point of departure is that as long as there is not real democracy in all the Arab states, there is no point in signing peace agreements with any of them. He does not even believe in the durability of those peace agreements that have already been signed, which have been in force for years.
Egypt is the logistical rear of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah.
But Sharansky, who was an admirable human rights activist in Soviet Russia and even sat in jail for nine years because of it, chose, after moving to Israel, to join the less tolerant wing of Israeli politics, to cultivate the feeling that the whole world is against us and to use anti-Semitism to justify a harsh, uncompromising policy toward the Arabs.
Matt, at the Eurabian Times, asks:
How does this differ from the anti-Semitic slur that Israel 'uses' the Holocaust to justify various policies?
Hudna (هدنة) is an
Arabic term meaning "
truce" or "
armistice" as well as "calm" or "quiet", coming from a verbal root meaning "calm". It is sometimes translated as "
cease-fire".
As U.S. Secretary of State Powell winds up his Mideast trip, Palestinian leaders appear on the verge of announcing a hudna.
The Associated Press declared that "the success of peacemaking may well hang on a legal concept dating to the birth of Islam: a hudna, or a truce of a fixed duration."
Would a hudna with Hamas really mark "the success of peacemaking," a "major breakthrough" toward a nonviolent future?
The answer lies in the historical meaning of the Muslim expression, Hamas' track record, and the terms of the road map itself.
Hudna has a distinct meaning to Islamic fundamentalists, well-versed in their history: The prophet Mohammad struck a legendary, ten-year hudna with the Quraysh tribe that controlled Mecca in the seventh century. Over the following two years, Mohammad rearmed and took advantage of a minor Quraysh infraction to break the hudna and launch the full conquest of Mecca, the holiest city in Islam.
When Yassir Arafat infamously invoked Mohammad's hudna in 1994 to describe his own Oslo commitments "on the road to Jerusalem," the implication was clear. As Mideast expert Daniel Pipes explained, Arafat was asserting to his Islamic brethren that he will, "when his circumstances change for the better, take advantage of some technicality to tear up existing accords and launch a military assault on Israel." Indeed, this is precisely what occurred in Sept. 2000 when Arafat & Co. launched a terror assault upon Israeli citizens.
The Israeli's are no longer under any illusion that the concept of "peace treaty" or "cease fire" means anything more to the Palestinians than this word "hudna" meant to Mohammed.
“Without offending the Arab world, it must be said that their agreements, declarations and speeches are not worth the paper they’re written on,” Sharon was quoted as saying by the Yediot Aharonot daily.
“Anyone who doesn’t live in the region cannot understand that the words which are offered have a limited guarantee. What really counts is acts and deeds,” he was also quoted as saying by public radio.
Leaving The LeftFrom Keith Thompson in
The San Francisco Chronicle:
Nightfall, Jan. 30. Eight-million Iraqi voters have finished risking their lives to endorse freedom and defy fascism. Three things happen in rapid succession. The right cheers. The left demurs. I walk away from a long-term intimate relationship. I'm separating not from a person but a cause: the political philosophy that for more than three decades has shaped my character and consciousness, my sense of self and community, even my sense of cosmos.
I'm leaving the left -- more precisely, the American cultural left and what it has become during our time together.
I choose this day for my departure because I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity with oppressed populations everywhere -- reciting all the ways Iraq's democratic experiment might yet implode.
My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.
Like many others who came of age politically in the 1960s, I became adept at not taking the measure of the left's mounting incoherence. To face it directly posed the danger that I would have to describe it accurately, first to myself and then to others. That could only give aid and comfort to Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and all the other Usual Suspects the left so regularly employs to keep from seeing its own reflection in the mirror.
Now, I find myself in a swirling metamorphosis. Think Kafka, without the bug. Every anomaly that didn't fit my perceptual set is suddenly back, all the more glaring for so long ignored. The insistent inner voice I learned to suppress now has my rapt attention. "Something strange -- something approaching pathological -- something entirely of its own making -- has the left in its grip," the voice whispers. "How did this happen?" The Iraqi election is my tipping point. The time has come to walk in a different direction -- just as I did many years before.
I grew up in a northwest Ohio town where conservative was a polite term for reactionary. When Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of Mississippi "sweltering in the heat of oppression," he could have been describing my community, where blacks knew to keep their heads down, and animosity toward Catholics and Jews was unapologetic.
Liberal and conservative, like left and right, wouldn't be part of my lexicon for a while, but when King proclaimed, "I have a dream," I instinctively cast my lot with those I later found out were liberals (then synonymous with "the left" and "progressive thought"). The people on the other side were dedicated to preserving my hometown's backward-looking status quo.
All my commitments centered on belief in equal opportunity, due process, respect for the dignity of the individual and solidarity with people in trouble. To my mind, Americans who had joined the resistance to Franco's fascist dystopia captured the progressive spirit at its finest.
A turning point came at a dinner party on the day Ronald Reagan famously described the Soviet Union as the pre-eminent source of evil in the modern world. The general tenor of the evening was that Reagan's use of the word "evil" had moved the world closer to annihilation. There was a palpable sense that we might not make it to dessert.
When I casually offered that the surviving relatives of the more than 20 million people murdered on orders of Joseph Stalin might not find "evil'" too strong a word, the room took on a collective bemused smile of the sort you might expect if someone had casually mentioned taking up child molestation for sport.
My progressive companions had a point. It was rude to bring a word like "gulag" to the dinner table.
I look back on that experience as the beginning of my departure from a left already well on its way to losing its bearings. Two decades later, I watched with astonishment as leading left intellectuals launched a telethon- like body count of civilian deaths caused by American soldiers in Afghanistan. Their premise was straightforward, almost giddily so: When the number of civilian Afghani deaths surpassed the carnage of Sept. 11, the war would be unjust, irrespective of other considerations.
Stated simply: The force wielded by democracies in self-defense was declared morally equivalent to the nihilistic aggression perpetuated by Muslim fanatics.
Susan Sontag cleared her throat for the "courage" of the al Qaeda pilots. Norman Mailer pronounced the dead of Sept. 11 comparable to "automobile statistics." The events of that day were likely premeditated by the White House, Gore Vidal insinuated. Noam Chomsky insisted that al Qaeda at its most atrocious generated no terror greater than American foreign policy on a mediocre day.
All of this came back to me as I watched the left's anemic, smirking response to Iraq's election in January. Didn't many of these same people stand up in the sixties for self-rule for oppressed people and against fascism in any guise? Yes, and to their lasting credit. But many had since made clear that they had also changed their minds about the virtues of King's call for equal of opportunity.
These days the postmodern left demands that government and private institutions guarantee equality of outcomes. Any racial or gender "disparities" are to be considered evidence of culpable bias, regardless of factors such as personal motivation, training, and skill. This goal is neither liberal nor progressive; but it is what the left has chosen. In a very real sense it may be the last card held by a movement increasingly ensnared in resentful questing for group-specific rights and the subordination of citizenship to group identity. There's a word for this: pathetic.
I smile when friends tell me I've "moved right." I laugh out loud at what now passes for progressive on the main lines of the cultural left.
In the name of "diversity," the University of Arizona has forbidden discrimination based on "individual style." The University of Connecticut has banned "inappropriately directed laughter." Brown University, sensing unacceptable gray areas, warns that harassment "may be intentional or unintentional and still constitute harassment." (Yes, we're talking "subconscious harassment" here. We're watching your thoughts ...).
Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like "Why you ain't" and "Where you is," Jesse Jackson countered that the time was not yet right to "level the playing field." Why not? Because "drunk people can't do that ... illiterate people can't do that."
When self-styled pragmatic feminist Camille Paglia mocked young coeds who believe "I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening," Susan Estrich spoke up for gender- focused feminists who "would argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as a sign of true consent is misguided."
I'll admit my politics have shifted in recent years, as have America's political landscape and cultural horizon. Who would have guessed that the U.S. senator with today's best voting record on human rights would be not Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer but Kansas Republican Sam Brownback?
He is also by most measures one of the most conservative senators. Brownback speaks openly about how his horror at the genocide in the Sudan is shaped by his Christian faith, as King did when he insisted on justice for "all of God's children."
My larger point is rather simple. Just as a body needs different medicines at different times for different reasons, this also holds for the body politic.
One aspect of my politics hasn't changed a bit. I became a liberal in the first place to break from the repressive group orthodoxies of my reactionary hometown.
This past January, my liberalism was in full throttle when I bid the cultural left goodbye to escape a new version of that oppressiveness. I departed with new clarity about the brilliance of liberal democracy and the value system it entails; the quest for freedom as an intrinsically human affair; and the dangers of demands for conformity and adherence to any point of view through silence, fear, or coercion.
Leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens, but only of the rights of clients, cannot be expected to grasp the importance (not least to our survival) of fostering in the Middle East the crucial developmental advances that gave rise to our own capacity for pluralism, self-reflection, and equality.
All of which is why I have come to believe, and gladly join with others who have discovered for themselves, that the single most important thing a genuinely liberal person can do now is walk away from the house the left has built. The renewal of any tradition that deserves the name "progressive" becomes more likely with each step in a better direction.
I must concur with Mr. Thompson here. I never voted for a Republican until after September 11th. The reaction of the Left to the determined efforts of the Islamofascists convinced me that they hated America more than they loved justice.
Dennis Prager says that
he found God in a classroom in Columbia University:
... one day, when I was a graduate student in international affairs at Columbia University, I had what can honestly be called an epiphany.
I remember it very clearly. Since entering graduate school, I was preoccupied with this question: Why did so many learned and intelligent professors believe so many foolish things?Why did so many people at my university believe nonsense such as Marxism?
Why did so many professors believe and teach the even more foolish notion that men and women are basically the same? At college, it was a given that the differing conduct of boys and girls and of men and women is a result of different, i.e., sexist, upbringings. The feminist absurdity that girls do girl things because they are given dolls and tea sets, and boys do boy things because they are given trucks and toy guns, was actually believed in the mind-numbing world of academic intellectuals.
And why were so many professors morally confused? How could people so learned in contemporary history morally equate the Soviet Union and the United States, regard America as responsible for the Cold War, or regard Israel as the Middle East's villain?
One day, I received an answer to these questions. Seemingly out of nowhere, a biblical verse -- one that I had recited every day in kindergarten at the Jewish religious school I attended as a child -- entered my mind. It was a verse from Psalm 111: "Wisdom begins with fear of God."
The verse meant almost nothing to me as a child -- both because I recited it in the original Hebrew, which at the time I barely understood, and because the concept was way beyond a child's mind to comprehend. But 15 years later, a verse I had rarely thought about answered my puzzle about my university and put me on a philosophical course from which I have never wavered.
It could not be a coincidence that the most morally confused of society's mainstream institutions and the one possessing the least wisdom -- the university -- was also society's most secular institution. The Psalmist was right -- no God, no wisdom.
Most people come to believe in God through what I call the front door of faith. Something leads them to believe in God. Since that day at Columbia, however, I regularly renew my faith through the back door -- I see the confusion and nihilism that godless ideas produce and my faith is restored. The consequences of secularism have been at least as powerful a force for faith in my life as religion.
Keith Thompson notes that Senator Brownback, a Christian Conservative, has the best voting record on Human Rights issues in the United States Senate. This surprises many people. However, if you would look at the history of America, it has almost always been religious folk who have been at the forefront of real moral change in our country.
The founding of America, Abolitionism, and the Civil Rights Movement, were all movements led by religious people. Meanwhile, the two major moral movements in which the non-religious have dominated (the Union Movement, and the anti-War Movement), have both deteriorated into pathetic charicatures of themselves.
It seems that we need to heed God's Law in order to change things for the better. That's an interesting lens with which to view history, isn't it? It deserves some thought.
Condi Says Palestinians Must DisarmBefore Peace Process Goes ForwardPamela, from
Atlas Shrugs, is at the AIPAC Conference in Washing D.C. this week. She reports that Condi"gets it.":
Condi spoke. She is the word. She "gets" it and when she asks why the ONLY democracies in the Middle East are in occupied countries [ie Israel, Iraq]? ---it gives great pause. The thing I found most reassuring was that she is not wavering. When she says Israel has no greater freind that the US and that the Palis must disarm the terrorist before we can go forward, I exhale.
Condoleeza Rice for President, 2008.
Bending Over Backwards To Accomodate The Religious Needs Of TerroristsFrom
Front Page Magazine:
Despite what rioting Islamic fanatics around the world want to believe, the U.S. did not authorize any interrogators to desecrate the Koran to rattle Muslim detainees at Gitmo—at least not according to a military intelligence memo I've obtained.
Distributed in early 2003 by an Army JAG officer, the sensitive internal document lists approved techniques for interrogating Taliban and al-Qaida detainees at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo, Cuba, and none of those techniques include defiling the book Muslims hold sacred. No flushing it down the commode or laying it in the toilet seat; no stomping or spitting on it.
"That would be a really dumb-assed approach," asserts an Army intelligence officer who interrogated the detainees and leaked the document to me. It would only anger them and harden their resolve not to talk. "I can't think of a good angle where tearing up the Koran or mishandling it would be helpful," concurs another veteran Army interrogator.
Instead, interrogators used the Koran and other religious items as an incentive for cooperating with them, a smart tactic that was approved by high command for Gitmo detainees. Those who cooperated got copies of the Koran and even finger prayer beads, and were also allowed to keep their bushy beards, which Islamists wear as a sign of devotion to their faith. Those who didn't cooperate were denied such privileges, and even that relatively mild tactic was banned by the end of 2003 thanks to complaints lodged through the Red Cross.
The two techniques appear to be the only ones tied to religion. And according to the written policy, interrogators were barred from applying them without the permission of their commanders. By August 2003, the practice of using religious items to motivate cooperation among detainees stopped, something even the Red Cross confirms in its February 2004 report on treatment of prisoners in Iraq.
"Since August 2003, the detainees have been provided the Koran," it notes. Prayer beads also were no longer withheld. "Command pansied out on that and just issued them to everybody," grouses one Army interrogator—“despite Geneva Conventions stating that a detaining power is only required to return identification."
And contrary to foreign notions that our military deliberately defiled the Koran, the Pentagon specifically banned such acts around the same time it OK'd the interrogation techniques. On Jan. 19, 2003, it issued rules requiring that the Koran not be placed on "the floor, near the toilet or sink, near the feet, or dirty/wet areas."
This is in keeping with long-standing Army doctrine. One rule of interaction with enemy prisoners of war states: "Respect religious articles and materials." Far from desecrating the Koran, Gitmo authorities passed it out along with prayer beads and halal meals amid calls to prayer. That's right: Hewing to politically correct norms, the infidel captors of these poor oppressed Islamic supremacists bent over backwards to accommodate their religious needs.
Meanwhile, a section of an Army training guide I obtained titled "Cultural Awareness-Islam 101" orders American troops deployed in Muslim countries not to "eat or smoke in public during their holy periods when they are fasting." It even admonishes them to hide their religious beliefs around Muslims. "Don't try to convert an Arab to your religion," it warns. "Don't display religious items."
So the bad guys behind barbed wire can be religious—but not our soldiers guarding them. That in mind, it's hard to see how genuinely offended the Muslim population could be down there at Gitmo, and by extension Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The Case for The Case for ...Alan Dershowitz wrote an excellent book a few years back call The Case for Israel, which lays out the facts about how Israel came into being, and of the current issues revolving around what is commonly called the "Middle East Conflict." For his efforts, Mr. Dershowitz has been subjected to the excoriation of a trio of truth-twisters by the names of Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Cockburn.
Here is an excerpt from his heavily footnoted reply:
As soon as (The Case for Israel) reached the bestseller lists and began to get good reviews around the country, this triumvirate went to work. They had a model for their attack going back 20 years.
The mode of attack is consistent. Chomsky selects the target and directs Finkelstein to probe the writings in minute detail and conclude that the writer didn’t actually write the work, that it is plagiarized, that it is a hoax and a fraud. Cockburn publicizes these “findings,” and then a cadre of fellow travelers bombard the Internet with so many attacks on the target that these attacks jump to the top of Google.
Because no one has thus far exposed the pattern, each attack may seem plausible on first impression. But when the pattern is examined and exposed, the entire enterprise becomes clear for what it is: a clear attempt to chill pro-Israel advocacy on university campuses by a form of literary McCarthyism.
Chomsky’s most notorious bedfellow is Robert Faurisson, who called the Holocaust a “hoax,” denied the existence of Hitler’s gas chambers, claimed that the diary of Anne Frank was a “forgery,” and described the Jewish claims for Holocaust reparations as a “fraud.” Chomsky leapt to Faurisson’s support, praising him as a scholar who had done “extensive historical research” and to describe his lies about the Holocaust as historical “findings.”[2]
Chomsky did not see any “hint of anti-Semitic implications” in Faurisson’s claim that the so-called Holocaust was a fraud perpetrated by the Jewish people against Germany. Chomsky, the linguist, assured his readers that “nobody believes there is an anti-Semitic connotation to the denial of the Holocaust… whether one believes it took place or not.”[3]
As Paul L. Berman summarized Chomsky’s record on these issues: “Chomsky’s view of anti-Semitism is positively wild. His definition is so narrow, neither the Protocols of the Elders of Zion nor the no-Holocaust delusion fit into it…. I am afraid that his present remarks on anti-Semitism and Zionist lies disqualify him from ever being taken seriously on matters pertaining to Jews.”[4]
Ever since his close association with neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers compromised his credibility on “matters pertaining to Jews,” Chomsky has tended to leave it to surrogates to continue his campaign of vilification against the Jewish community. His primary surrogate is Norman Finkelstein.
Chomsky has characterized Finkelstein as one of his “very close friends”[5] and “a very fine scholar.” (Chomsky has also characterized the work of Ward Churchill—the Colorado professor who called the victims of the attack on the World Trade Center “little Eichmanns”—as “excellent, penetrating and of high scholarly quality,” and his achievements as “of inestimable value.”) Chomsky has urged audiences “to come listen to” Finkelstein because he can speak about Israel “with more authority and insight… than anyone I can think of.” This, about a man who boasts of “publicly honoring” and showing “solidarity with Hezbollah,” the anti-American terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction by violence.
Finkelstein is a transient academic who describes himself as “in exile” at DePaul University because he has been—by his own account—“thrown out of every school in New York.”[6] He has been fired by Brooklyn College, N.Y.U., and several other schools for “incompetence,” “mental instability,” and “abuse” of students with politics different from his own, according to a high-ranking official at one of the schools.
Finkelstein has admitted, “Never has one of my articles been published in a scientific magazine.”[7] And deservedly so, as Peter Novick, whose book The Holocaust in American Life Finkelstein has characterized as “the initial stimulus for [his] book,”[8] wrote:
“As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein concerning reparations and restitution, and on other matters as well, the appropriate response is not (exhilarating) ‘debate’ but (tedious) examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. […] No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites.”[9]
Finkelstein has said that he “can’t imagine why Israel’s apologists would be offended by a comparison with the Gestapo”[10] and asserted that Israel’s human rights record is “interchangeable with Iraq’s” when it was ruled by Saddam Hussein.[11] He has said that most alleged Holocaust survivors—including Elie Wiesel—have fabricated their past, are “bogus,” and that those seeking reparations are “cheats” and “greedy.” Because of my support of Israel, he has compared me to “Adolf Eichman [sic],”[12] and accused me of expressing “Nazi moral judgments.”[13] When challenged to defend his frequent comparison between Jews and Nazis, he has responded, “Nazis never like to hear they’re being Nazis.”[14]
He is a popular speaker among German neo-Nazis; one, Ingrid Rimland, whose husband, the notorious Ernst Zuendel, wrote The Hitler We Loved And Why, even referred to him admiringly as the “Jewish David Irving” (“Jüdischer David Irving”)—a reference to the British Holocaust denier and Hitler admirer. The comparison is apt because Finkelstein has reportedly praised the Holocaust-denying Irving as “a good historian!”[15] and as having “made an indispensable” contribution to our knowledge of World War II.”[16]
A German writer has observed that “seldom has a Jew been more celebrated by brown propaganda than Finkelstein.”[17] Another writer aptly described him as a Jew who “supports anti-Semitism.”[18] Gabriel Schoenfeld has labeled his views as “crackpot ideas, some of them mirrored almost verbatim in the propaganda put out by neo-Nazis around the world.”[19] His books do not sell in America, but they are best-sellers among the growing number of neo-Nazis in Germany.
The third member of this smear team is Alexander Cockburn. Cockburn has used his column at The Nation, and his online radical hotspot Counterpunch, to publicize many of their most outrageous claims. He himself is virulently anti-Israel. In 1984 he was fired from the Village Voice for hiding a $10,000 “grant” he received from an anti-Israel organization.[20] When asked whether he believed the “stories” that he reported were “sloshing around the news” involving Israeli complicity in 9/11 and in the anthrax attacks, his response was, “I don’t know there’s enough exterior evidence to determine whether they are true or not.”[21]
The story of this unholy alliance among Chomsky, Finkelstein, and Cockburn begins nearly 20 years ago with the publication of a book entitled From Time Immemorial, by a woman named Joan Peters. The book, an unlikely bestseller, was largely a demographic study of the population of the area that eventually became Israel. Peters’ conclusion was that the Arab political claim that the Palestinians who left or were expelled from Israel during the war of Independence (1947-1948) had lived in the area from time immemorial was exaggerated.
When Noam Chomsky learned of the Peters book, he became outraged because its thesis undercut his ideological opposition to Israel. He raised questions about whether Peters had actually written the book, claiming in print that it was “signed by Joan Peters,”[23] but “probably it had been put together by some intelligence agency….”[24] In describing the book, Chomsky totally distorted its content, alleging that it “purported to show that the Palestinians were all recent immigrants,”[25] that “there were really no Palestinians,”[26] and that “if Israel kicks them all out there’s no moral issue…”[27] Nowhere in Peters’ 622-page book does she make any of these claims.
Chomsky telephoned Finkelstein, then a graduate student already notorious for the virulence of his anti-Zionism, and directed him to expose Peters’ book as “a fraud.” According to Finkelstein’s own account, Chomsky told him “that if I go through the book more carefully, [I’d] probably discover that the whole thing is a fraud.”[28] Any legitimate academic would have rejected Chomsky’s unscholarly directive out of hand, but not Finkelstein. Here is how he responded: “Well, you know, I’m a person of the left, and when you get a call from Professor Chomsky, his wish is your command.”[29]
And, of course, Finkelstein granted Chomsky this wish: he “discovered” that Peters had concocted a “spectacular hoax,” a “fraud from start to finish.”[30] Exactly what Chomsky had directed him to find!
The third member of this nasty attack team, Alexander Cockburn, made similar claims. Cockburn wrote articles publicizing Finkelstein’s unfair attack against Peters. He characterized her conclusions as “fraudulent,” “mad,”[33] and immoral.
The Chomsky-Finkelstein-Cockburn mode of ad hominem attack proved particularly successful against Peters because the words “hoax,” “fraud,” “fake,” and “plagiarism” are so dramatic and unforgettable ... All Finkelstein had managed to show was that in a relatively small number of instances, Peters may have misinterpreted some data, ignored counter-data, and exaggerated some findings—common problems in demographic research that often appear in anti-Israel books as well.
To date, Finkelstein has targeted at least the following writers who support Israel and seek justice for Holocaust survivors: Elie Wiesel, Stuart Eizenstat, Martin Gilbert, Daniel Goldhagen, Burt Neuborne, Yehuda Bauer, Gerald Feldman, Richard Overy, Abba Eban – calling these distinguished Jews “hucksters,” “hoaxters,” “thieves,” “extortionists,” and worse. The pattern of attack is always similar.
Thus, it was only natural that the anti-Israel triumvirate would target me in a similar manner after the publication of The Case for Israel. The well-planned and carefully coordinated response to The Case for Israel employed exactly the same words they had employed so successfully against Peters (and others).
They first claimed—as they had with Peters—that I did not “write this book,” that I did not even “read it,” and that I “had no idea what was in the book.” Recently Finkelstein claimed that I don’t write any of my books: “[Dershowitz] has come to the point where he’s had so many people write so many of his books.… [I]t’s sort of like a Hallmark line for Nazis… [T]hey churn them out so fast that he has now reached a point where he doesn’t even read them.”[34]
The implication was that some Israeli intelligence agency or propaganda unit wrote it and had me sign it—as they claimed was the situation with Peters’ book. The problem for them is that I don’t type or use a computer, so that every word of the text was handwritten by me in my own handwriting—and I still have the manuscript. Even after I publicly offered to make the manuscript available for anyone to examine, Finkelstein repeated the false charge on a C-SPAN television broadcast.[35]
Well, if I did actually write it in my own hand, I must have copied it or plagiarized it. That was the next charge. And guess who I plagiarized it from? Joan Peters, according to Finkelstein, Chomsky, and Cockburn.
The problem with their charge is that Peters’ book was entirely demographic and historical, whereas more than 90 percent of my book deals with contemporary events that took place after the publication of Peters’ book. The other, even more serious problem for them is that they could not come up with a single sentence, phrase or idea in my book that came from another source and was used without quotation marks, attribution, and citation. Indeed, I explicitly cited Peters’ book numerous times while disclaiming reliance on its conclusions because I disagreed with some of them. That, of course, means there was no plagiarism.
But Finkelstein knew from his previous experience that the charge of plagiarism, if leveled, would be more likely to garner media attention than simple criticism of my conclusions. In order to level this spurious charge, Finkelstein made up a false quotation, which he called the “smoking gun:”[36] “[I]n the proofs, it…says: Copy from Joan Peters.[37] It does…. There was no question about it.” He thus alleges that I instructed a research assistant to “copy”[38] from another author without citations. But he simply makes up the word “copy.” The note says precisely the opposite: “cite sources on pp. 160, 485, 486, footnotes 141-145.” The instruction is to be certain that the material is properly cited.
This is not proof of plagiarism; it is proof of scholarship.
Read the rest.
Finkelstein's biggest claim to fame, other than accusing legitimate scholarls of plagiarism, is that he is the author of the book
The Holocaust Industry which criticizes Jews for sue to regain property lost to them in the Holocaust.
Activists and Members of Parliament Call for Israel's Destruction in LondonFrom
Melanie Phillips:
So now the pretence is stripped away. In London on Saturday, an unappetising collection of leftists and Islamists -- including George Galloway, called for the destruction of Israel. As the Jerusalem Post reports, there was no more pretence that the issue is the 'occupation' of the territories, or the security barrier, or the 'oppression' of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. They want Israel utterly destroyed.
Andrew Birgin of the Stop the War Coalition called for 'no more Israel' which was inflicting worse repression on the Palestinians than the South Africans under apartheid. Can people really be so stupid and ignorant, about both Israel and South Africa, as to believe this? (Yes they can).
The Palestinian representative to the UK, Husam Zomlot, said: 'The right of return is non-negotiable! Apartheid no more!". We look forward to this principled opponent of apartheid denouncing the ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Palestine advocated by the Palestine National Covenant.
Galloway declared: 'It's about time that the British government made some reparations for the Balfour declaration,' thus pointing his verbal knife straight at Israel's jugular, while Tony Benn called George Bush and Ariel Sharon the 'two most dangerous men in the world' and said 'if this process continues, there will be possibly some sort of a world war' -- which considering that we in the west are currently defending ourselves from a world war being waged by a series of genocidal fanatics backed by genocidal tyrants leaves one not knowing whether to laugh or cry.
The Balfour Declaration was a letter written by British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour, to Lord Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, stating that the United Kingdom supported Zionist plans for a Jewish national home in Palestine. When Galloway delegitimizes the Balfour Declaration, he is delegitimizing the state of Israel itself.
Little Green Footballs Points OutAn Odd Cognitive Kink Of Anti-SemitesFrom
Little Green Footballs:
A Turkish tabloid newspaper notorious for Holocaust denial demonstrates the peculiar mental flexibility of the antisemite, the odd cognitive kink that allows glorifying and excusing Nazi ideology while simultaneously using it as a symbol of ultimate evil: Turkish Tabloid Enrages Germany with Nazi Comparisons.
Turkey is suffering something of an image problem in Europe these days. First came those unfortunate and truly appalling images of riot police using truncheons, tear gas and brute force against a group of women demonstrating for equal rights to mark World Women’s Day last week. Then came the women’s claims that they are so used to being kicked around that they consider it normal; they professed awe that the rest of the world found the TV images outrageous.
Now, yet another scuffle — this one involving German Interior Minister Otto Schily — has Europe wondering if maybe Turkey, which badly wants membership in the European club, isn’t, as many detractors claim, too much of a jellyfish on human rights and otherwise unprepared to be welcomed into Europe.
The latest brouhaha circles around Schily — known in Germany as Iron Otto for his stern, no nonsense efficiency — and his successful push to ban a radical Turkish tabloid called Vakit from German newsstands. The paper regularly publishes inflammatory and often anti-Semitic statements, Schily charged. Indeed, in a Dec. 2004 article, the tabloid stated, “There was no Holocaust. The so-called gas chambers are also a lie. It’s nothing more than Zionist music.”
The ban — which is completely legal according to a German law forbidding the denial of the Holocaust — took effect in February. Now, Vakit has launched an over-the-top smear campaign that equates Schily with Hitler, an infamous media hater who closed all outlets that disagreed with his fanatical views. For seven days in a row, the tabloid has featured scathing stories depicting Schily as an anti-free-speech tyrant. One shows him with a black swastika on his arm, another poses him in front of a Nazi flag and in a third, a cartoonist has drawn a Hitler mustache on him. In a March 4 cover story, he appears under the blaring headline “Heil Otto! The Oven is Ready.”
Germany may be well on its way to digesting its Nazi past, but one truism remains: If you want to rile up a German — particularly a male political leader — connect him to Hitler.
Christopher Hitchens on George GallowayChristopher Hitchens is a lifelong Leftist, who nevertheless sees the logic of the War on Terror. In this article he discusses British MP George Galloway.
Mr. Galloway staunchly opposes the War on Terror and, indeed, had a mysterious cosy relationship with Saddam Hussein which many are attempting to explain via his participation in the Oil-for-Food Scandal. It is alleged that Mr. Galloway received vouchers for tens of millions of gallons of Iraqi oil, which he could then sell on the open market.
He recently testified regarding these allegations in front of the Congress of the United States. From
The Weekly Standard:
EVERY JOURNALIST HAS A LIST of regrets: of stories that might have been. Somewhere on my personal list is an invitation I received several years ago, from a then-Labour member of parliament named George Galloway. Would I care, he inquired, to join him on a chartered plane to Baghdad? He was hoping to call attention to the sufferings of the Iraqi people under sanctions, and had long been an admirer of my staunch and muscular prose and my commitment to universal justice (I paraphrase only slightly). Indeed, in an article in a Communist party newspaper in 2001 he referred to me as "that great British man of letters" and "the greatest polemicist of our age."
No thanks, was my reply. I had my own worries about the sanctions, but I had also already been on an officially guided visit to Saddam's Iraq and had decided that the next time I went to that terrorized slum it would be with either the Kurdish guerrillas or the U.S. Marines. (I've since fulfilled both ambitions.)
... I asked him about his endorsement of Saddam Hussein's payment for suicide-murderers in Israel and the occupied territories. He had evidently been admirably consistent in his attention to my humble work, because he changed tone and said that this was just what he'd expect from a "drink-sodden ex-Trotskyist popinjay."
It takes a little more than this to wound your correspondent--I could still hold a martini without spilling it when I was "the greatest polemicist of our age" in 2001--but please note that the real thrust is contained in the word "Trotskyist." Galloway says that the worst day of his entire life was the day the Soviet Union fell. His existence since that dreadful event has involved the pathetic search for an alternative fatherland. He has recently written that, "just as Stalin industrialised the Soviet Union, so on a different scale Saddam plotted Iraq's own Great Leap Forward." I love the word "scale" in that sentence. I also admire the use of the word "plotted."
Senators Norm Coleman and Carl Levin began the proceedings, and staff members went through a meticulous presentation, with documents and boards, showing the paperwork of the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Organization and the Iraqi Oil Ministry. These were augmented by testimony from an (unnamed) "senior Saddam regime official," who had vouched for the authenticity of the provenance and the signatures. The exhibits clearly showed that pro-Saddam political figures in France and Russia, and at least one American oil company, had earned the right to profit from illegal oil-trades, and had sweetened the pot by kicking back a percentage to Saddam's personal palace-building and mass grave-digging fund.
In several cases, the documents suggested that a man named Fawaz Zureikat, a Jordanian tycoon, had been intimately involved in these transactions. Galloway's name also appears in parentheses on the Zureikat papers--perhaps as an aide-memoire to those processing them--but you must keep in mind that the material does not show transfers directly to Galloway himself; only to Zureikat, his patron and partner and friend.
After about 90 minutes of this cumulative testimony, Galloway was seated and sworn, and the humiliation began. The humiliation of the deliberative body, I mean. I once sat in the hearing room while a uniformed Oliver North hectored a Senate committee and instructed the legislative branch in its duties, and not since that day have I felt such alarm and frustration and disgust.
Galloway has learned to master the word "neocon" and the acronym "AIPAC," and he insulted the subcommittee for its deference to both of these. He took up much of his time in a demagogic attack on the lie-generated war in Iraq. He announced that he had never traded in a single barrel of oil, and he declared that he had never been a public supporter of the Saddam Hussein regime. As I had guessed he would, he made the most of the anonymity of the "senior Saddam regime official," and protested at not knowing the identity of his accuser. He improved on this by suggesting that the person concerned might now be in a cell in Abu Ghraib.
SUCH SPECULATION TO ONE SIDE, the subcommittee and its staff had a tranche of information on Galloway, and on his record for truthfulness. It would have been a simple matter for them to call him out on a number of things. First of all, and easiest, he had dared to state under oath that he had not been a defender of the Saddam regime. This, from the man who visited Baghdad after the first Gulf war and, addressing Saddam, said: "Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability." How's that for lickspittling? And even if you make allowances for emotional public moments, you can't argue with Galloway's own autobiography, blush-makingly entitled I'm Not the Only One, which was published last spring and from which I offer the following extracts:
The state of Kuwait is "clearly a part of the greater Iraqi whole, stolen from the motherland by perfidious Albion." (Kuwait existed long before Iraq had even been named.) "In my experience none of the Ba'ath leaders have displayed any hostility to Jews." The post-Gulf war massacres of Kurds and Shia in 1991 were part of "a civil war that involved massive violence on both sides."
Discussing Saddam's direct payments to the families of suicide-murderers--the very question he had refused to answer when I asked him--he once again lapsed into accidental accuracy, as with the Stalin comparison, and said that "as the martyred know, he put Iraq's money where his mouth was." That's true enough: It was indeed Iraq's money, if a bit more than Saddam's mouth.
Hitchens goes on to describe how Galloway had opposed the Hussein regime, and it's thuggery, during the 70's and 80's, when America supported it in the war against Iran. He goes on to note:
But mark the sequel. It must have been in full knowledge, then, of that repression, and that genocide, and of the invasion of Kuwait and all that ensued from it, that George Galloway shifted his position and became an outright partisan of the Iraqi Baath. There can be only two explanations for this, and they do not by any means exclude one another. The first explanation, which would apply to many leftists of different stripes, is that anti-Americanism simply trumps everything, and that once Saddam Hussein became an official enemy of Washington the whole case was altered. Given what Galloway has said at other times, in defense of Slobodan Milosevic for example, it is fair to assume that he would have taken such a position for nothing: without, in other words, the hope of remuneration.
There was another (reason), however, that was, relatively speaking, nonpolitical. During the imposition of international U.N. sanctions on Iraq, and the creation of the Oil-for-Food system, it swiftly became known to a class of middlemen that lavish pickings were to be had by anyone who could boast an insider contact in Baghdad. This much is well known and has been solidly established, by the Volcker report and by the Senate subcommittee.
During the material time, George Galloway received hard-to-get visas for Iraq on multiple occasions, and admits to at least two personal meetings with Saddam Hussein and more than ten with his "dear friend" Tariq Aziz. But as far as is known by me, he confined his activity on these occasions to pro-regime propaganda, with Iraqi crowds often turned out by the authorities to applaud him, and provide a useful platform in both parliament and the press back home.
However, his friend and business partner, Fawaz Zureikat, didn't concern himself so much with ideological questions (though he did try to set up a broadcasting service for Saddam). He was, as Galloway happily testified, involved in a vast range of deals in Baghdad. But Galloway's admitted knowledge of this somehow does not extend to Zureikat's involvement in any Oil-for-Food transactions, which are now prima facie established in black and white by the subcommittee's report. Galloway, indeed, has arranged to be adequately uninformed about this for some time now: It is two years since he promised the BBC that he would establish and make known the facts about his Zureikat connection.
Here then are these facts, as we know them without his help. In 1998, Galloway founded something, easily confused with a charity, known as the Mariam Appeal. The ostensible aim of the appeal was to provide treatment in Britain for a 4-year-old Iraqi girl named Mariam Hamza, who suffered from leukemia. An announced secondary aim was to campaign against the sanctions then in force, and still a third, somewhat occluded, aim was to state that Mariam Hamza and many others like her had contracted cancer from the use of depleted-uranium shells by American forces in the first Gulf war. A letter exists, on House of Commons writing paper, signed by Galloway and appointing Fawaz Zureikat as his personal representative in Iraq, on any and all matters connected to the Mariam Appeal.
Although it was briefly claimed by one of its officers that the Appeal raised most of its money from ordinary citizens, Galloway has since testified that the bulk of the revenue came from the ruler of the United Arab Emirates and from a Saudi prince. He has also conceded that Zureikat was a very generous donor. The remainder of the funding is somewhat opaque, since the British Charity Commissioners, who monitor such things, began an investigation in 2003. This investigation was inconclusive.
The commissioners were able to determine that the Mariam Appeal, which had used much of its revenue for political campaigning, had not but ought to have been legally registered as a charity. They were not able to determine much beyond this, because it was then announced that the account books of the Appeal had been removed, first to Amman, Jordan, and then to Baghdad. This is the first charity or proto-charity in history to have disposed of its records in that way.
TO THIS DAY, George Galloway defiantly insists, as he did before the senators, that he has "never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one, and neither has anybody on my behalf." As a Clintonian defense this has its admirable points: I myself have never seen a kilowatt, but I know that a barrel is also a unit and not an entity. For the rest, his defense would be more impressive if it answered any charge that has actually been made.
Galloway is not supposed by anyone to have been an oil trader. He is asked, simply, to say what he knows about his chief fundraiser, nominee, and crony. And when asked this, he flatly declines to answer. We are therefore invited by him to assume that, having earlier acquired a justified reputation for loose bookkeeping in respect of "charities," he switched sides in Iraq, attached himself to a regime known for giving and receiving bribes, appointed a notorious middleman as his envoy, kept company with the corrupt inner circle of the Baath party, helped organize a vigorous campaign to retain that party in power, and was not a penny piece the better off for it.
I think I believe this as readily as any other reasonable and objective person would. If you wish to pursue the matter with Galloway himself, you will have to find the unlisted number for his villa in Portugal.
We Live In A World Where The Beslan Story Vanishes In WeeksBut Abu Ghraib Live On For YearsFrom
Belmont Club:
Glenn Reynolds notes that the New York Times coverage of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan may not really be about prisoner abuse or even Afghanistan, but about maintaining the prestige of Newsweek. He calls it "circling the wagons", the idea being to teach press critics an object lesson in how expensive it is to humiliate the mass media by catching them at sloppy reporting by flooding the zone with stories similar to the one which was discredited . That may or may not be the case, but it is nearly undeniable that the effect of the media's coverage of American misdeeds has been to make the slightest infraction against enemy combatants ruinously expensive. Not only the treatment of the enemy combatants themselves, but their articles of religious worship have become the subject of such scrutiny that Korans must handled with actual gloves in a ceremonial fashion, a fact that must be triumph for the jihadi cause in and of itself.
While nothing is wrong with ensuring the proper treatment of enemy prisoners, the implicit moral superiority that has been accorded America's enemy and his effects recalls Rudyard Kipling's The Grave of the Hundred Dead.
Kipling described how the 19th century Indian Army maintained the myth of the Raj and upheld his prestige to compensate for their small numbers and military weakness. When a Subaltern of the First Shikaris is slain in a jungle ambush, his men know that they must teach the Burmans, first and foremost, how blasphemous it was to hurt one of the elect. For the sake of their masters and themselves the Shikaris raid the home village of the foe and slay them to the last man.
"And Sniders squibbed no more; for the Burmans said that a white man's head must be paid for with heads five-score".
Kipling's verse finds its modern analogue not in punitive visitations against "insurgent" strongholds in Afghanistan or Iraq -- which would be eagerly reported by the press if they could at all find them -- but in calls for the arrest of the American President or the dismissal of the the Secretary of Defense for a handful of cases of prisoner abuse gleaned from a global battlefield.
For example, a court in The Hague turned down a demand by a dozen plaintiffs who wanted to force the Dutch government to arrest US President George W Bush when he visits the Netherlands. Donald Rumsfeld has been repeatedly asked to resign over 'widespread prison' abuse in Abu Ghraib. The point of these calls for lopsided retribution is to drive home just how dangerous it is to trifle with sacred person and belief system of the enemy. It aims to paralyze anyone who even contemplates such an act of lese majeste. The modern "grave of a hundred dead" isn't a pyramid of skulls over the tomb of British Subaltern: it's an American Secretary of Defense's head on a stake over a photograph of a jihadi wearing a pair of panties as a hat. It is front-page calls for an abject American apology for flushing a Koran down a toilet even if it was never flushed down a toilet at all, except on the pages of Newsweek. It is calls for an admission of guilt if only the mere possibility of guilt existed.
And if that were not psychological domination at par with the worst the British Empire could offer in its heyday then nothing is. There are Empires today of a different sort, but they maintain the power by much the same means.
There'll be some who say that toppling Saddam was meant to be an object lesson to the Arab world. If so, it has sent mixed messages because it was never prosecuted with the kind of frightening brutality that some have advocated.
The image of the US after OIF is one of a giant afraid to hurt or even give offense to its enemies. Even in the battles of the First and Second Fallujah there were always extraordinary efforts to preserve mosques and similar places, probably to the glee and wonderment of the enemy. If the Kevin Sites incident and the subsequent investigation proved anything it was that the Marines were no Shikaris.
But if the US has been at pains to avoid the image of ruthlessness, the enemy by contrast has made a special effort to magnify his brutality by attacking mosques, beheading women, mutilating children, etc., often on camera. And the really disappointing thing it is that the intended intimidation works.
If George Galloway's standard response to his critics is a lawsuit and radical Islam's first recourse is a fatwa then terror's first answer to insult is always the Grave of a Hundred Dead. Intimidation brings them respect from the very people who style themselves immune to intimidation.
It is plain to the lowliest stringer from the most obscure tabloid that to insult America is cheap but to insult the local 'militants' very, very expensive. Kipling's cynical dictum is proven again and the lesson not forgotten.
We live in a strange world where the Beslan story vanishes in weeks while Abu Ghraib lives on for years.
The Middle East Embraces DemocracyFrom the
Opinion Journal section of the Wall Street Journal:
"George W. Bush has unleashed a tsunami on this region," a shrewd Kuwaiti merchant who knows the way of his world said to me. The man had no patience with the standard refrain that Arab reform had to come from within, that a foreign power cannot alter the age-old ways of the Arabs.
"Everything here--the borders of these states, the oil explorations that remade the life of this world, the political outcomes that favored the elites now in the saddle--came from the outside. This moment of possibility for the Arabs is no exception." A Jordanian of deep political experience at the highest reaches of Arab political life had no doubt as to why history suddenly broke in Lebanon, and could conceivably change in Syria itself before long. "The people in the streets of Beirut knew that no second Hama is possible; they knew that the rulers were under the gaze of American power, and knew that Bush would not permit a massive crackdown by the men in Damascus."
My informant's reference to Hama was telling: It had been there in 1982, in that city of the Syrian interior, that the Baathist-Alawite regime had broken and overwhelmed Syrian society. Hama had been a stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood, a fortress of the Sunni middle class. It had rebelled, and the regime unleashed on it a merciless terror. There were estimates that 25,000 of its people perished in that fight. Thenceforth, the memory of Hama hung over the life of Syria--and Lebanon. But the people in the plazas of Beirut, and the Syrian intellectuals who have stepped forth to challenge the Baathist regime, have behind them the warrant, and the green light, of American power and protection. To venture into the Arab world, as I did recently over four weeks in Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq, is to travel into Bush Country. I was to encounter people from practically all Arab lands, to listen in on a great debate about the possibility of freedom and liberty.
I met Lebanese giddy with the Cedar Revolution that liberated their country from the Syrian prison that had seemed an unalterable curse. They were under no illusions about the change that had come their way. They knew that this new history was the gift of an American president who had put the Syrian rulers on notice.
The speed with which Syria quit Lebanon was astonishing, a race to the border to forestall an American strike that the regime could not discount. I met Syrians in the know who admitted that the fear of American power, and the example of American forces flushing Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole, now drive Syrian policy. They hang on George Bush's words in Damascus, I was told: the rulers wondering if Iraq was a crystal ball in which they could glimpse their future.
The weight of American power, historically on the side of the dominant order, now drives this new quest among the Arabs. For decades, the intellectual classes in the Arab world bemoaned the indifference of American power to the cause of their liberty. Now a conservative American president had come bearing the gift of Wilsonian redemption. For a quarter century the Pax Americana had sustained the autocracy of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak: He had posed as America's man on the Nile, a bulwark against the Islamists. He was sly and cunning, running afoul of our purposes in Iraq and over Israeli-Palestinian matters. He had nurtured a culture of antimodernism and anti-Americanism, and had gotten away with it.
Now the wind from Washington brought tidings: America had wearied of Mr. Mubarak, and was willing to bet on an open political process, with all its attendant risks and possibilities.
Read the rest.
TVD comments:
Our postmodern Western world is blind to the universe of possibilities. How the underqualified C-student child-of-privilege George W. Bush became the visionary of the Western World is beyond me. (The less prudent and worldly call it a miracle.)
(Pastorius note: Has anybody read Shakespeare's Henry IV?)
The phrase "reality-based community" became a self-definition for our friends on the left, in reaction to this quote from an anonymous White House staffer:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality...we'll act again, creating other new realities..."
Now, this was taken as some neo-con psychosis, but how different is it from Bobby Kennedy?
"There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were, and ask 'Why not?'"
Actually, Bush didn't have the vainglory to dream of things that never were; more like he wanted to help the things that are blossom. The desire for freedom and to be rid of tyranny goes back to at least the ancient Greeks, and no doubt further.
I'm certain our real Vietnam mistake was that the Vietnamese were not offered freedom, only a slightly less abusive tyranny than that of the Viet Cong. All things considered, people go with the locals.
Bush's a belief in the "consent of the governed" means that he and his evil advisors have learned the lessons of history. The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon tells us about the hunger for freedom.
The assertion that Syria, still stuck in Thomas Hobbes' and Machiavelli's observation that might makes right (which it does when there are no decent people around), hasn't bathed the streets of Beirut with blood to preserve their little empire because they're afraid of George Bush rings true to me.
In 1982, the Syrians killed 25,000 people who hungered for freedom in one night(the "Hama"). The only difference I can see is that C-student cowboy George Dubya Chimp on the world stage, being as reality-based as all get-out.
The Media Lies About Christian BeliefsFrom
Powerline:
Last February, we helped former Interior Secretary James Watt set the record straight when he was libelled by Bill Moyers. Our exposure of Moyers's falsehoods resulted in a letter of apology from Moyers to Watt (which, however, was insincere), a correction in the Washington Post, and a weird sort-of-correction in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Now, to its credit, the Post has given Mr. Watt equal time to rebut the slander that is being perpetrated against conservative Christians. Watt's article is "The Religious Left's Lies." Here are some excerpts:
The religious left's political operatives have mounted a shrill attack on a significant portion of the Christian community. Four out of five evangelical Christians supported President Bush in 2004 -- a third of all ballots cast for him, according to the Pew Research Center. ... The religious left took note. Political opportunists in its ranks sought a wedge issue to weaken the GOP's coalition of Jews, Catholics and evangelicals and shatter its electoral majority. They passed over obvious headliners and landed on a curious but cunning choice: the environment. Those leading the charge are effective advocates: LBJ alumnus Bill Moyers of PBS fame, members of the National Council of Churches USA and liberal theologians who claim a moral superiority to other people of faith.
Last December Moyers received an environmental award from Harvard University. About three paragraphs into the speech, after attacking the Bush administration, Moyers said: "James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, 'After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back.' Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true -- one-third of the American electorate if a recent Gallup poll is accurate."
I never said it. Never believed it. Never even thought it. I know no Christian who believes or preaches such error. The Bible commands conservation -- that we as Christians be careful stewards of the land and resources entrusted to us by the Creator.
Moyers is not without reinforcements. A liberal theologian and active participant in the National Council of Churches, Barbara R. Rossing of the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, published a book titled "The Rapture Exposed." ... Rossing contends that Christians who believe in the Rapture presume that there is no need for stewardship of natural resources because of the expected return of the Lord. She writes:
"Watt told U.S. senators that we are living at the brink of the end-times and implied that this justifies clear-cutting the nation's forest and other unsustainable environmental policies. When he was asked about preserving the environment for future generations, Watt told his Senate confirmation hearing, 'I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns.' Watt's 'use it or lose it' view of the world's resources is a perspective shared by the Rapture proponents."
Rossing fictionalizes this whole scenario and neglects to finish the sentence, which was as follows: "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns; whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations."
On Feb. 14, the National Council of Churches issued a statement "in an effort to refute" what NCC theologians "call a 'false gospel' . . . and to reject teachings that suggest humans are 'called' to exploit the Earth without care for how our behavior impacts the rest of God's creation. . . . This false gospel still finds its proud preachers and continues to capture its adherents among emboldened political leaders and policymakers."
If such a body of belief exists, I would totally reject it, as would all of my friends. When asked who believed such error, where adherents to this "false gospel" might be found, the NCC turned to its theological sources, Moyers and a magazine called Grist, which had also apologized to me. I then contacted the chairman of the NCC task force and asked him about the "some people" who believe this false gospel and the "proud preachers" advancing this false gospel. He could not name such persons.
Newsweek Tells Japan America Is A Dead Rotting CorpseFrom
Little Green Footballs:
LGF reader rickadams translates the cover text:
The red text at the left just above the “Newsweek” logo says:
“America forsaken.”
The big white and yellow text says:
“The Day America Died — The ideal of ‘freedom’ falls to the ground due to Bush continuing in office.”
From
Riding Sun:
Newsweek's false, retracted story about American guards flushing the Koran down a toilet at Guantanamo doesn't necessarily mean the magazine's staff hates America or Bush, or wants us to lose in Iraq. To be charitable, let's just chalk that one up to sloppy journalism.But I'm at a loss to explain this, from the February 2 issue of Newsweek's Japanese edition. As you can see, the cover story shows an American flag, dirtied and tossed in a trash can, its staff snapped in two. The large white text reads, "Amerika ga shinda hi", which translates to "The day America died."The equivalent international edition of Newsweek, the January 31 issue, featured a picture of Bush on the cover, with the caption "America Leads ...But is Anyone Following?" Go to Riding Sun to see the picture of the American Newsweek cover. ... a cover-story article by Andrew Moravcsik, titled "Dream on, America". (This was translated into Japanese as "Yume no kuni Amerika ga kuchihateru toki", which is even harsher; it means, roughly, "America, the dream country, is rotting away".)
According to Newsweek itself, the article described "the world's rejection of the American way of life." Moravcsik's article did not run in the American edition of that same issue. The cover was also a bit different. It featured Hilary Swank, Leonardo DiCaprio and Jamie Foxx, with the title "Oscar Confidential" Go to Riding Sun to see the "Oscar Confidential cover. If you look carefully, you'll see that one of the articles from the other two editions is mentioned in a small blurb at the top: Fareed Zakaria's "High Hopes, Hard Facts" — here billed as "A reality check on Bush & 'Freedom'". Sure, they put scare quotes around "Freedom", but pretty tame stuff, all things considered.
It's one thing for Newsweek to actively promote the notion that America is a "dead", "rotting" country overseas. But it's quite another thing indeed to hide those efforts from its American readers. If Newsweek really thinks America is dead, and our flag belongs in the trash, why won't it tell us?
I'm at a loss for words. Maybe it's just my mood, but my reaction to this news is similar to my reaction to September 11th. That is, all I can think to say is, "Why do they hate us so much?"
Well, if September 11th made me want to defeat the Islamofascists, you can imagine how this makes me feel.
Not that my feelings really matter. How does everybody else feel about this?
The Desecration Of IslamFrom
The Boston Globe, via
Little Green Footballs:
IT WAS front-page news this week when Newsweek retracted a report claiming that a US interrogator in Guantanamo had flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet. Everywhere it was noted that Newsweek's story had sparked widespread Muslim rioting, in which at least 17 people were killed. But there was no mention of deadly protests triggered in recent years by comparable acts of desecration against other religions.
No one recalled, for example, that American Catholics lashed out in violent rampages in 1989, after photographer Andres Serrano's ''Piss Christ" -- a photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine -- was included in an exhibition subsidized by the National Endowment for the Arts. Or that they rioted in 1992 when singer Sinead O'Connor, appearing on ''Saturday Night Live," ripped up a photograph of Pope John Paul II.
There was no reminder that Jewish communities erupted in lethal violence in 2000, after Arabs demolished Joseph's Tomb, torching the ancient shrine and murdering a young rabbi who tried to save a Torah. And nobody noted that Buddhists went on a killing spree in 2001 in response to the destruction of two priceless, 1,500-year-old statues of Buddha by the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
Of course, there was a good reason all these bloody protests went unremembered in the coverage of the Newsweek affair: They never occurred.
Christians, Jews, and Buddhists don't lash out in homicidal rage when their religion is insulted. They don't call for holy war and riot in the streets. It would be unthinkable for a mainstream priest, rabbi, or lama to demand that a blasphemer be slain.
But when Reuters reported what Mohammad Hanif, the imam of a Muslim seminary in Pakistan, said about the alleged Koran-flushers -- ''They should be hung. They should be killed in public so that no one can dare to insult Islam and its sacred symbols" -- was any reader surprised?
The Muslim riots should have been met by outrage and condemnation. From every part of the civilized world should have come denunciations of those who would react to the supposed destruction of a book with brutal threats and the slaughter of 17 innocent people. But the chorus of condemnation was directed not at the killers and the fanatics who incited them, but at Newsweek.
From the White House down, the magazine was slammed -- for running an item it should have known might prove incendiary, for relying on a shaky source, for its animus toward the military and the war. Over and over, Newsweek was blamed for the riots' death toll.
Then there was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who announced at a Senate hearing that she had a message for ''Muslims in America and throughout the world." And what was that message? That decent people do not resort to murder just because someone has offended their religious sensibilities? That the primitive bloodlust raging in Afghanistan and Pakistan was evidence of the Muslim world's dysfunctional political culture?
No: Her message was that ''disrespect for the Holy Koran is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it ever be, tolerated by the United States."
Granted, Rice spoke while the rioting was still taking place and her goal was to reduce the anti-American fever. But what ''Muslims in America and throughout the world" most need to hear is not pandering sweet-talk. What they need is a blunt reminder that the real desecration of Islam is not what some interrogator in Guantanamo might have done to the Koran. It is what totalitarian Muslim zealots have been doing to innocent human beings in the name of Islam.
It is 9/11 and Beslan and Bali and Daniel Pearl and the USS Cole. It is trains in Madrid and schoolbuses in Israel and an ''insurgency" in Iraq that slaughters Muslims as they pray and vote and line up for work. It is Hamas and Al Qaeda and sermons filled with infidel-hatred and exhortations to ''martyrdom."
But what disgraces Islam above all is the vast majority of the planet's Muslims saying nothing and doing nothing about the jihadist cancer eating away at their religion. It is Free Muslims Against Terrorism, a pro-democracy organization, calling on Muslims and Middle Easterners to ''converge on our nation's capital for a rally against terrorism" -- and having only 50 people show up.
The European Cultural Welfare SystemFull Western Integration For IslamofascistsHani Ramadan, brother of
Tariq Ramadan, defends death by stoning (as set out in Islamic Sharia law), but he wants nothing less than full integration in Western society. From
Fjordman:
A controversial Muslim scholar who was fired from his teaching job after publicly defending death by stoning has won a second victory in a Geneva court. However, the cantonal authorities responded by saying Hani Ramadan, who is also director of Geneva’s Islamic Centre, would not be reinstated.
It was the second time the courts have ruled in Ramadan’s favour, saying that his dismissal was unfair and demanding that the cantonal government recognise Ramadan’s status as a public servant and resume paying his salary.
He was dismissed by the cantonal authorities in 2003 a few months after making his remarks in the French newspaper Le Monde. In the article, the imam defended death by stoning for adultery as set out in Islamic Sharia law. Ramadan also said that believers were protected from being infected with Aids.
Last year, the appeals board had already said that Ramadan was still a public servant, but the government refused to budge and went one step further a few months later by cutting off his salary. His lawyer, Eric Hess, says his client now wants his job as a high school French teacher back. "He wants nothing less than full reintegration," he told swissinfo.
He wants to be accepted into the West, Sharia and all. Sounds like an oxymoron to me.
The Curious Negotiation Tactics Of Mahmoud AbbasFrom
Associated Press:
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said Saturday he would demand strong political and financial support in his upcoming talks with President Bush in Washington and did not believe the recent flare-up of violence between militants and Israelis would hurt his case.
Abbas said the renewed violence that threatened an already shaky truce with Israel was calming down after three straight days of clashes. The Palestinian Interior Ministry said the Islamic militant group Hamas had agreed to stop firing rockets at Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip.
But Hamas warned later Saturday it may walk away from the truce because of a dispute with Abbas' ruling Fatah party over municipal elections in Gaza. It marked the first time Hamas linked its adherence to the cease-fire to an internal Palestinian issue.
Abbas' meeting with Bush at the White House on Thursday could give the Palestinian leader a much-needed boost just as he is about to go head-to-head with top rival Hamas in a parliamentary election, and prepares for the difficult task of taking over Gaza after Israel's planned evacuation this summer.
"We are going to demand two basic things: the first is political support and the second is economic support," Abbas said in Ramallah after arriving home from a two-week tour of South America and Asia.
Congress recently approved a $275 million financial aid package for the Palestinians to help bolster their ailing economy and rehabilitate their shattered security forces. Congress is also expected to consider an additional $160 million in aid next year, said Sylvana Foa, spokeswoman for the Agency for International Development.
Speaking to reporters in Egypt hours before arriving home, Abbas dismissed concerns the recent flare-up of violence in Gaza would undermine his talks with Bush.
"The events are minor and they have calmed down," Abbas said at the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik after he met Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak . "I think that the situation has begun to come under control in Gaza."
Since Wednesday, three Palestinian militants have been killed in Gaza, and Hamas has fired dozens of homemade rockets and mortar shells at Jewish settlements.
I've been a businessman since I left college at the age of twenty-three. Sales and Marketing have always been my areas of focus. I have been involved in the negotiation of deals totaling in the tens of millions of dollars.
My question about Abbas is, upon what grounds is he making these demands? Negotiation is a process of give and take. One party offers the other something, and the other party counteroffers. At some point, one party may decide that they have offered enough, and they will demand an answer, or a "close" to the deal. They will ask for a yes, or a no.
But, what exactly is Abbas offering here? What is he bringing to the table?
The only thing I can determine he is offering is that he won't ratchet up violence. In other words, he is extorting us. He is "demanding" (his word) "protection money."
Why we would ever entertain such an offer, I can not figure. Why we would expect the Israeli's to deem such an offer credible and worthy, I can not figure either.
If I was working on a deal, and a client layed out such an offer on the table, prior to a meeting scheduled to hammer out the particulars of the deal, I would inform the client that the offer was not worthy, and I would cancel the meeting.
Of course, George Bush will take the meeting. And that tells us that, for whatever reason, he considers the appeasement of the Palestinian Authority to be a priority in his geopolitical policy.
Israel, meanwhile, is apparently playing the role of
Czechoslovakia circa 1938.
How Do Israeli Physicians Deal With Terrorists?From
Normblog:
This is an article by Avraham Rivkind, Professor of Trauma Surgery at Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem. It was sent to me by email, and as from the journal Care of the Critically Ill. I've been unable to find it online:
It was 3 am on a Saturday morning in April 2002 when my pager went off. 'Trauma call - report to emergency room' was the impersonal message. I struggled out of bed and left the house. The roads were wonderfully empty, a consequence of the early hour and the Sabbath. In Jerusalem, Saturdays still retain that religious aura and most shops remain closed. Buses don't run and by late morning, the streets are usually full of pedestrians on their way to synagogue or just taking a stroll.
It only took me a few minutes to arrive at Hadassah hospital where I work as the lead trauma surgeon. I was met by the senior nurse in the emergency room. 'Hello Professor, we have a 25 year old male, gunshot wound to the abdomen but the wound is 12 days old'. I start to examine my patient whilst thinking '12 days? Who waits 12 days with a wound like this?'
The patient is in a bad way. He is in septic shock and decompensating in front of me. 'Prepare theatre, we need to go now' I say to the resident. 'They are already waiting for us' he replies and with a wry smile he adds, 'do you know who this is Prof?' The patient's face is not familiar and I shrug.
'This is Hassan, from the Church of the Nativity'. Hassan was a member of Hamas and was wanted by Israel for masterminding a double suicide bus bombing in Jerusalem earlier in the year.
A few weeks ago, after a crippling wave of suicide bombings in which hundreds of Israelis had been killed and injured, the Israel Defence Forces had launched attacks on the terrorist infrastructure inside the disputed territories of the West Bank. A group of armed Palestinian terrorists had stormed the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, taking the monks there hostage and setting up for a 'last stand'.
The Israeli forces refused to be drawn into a situation which would likely have destroyed the Church and so a stalemate ensued. Hassan had been part of the group storming the Church and had taken a bullet in the initial fracas but his colleagues had refused to allow him out for 12 days. Only now had he been 'released' and here he was in my Emergency department.
I shrugged again, 'let's sort him out now and worry about that later' and off we went.
In theatre we found multiple small bowel lacerations, subcutaneous spread of small bowel contents as well as infestation with maggots. After surgery he was transferred to intensive care where he remained critical and after a short period it was deemed necessary to perform a tracheostomy.
Laws on consent are different in Israel and doctors must take 'all reasonable steps' to ensure that the family agree to any treatment not deemed immediately necessary. With this in mind we embarked on what turned out to be a 10 day quest to gain consent. The Israeli social worker contacted her Palestinian counterpart and much leg work was performed by all involved. This stage of the quest was not without risk and several covert meetings were required in dangerous locations. Full credit to both social workers for the individual risks that they were prepared to take.
Eventually, we received a hand written letter with the appropriate consent and the tracheostomy was carried out. Hassan spent 3 months on ITU, underwent 10 operations and was eventually discharged home after 11 and a half months in hospital. His medical bill was paid by the 'Friends of Hadassah' a Jewish charity group which collects donations from Jews all over the world.
Hassan's case is by no means unique. About a quarter of our patients are Arab and a significant number of these are from the Palestinian areas. Inevitably, we get terrorists brought in as well. We treat everyone as equal and patients are triaged according to clinical need.
Although this approach seems to be the only one that is ethical, there are some unique conundrums thrown up by situations like this. Hassan was on ITU with victims of his bus bombings and some of the relatives found that hard to deal with. (Remarkably, other relatives seemed to harbour no ill feeling at all.)
During his 3 months on the unit, we had many times when we were short of beds, usually due to another suicide bombing. Were we going to deny a victim of terror an ITU bed because that bed already had a terrorist in it? What about after he recovers? Do we arrest him and put him in prison? What happens if he goes back to mastermind another bus bombing?
After Hassan was out of immediate danger, some colleagues used to ask me why we couldn't transfer him back to a Palestinian Authority hospital for further care. The truth is that I really felt that the procedures he had undergone had been so complex and his course so stormy that he would be better served remaining under the care of the team that operated on him during his admission, so he stayed.
Hassan still comes for review at my clinic and is doing very well. The Israeli secret service now feels that he poses a minimal risk to Israeli civilians and as such have dropped the charges against him.
Were we right to put so much effort and resource into one life when that person had murdered so many of our civilians? Would the Palestinians or even the Arab world do the same for a wounded Israeli? Our experience with shootings, kidnappings and lynchings suggests otherwise.
Would other nations, if placed today in a similar state of war, afford such care to their enemies? Let's hope they never have to find out. As far as we are concerned, medicine is about the people who need to be treated regardless of race or religion. As doctors, we must just get on with the job in hand and leave justice to the judges.
The Islamization Of European SchoolsFrom
Front Page Magazine:
An official report dealing with religious expression in French schools has become a must read for anyone interested in the Islamization of France. Written under the auspices of the top national education official, Jean-Pierre Obin, the report was not initially released by the Ministry of Education. But it was leaked on the Internet in March and now can be found in its entirety at www.proche-orient.info and other websites. In addition to examining the recent literature on religion and schools in France, they visited 61 academic and vocational high schools in 24 départements, chosen not as a cross-section of public schools, but rather as schools typical of those where religious expression has become a problem because of the high concentration of ethnic and religious minorities. In each school, inspectors interviewed the management team, staff, and teachers, as well as lay people from the community, including parents, social workers, and elected officials. In addition, regional education officials were asked to submit accounts of their experiences in primary schools.Amid much diversity--some of the schools were rural, some urban; some had fairly homogeneous student populations, others immigrants from many different countries--the inspectors report two consistent findings: a marked increase in religious expression, especially Muslim expression, in schools; and denial on the part of officials at all levels--from the classroom, to the principal's office, to the regional administration--that this phenomenon is occurring.The researchers began by studying the neighborhoods surrounding the schools. Mostly, these were depressed areas abandoned by anyone with a secure income. The report describes the flight of "French" residents and "European" shops--sometimes after they have been the targets of violence--in tandem with the arrival of immigrants and the collapse of real estate values.Scores of informants told the Obin team that these neighborhoods were undergoing a "rapid and recent swing" toward Islamization, thanks to the growing influence of religious activists. These young men, intense and highly intellectual in their piety, are sometimes former residents of the neighborhood who have been to prison, where they were converted to Islam. More often, however, they are educated men with degrees from universities in France, North Africa, or the Middle East. The biggest social change entailed by this Islamization, Obin reports, is a deterioration in the position of females. Teenage girls are forbidden to play sports and are constantly watched by an informal religious police made up of young men, sometimes their own younger brothers. Makeup, skirts, and form-fitting dresses are forbidden; dark, loose trousers are the strongly recommended attire. To go to the blackboard in front of a class, some Muslim girls put on long coats. Often, they are forced to wear the headscarf, or hijab, and forbidden to frequent coed movie theaters, community centers, and gyms, or even to go out at all on weekends. Lots of young women were afraid to tell the Obin team what punishments are in store for them if they disobey. Not only female students but also female teachers, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, are frequently subjected to sexist remarks by male teenagers.In primary schools, the report cites instances of first grade boys' refusing to participate in coed activities and Muslim children's refusing to sing, dance, or draw a face. In one school, restrooms were segregated: some for Muslim students and some for "French." Some lunchrooms were segregated, by section or table. Some students required halal meat; at one school, the principal provided only halal meat for everyone.With Muslim proselytizing on the rise, the report states that students are under pressure to observe Ramadan, the annual month during which Muslims fast during the day. In some high schools, it is simply impossible for Muslim kids not to join in, whether they like it or not. Obin cites one student who tried to commit suicide because of intimidation and threats from other kids over this issue. Obin also emphasizes that many conversions to Islam are taking place under duress.Inevitably, the report records rampant "Judeophobia," to use the term in vogue in France. Among even the youngest students, the term "Jew" has become the all-purpose insult. Obin deplores the fact that principals and teachers do not strenuously object to this, treating it simply as part of the youth culture. Even more serious is the increase in assaults on Jews or those presumed to be Jewish. Usually the assailants are Muslim students. Sometimes the victims are, too: One Turkish high-school girl was relentlessly harassed and bullied at school because her country is an ally of Israel. The section of the report on anti-Semitism winds up with this sad conclusion: In France today, Jewish kids are not welcome at every school. Many are forced to switch schools or even conceal their identity to escape anti-Semitism.According to the report, Muslim students perceive a large gap between the French and themselves. Even though most of the Muslim kids are actually French citizens, they see themselves as Muslims first, and more and more of them hail Osama bin Laden as their hero. In their eyes, he represents a victorious Islam triumphing over the West.As for history, Muslim students object to its Judeo-Christian bias and blatant falsehood. They loudly protest the Crusades, and commonly deny the Holocaust. Under the circumstances, many teachers censor their own material, often skipping entire topics, like the history of Israel or of Christianity. The report ... cites Muslim students who refuse to use the plus sign in mathematics because it looks like a cross. Obin notes that it is the schools that have reached accommodations with the extremists that are most plagued by violence against girls, Jews, and teachers. Schools that refuse to tolerate the intolerable have coped much better with the problems described in the report. As a result, Obin calls for a policy of no compromise with Islamist demands.Still unclear is how French educators can be expected to hang tough while their government refuses to own up to the problem--as demonstrated by its failure to make public the Obin report. With the Muslim share of the French population already over 10 percent and growing, the schools are only the tip of the iceberg.Do you think such behavior in France has anything to do with this behavior in Germany? (From
Little Green Footballs):
The western German state of Hesse expects to offer instruction in Islamic religion for Muslim students in every school in the state, a state official said Friday.
At least one school in every district in the state will offer Islamic instruction in the new school year, and at some point classes will be spread to every school, Culture Minister Karin Wolff said. The teaching will be phased in and a specific time plan will become clearer in the future, she said.
Do you think there is also a move towards teaching Christianity in the tolerant politically-correct schools of Western Europe?
Anti-Semitic Tracts Sold on Palestinian Authority WebsiteFrom
Little Green Footballs:
JERUSALEM — An official Palestinian Authority information website directly affiliated with President Mahmoud Abbas has published on its Arabic language section a copy of the ”Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a classic anti-Semitic forgery, while the English section does not contain the work, WND has learned.
Abbas recently had been credited by the U.S. and Israel for fighting anti-Israel incitement.
Al-Nakba.com, the official Internet website of the Palestinian State Information Service, SIS, published an Arabic translation to the ”Protocols,” a notorious forgery authorized by the anti-Semetic Czarist police in early 20th-Century Russia that purports to be minutes of a meeting of top Jewish leaders plotting world domination.
The Arabic version of the Al-Nakba site contains the full work, which was translated by a Lebanese Druze militant and taken directly from the website of the hard-line Islamic Da’wa Party in Iraq, according to an analysis provided to WND by Israel’s Center for Special Studies. ...
Al-Nakba literally means ”the catastrophe.” The official site serves as a propaganda device regarding the situation surrounding Palestinian refugees who claim to have been displaced as a result of Israel’s founding, says the Center for Special Studies.
The site has been updated several times since Abbas took office in January.
You can read about this book, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,
at Amazon.com. Click here.
What this article, from Little Green Footballs, leaves out is that it is common for Palestinians to refer to the establishment of the state of Israel as "al-Nakba," or the tragedy.
Yes, that's right, the very existence of Israel is a tragedy to the Palestinians. That's because they hate Jews and cannot abide having them on what Arabs consider to be "Dar al-Islam," or Islamic land.
Burkhas and PolygamyThey're Not Bad, Just DifferentFrom
Front Page Magazine:
Judging by the press coverage of Lila Abu-Lughod, a professor of sociology, her family background is of keen interest. Or possibly that background has proved to be quite useful. In the view of Antony T. Sullivan (reviewing her book, Veiled Sentiments, in The World and I, January 1991), her father Ibrahim was a “distinguished Palestinian-American political scientist” and his “Jewish wife, Janet” is “herself a world-class sociologist.” Their daughter, raised a Muslim, spent childhood summers in Jordan and she seldom fails to mention her “heritage.” This background makes her serving on the committee searching for a scholar to occupy Columbia’s new chair of Israel studies especially inapt. Abu-Lughod is the editor of a book of essays, Remaking Women: Feminism and Modernity, which has been hailed as “an important contribution to comparative postcolonial and feminist studies.” The book, she explains, “seeks to tackle comfortable and accepted linear notions of progress, modernity, and emancipation in modern academic works on gender in the postcolonial world.”
Why, Abu-Lughod asks, should the West’s ideas about “progress” and “modernity” be unquestionably accepted? Perhaps Western “progress” is not progress, and “modernity” is not modernity. And Western feminists should not be so hasty in denouncing the veil and the burka, because they act as a “portable seclusion,” your very own zenana or haramlik, which you can bring with you anywhere.
Her essay “The Marriage of Feminism and Islamism in Egypt: Selective Repudiation as a Dynamic of Postcolonial Cultural Politics,” in Remaking Women, offers a critique of what Abu-Lughod calls “companionate marriage” – i.e. monogamy, which the highly judgmental Western world apparently thinks is the only way to go about things, and fails to appreciate the many benefits to women from polygamy.
Abu-Lughod notes that “the concept of companionate marriage advocated by Qasim Amin and other nationalist-feminist writers around the turn of the 19trh century – brought with it the breaking of bonds among women. The result was dissolution of the lively, cross-class homosocial world of women; in its wake emerged a bourgeois household centered on a nuclear family.”
Monogamy destroys that “lively cross-class homosocial world of women” in the windowless quarters where, guarded by eunuchs, they can trade stories, jokes, tales of Grand Cairo in the Scheherazade manner, and do one another’s hair, in a kind of dormitory pajama party without end.
Abu-Lughod insists that Westerners, especially those pesky feminists, should stop harping on “difference” and look at what unites us: “We should ask not how Muslim societies are distinguished from ‘our own’ but how intertwined they are, historically and in the present, economically, politically, and culturally.”
It disturbs her that so many people want to know about “women and Islam” – the very topic is worrisome, she feels, because it gets away from the real issues, the “messier historical or cultural narratives” that focus on “colonial projects” and the “colonial enterprise.”
It is easy to see through the hypocritical ‘feminism’ of a Republican administration. More troubling for me are the attitudes of those who do genuinely care about women’s status. The problem, of course, with ideas of “saving” other women is that they depend on and reinforce a sense of superiority by Westerners. [2]
And that, of course, is a Bad Thing. Better, then, to stop worrying overmuch about different ways that men and women relate to each other, in Afghanistan, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia. For any interest, or still worse, intervention that might possibly lead to a reinforcement of “a sense of superiority by Westerners” must, at all costs, be avoided.
Abu-Lughod has a solution, She thinks “we need to work hard to respect and recognize difference.” And, she adds, “We might do better to think how to make the world a more just place rather than trying to ‘save’ women in other cultures.”
When Western (or Muslim) feminists try to intervene to better the lot of Afghan, or other women in Muslim countries, Abu-Lughod finds this deplorable, for it could “reinforce a sense of Western superiority.” When Western (or Muslim) feminists object to hijab or burka, Abu-Lughod replies that the women welcome this kind of costume, which offers them a “portable seclusion” from the prying eyes of men. When Western (or Muslim) feminists attack polygamy, Abu-Lughod defends it, and complains that “companionate marriage” is overrated while in the privacy of the polygamous women’s quarters, so much fun is to be had that Western women cannot possibly understand.
Abu-Lughod is a determined Defender of the Faith. Where the rights of women, and the reputation of Islam, collide, she stands foursquare with Islam, and against those rights. It has been noted by the real Muslim (or more often, ex-Muslim) feminists – such intrepid fighters for women’s rights as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Azam Kamguian – that quite a few supposed Muslim “feminists” end up retreating into a defense of Islam, whenever they sense that the interest in the mistreatment of women might harm the Faith. All I can say is, "
That's Burkas."
Mystery in MadridDymphna, at Gates of Vienna, has some information that seems to indicate something is very mysterious in Madrid. Could the police have been involved in the3/11 bombing? This seems a little hard to believe, but such questions are being asked by some ever-bigger names, including Frank Gaffney. From
Gates of Vienna:
Quite by happenstance, on May 18th Gates of Vienna was tuned to Lars Larson, a talk show radio host. Larson was interviewing Frank Gaffney about his NRO essay, Spain’s Terrorgate. Using Barcepundit’s translations of the El Mundo editorial (May 16th), Gaffney exposes a huge new story on 3/11. It is a remarkable tale, composed of a number of stranger-than-fiction elements. How’s this for starters:
ABC — yes, our good old MSM behemoth — staged pictures of the supposed unexploded backpack remaining from the bombing of the train. The police claimed not to have the “real” one available but, hey, offered to use one of the officers’ backpacks since it looked similar. Another example of good journalistic practices, right?But it gets worse. Gaffney reports:
El Mundo suggests that, almost immediately after the 12 bombs went off in one of the city’s busiest train stations, some in the Spanish police force fabricated evidence, then swiftly hyped it to the domestic and international press. The object seems to have been to support the oppositions’ claims that Islamists angry over the government’s support for the war in Iraq were responsible for the attacks.As Gaffney says, one could reasonably infer that if this report is true, then Tedax, the Spanish police bomb squad was, at worst, involved in the bombing itself.
There was a real backpack. What the police did was to hide from the investigating judge an xray of its contents. “Backpack 13” could never have exploded. The cables connecting the cell phone to the explosive were never connected. An interesting lapse when you consider these terrorists were “experts.”
Go read the rest at
Gates of Vienna.
Postmodernism Is Relativism Run RiotA little Friday Philosophy lesson here at CUANAS, to start your weekend off just right. Read a little Philosophy, and then crack open a Budweiser*. From
Front Page Magazine:
Over the last 20 years or so the philosophic orientation known as "postmodernism" (or "po-mo," to the cognoscenti) has become the dominant mindset in many humanities departments in American universities, especially in English departments. To the extent that professors in, say, science and engineering departments have heard of postmodernism, it seems mystifying. They see colleagues in humanities departments delivering papers filled with incomprehensible prose, making outrageous claims (such as that there is no correct interpretation of any text), and offering bizarre courses (such as the history of comic books). Stephen Hicks, a professor of philosophy at Rockford College, has produced a clearly written, concise book explaining just what postmodern philosophy is and how it arose, and he has done so in an admirable way.
Hicks begins by sketching out in broad terms what modernism is. Modernism is the worldview produced by the Enlightenment over the last four centuries. Roughly characterized, modernism involves naturalism in metaphysics, with the confidence that modern science is capable of, and is actually succeeding in, giving us an understanding of the physical universe. Modernism involves what he calls objectivism in epistemology, meaning the view that experience and reason are capable of gaining real knowledge, although modernist philosophers have hotly contested the specifics of this (with Rationalism, Empiricism, and Pragmatism being the most historically active epistemological schools).
Modernism involves individualism in ethics, and a commitment to human rights, religious toleration, and democracy in political theory. Modernism also involves the acceptance of free-market economics and the technological revolution that it has spawned. In sum, modernism is the mindset that is common to the West, the laborious product of many great minds — Bacon, Locke, Descartes, Smith, Hobbes, Spinoza, Galileo, Newton, and Hume, among others. Most of us view this as a considerable leap forward from the Medieval period of supernaturalism, mysticism, excessive reliance on faith, and feudalist political and economic systems.
In the last 30 years or so, however, a group of thinkers have set themselves in opposition to the whole Enlightenment project. These soi-disant postmodernists reject the Enlightenment root and branch. Chief among the postmodern thinkers are Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jean-Francois Lyotard and (amazingly, an American) Richard Rorty. These thinkers, together with a host of smaller fry (such as Stanley Fish, Jacques Lacan, Andreas Huyssen, Frank Lentricchia and others), have developed a large following in the humanities — especially literature, less so in philosophy — and in the social sciences. They have developed virtually no following in science, math, computer science, and engineering for reasons that will become clear below.
The postmodern mindset views the whole Enlightenment project as a failure. The po-mo view is metaphysically anti-realist and anti-naturalist, holding that the physical universe is not ultimately describable in final terms. It is socially subjectivist in epistemology, holding that the "world" is what we socially construct, and each "group" (racial, gender, linguistic, ethnic, national or what have you) constructs the world according to its group identity. Postmodernists are egalitarian and collectivist in matters ethical and political. (If there are any postmodern libertarians or conservatives, I have yet to hear of them.)
Postmodernism has had a powerful impact on a number of areas of academic study.
In literary theory, it has rejected the notion that literary texts have objective meanings open to better or worse interpretation, in favor of the notion that the text is simply a vehicle for the critic to exercise wordplay upon, or to deconstruct and thus expose the racial, class, or gender biases of the author.
In law, postmodernists known as Critical Legal Theorists reject the notion of universally valid legal principles and objective legal reasoning, essentially viewing legal reasoning as subjective plumping for one's race, class, gender, or political preferences.
In education theory, postmodernism junks the notion that education should develop a child's cognitive abilities and impart factual knowledge to enable her to function as a productive member of our free-market democracy. Instead, the postmodernist believes education should mold a student's racial, class, and gender identity.
Postmodernists try to focus on the achievements of women, non-whites, and the poor, exposing the history of American democracy as a history of oppression, and denying the existence of any objective scientific method. For this reason, natural scientists and engineers find postmodernism silly — try convincing engineers who have successfully sent a robotic probe to the surface of Mars that objectively true scientific laws don't exist. Also, most modern philosophers, who since Descartes have concentrated on epistemology, have tended to view natural science as the most successful knowledge-generating human enterprise, and thus are not inclined to dismiss it lightly.
In short, postmodernism is relativism run riot, skepticism on stilts. In terms of the culture wars, it informs the arguments of those who think that American society is inferior to others and on the decline, that there are no "Great Books" of a higher order of merit than others, that science and technology are socially constructed and are not making genuine progress, and that modern free-market economics has lowered living standards.
As Hicks notes, there is a contradictory tone to all this — all cultures are equal, but ours stinks; all truth is relative, except the unquestionable po-mo truth; no race, class or gender is superior, but middle class white males are clearly inferior; and no books are superior, except, of course, those by third-world authors.
Of course, I, Pastorius, completely reject the notion that we are, any longer, living in a Postmodernist age. I say we have moved into
an age of PreFuturism. I wait with baited breath for the rest of the world to catch up with me.
* Pastorius note: The proprietor of this blog wouldn't be caught dead drinking a Bud.
;-)
Islamofascists Protest Outside Of US Embassy In London
Islamofascists Chant, "Bomb New York"At US Embassy In LondonFrom
Little Green Footballs:
More than 100 hardline Islamic protesters chanted the name of Osama bin Laden outside the US Embassy in London today.
The crowd, which is expected to grow during the afternoon, included many men whose faces were covered by their headscarves and at least a dozen women.
Their demonstration “against the desecration of the Koran” was being held yards from the steps of the Embassy in Grosvenor Square, which was guarded by a small detail of police.
The crowd, led by a man on a megaphone, chanted “USA watch your back, Osama is coming back” and “Kill, kill USA, kill, kill George Bush”.
They also chanted “Bomb, bomb New York” and “George Bush, you will pay, with your blood, with your head”.
Angry demonstrators waved placards which included the message: “Desecrate today and see another 9/11 tomorrow.”
Of course, such public expression is protected by free speech laws in the West.
The Media Is The EnemyLinda Foley, the President of the Newspaper Guile accuses the American Military of targeting journalists. You know, killing journalists, on purpose. From
LaShawn Barber:
A journalist named Linda Foley, president of the Newspaper Guild, has been caught on tape pulling an Eason Jordan. Watch and listen to her make vile, inflammatory, and unsubstantiated claims about American troops military (Pardon me!) targeting Arab journalists on this RealAudio video.
According to a tape of her remarks, Foley said: “Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or … ah, or … ah, politically. They are also being targeted for real, um … in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there’s not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq.”
Foley continued, “They target and kill journalists … uh, from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like Arab news services like al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios with impunity. …”
Indra Nooyi, President and CFO of Pepsico says that America is the "middle-finger" of the world. She says that's how everyone perceives us, and we need to change, because it's our fault. From
PowerLine:
At yesterday's recognition ceremony for newly minted Columbia Business School MBAs, we had the president/CFO of PepsiCo as our distinguished guest speaker. After beginning her speech with words of praise and recognition for the graduates and their families, Ms. Indra Nooyi began to make the political statement du jour.
After talking of her childhood back in India, Ms. Nooyi began to compare the world and its five major continents (excl. Antarctica and Australia) to the human hand.
First was Africa - the pinky finger - small and somewhat insignificant but when hurt, the entire hand hurt with it. Next was Asia - the thumb - strong and powerful, yearning to become a bigger player on the world stage. Third was Europe - the index finger - pointing the way. Fourth was South America - the ring finger - the finger which symbolizes love and sensualness. Finally, the US (not Canada mind you) - yes, you guessed it - the middle finger.
She then launched into a diatribe about how the US is seen as the middle finger to the rest of the world. The rest of the world sees us as an overbearing, insensitive and disrespectful nation that gives the middle finger to the rest of the world.
According to Ms. Nooyi, we cause the other finger nations to cower under our presence. But it is our responsibility, she continues, to change the current state of world opinion of the US. It is our responsibility to make the other fingers rise in unison with us as we move forward.
Pepsico has proceeded to attempt to hem, haw, and spin it's way out of the ensuing firestorm.
Hugh Hewitt says they are failing:
What's missing from this? How about any positive statement about what America does for the world, from liberating Afghanistan and Iraq to billions in tsunami relief? How about pouring AIDs relief into Africa and sending products, services, technology and tradea round the globe. How about a full-throated defense of the country that analogizes it not to the middle finger but to the shoulders and spine of the planet, the last best hope of mankind.
Islamists Want The Stuff Of Western CivilizationWithout The CivilizationVictor Davis Hanson, at
National Review discusses the Newsweek article (about the Koran being flushed down a toilet) and the chaos which has ensued as a result:
... there is something far more to these bizarre events than mere "interconnectedness," or even media-savvy fundamentalists who have got the hang of Western telecommunications and know how to use them to stir up the mob.
There is not a necessary connection in the Middle East — or anywhere else — between the occasional appearance of technological sophistication and what we might call humanism, or the commitment to explain phenomena through reason and empiricism. We forget that far too often as we kow-tow to extremists and seek to apologize or fathom the holy protocols surrounding a religious text.
In the West, the wonder of a cell phone in some sense is the ultimate expression of a long struggle for the primacy of scientific reason, tolerance, critical consciousness, and free expression. That intellectual journey goes back to Galileo, Newton, and Socrates.
Everything from CDs to Starbucks that we take for granted is a representation of millions of past Western lives. These forgotten scientists, inventors, and entrepreneurs, along with other reformers in politics, journalism, economics, and religion, created our present liberal environment. Only its institutions led to our prosperous modernity.
Without them, thinkers cannot discuss ideas freely. They will not find legal protection for their accomplishments, status for their contributions, and profit for their benefactions — and thus would end up hopeless and adrift in a society such as present-day Syria, Iran, or Egypt.
That long odyssey is not so in the world of bin Laden or an Iranian theocrat — or the ignorant who stream out of the madrassas and Friday fundamentalist harangues along the Afghan-Pakistani border. These fist-shaking, flag-burning Islamic fascists all came late to the Western tradition and now cherry-pick its technology. As classic parasites, a Zawahiri or al-Zarqawi wants Western sophisticated weapons and playthings — without the bothersome foundations that made them all possible.
An Afghan who riots because he learns of a rumor in a Western magazine, and those like him who explode and behead in Iraq, are emblematic of this hypocrisy. Nothing they have accomplished in their lives, either materially or philosophically, would result in a free opinion magazine, much less the technology to send out the story instantaneously — or, in the case of al-Zarqawi, to have his murdering transmitted globally on the Internet.
Instead, our Afghan rioters, and the Islamist organizations that have endorsed them, live in the eighth century of rumor, sexual and religious intolerance, tribal chauvinism, and gratuitous violence — but now electrified by the veneer of the 21st-century civilization that is not their own, but sometimes fools the naïve that it is.
Yet all the illumination in the modern world — neon, fluorescent, or incandescent — cannot light up the illiberal Dark Age mind if it is not willing (or forced) to begin the long ordeal of democracy, tolerance, legality, and individual rights.
Despite cheap, accessible, and easy-to-operate consumer goods imported from the Westernized world, the thinking of a bin Laden or Muslim Brotherhood still leads back to swords, horses, and jihad, not ahead to iPods and Microsoft.
They want such things to use to destroy, but not along with them the institutions like democracy and freedom that would allow such progress in their own countries — and shortly make al Qaeda and the fundamentalists not merely irrelevant, but ridiculous as well. Thus, we can understand the increasing hatred of the United States and its policy of democratic idealism abroad that threatens to put them out of business.
As we learned on September 11, they try to kill us now with our own appurtenances before they are buried themselves under modernism, liberality, and freedom. That really is what this war is about: a last-ditch effort by primordial fascists to prevent the liberalization of the Muslim world and the union of Islamic society with the protocols found in the rest of the globe and which many in the Middle East prefer if given a chance.
Only democracy and freedom, not Western money or cheap guilt, will remedy the deep sickness of radical Islam that now so tires and sickens the rest of the world that daily has to watch and endure it.
Stupid Rock StarsSinger Chris Martin of the band Coldplay (a band I like very much, even if they are a watered down version of the great Radiohead) has bravely proclaimed his hatred of Capitalism. From
Michelle Malkin:
When last Gwynnie Paltrow's husband, Brit musician Chris Martin of the band Coldplay, put foot in mouth, he was proclaiming apocalypse:
The planet survived, so Martin has found a new enemy to pass the time: his own record label, EMI. In New York to promote his band's overdue record, Martin said:
"I don't really care about EMI. I'm not really concerned about that. I think shareholders are the great evil of this modern world."
...Martin told reporters at Manhattan's Beacon Theatre that the band was uncomfortable that they sell so many albums they can affect a major corporation's stock price.
"It's very strange for us that we spent 18 months in the studio just trying to make songs that make us feel a certain way and then suddenly become part of this corporate machine," Martin said backstage.
He criticised what he called "the slavery that we are all under to shareholders."
Meanwhile, professional Socialist Revolutionaries, Audioslave (a band I very much do not like, although I must say, Rage and Soundgarden, the bands from which Audioslave is made up, are two of the greatest bands in Rock history) played in Cuba and for once, decided that they needed to make no political statement. Yes, that's right they sat on their hands. From Discover the Network:
... the band Audioslave recently became the first American rock band to play in Cuba. On May 6th, they performed a one-off show at Havana's "Anti-Imperialist Tribunal" to a sellout crowd. (No, I'm not making the venue's name up.) After the concert, Audioslave's guitarist, the Harvard educated and politically far left Tom Morello and the rest of the band held a press conference on Cuban soil. As I watched the conference, (yeah, I'm an Audioslave fan) I sat on the edge of my seat waiting for Morello to seize what was clearly a premiere opportunity to make a political statement. Now keep in mind that Morello is a serious leftist activist, who purports to fight for the "oppressed," against "racism" and for "social justice." His last band, "Rage Against the Machine," was famous for its in-you-face leftist revolutionary stance, its vocal support of far- left causes and its deep love affair with Noam Chomsky, so it would not have been out of character for Morello to engage in a bit of self-righteous political grandstanding. Instead of truly rocking by publicly criticizing Castro's imprisoning and torturing of artists who dare criticize his regime, instead of standing on the conference table and demanding that Castro allow unfettered freedom of expression and that he free all political prisoners, an action that would have reverberated around the globe, the activist Morello, who has fought hard for the release of cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal meekly said, "Music can transcend politics. This trip is absolute proof of this." Morello then thanked Cuba for being hospitable, saying he would recommend to other American bands that they play there.
Yes, thank you Cuba. Fidel come here, I want to kiss your fat butt as intimately as possible.
"Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me," indeed.
Islam, Aristotle, and Hobbes?I don't think TVD took to well to my posting of Hugh Fitzgerald's commentary on the "Golden Age of Islam." Last night
TVD sent me an email with
a link to an article which touts the philosophy of a Turkish thinker named Al-Farabi. From what I can gather from the article, Al-Farabi sounds like an independant and nuanced thinker. However, that doesn't mean I have to like his ideas. I have immense respect for the thinking of Nietzche, but I do not like his philosophy.
Anyway, here is an excerpt from the article:
"Like Hobbes, he saw in the universe a continual struggle where the strong triumphed over the weak. It appeared to him necessary that the strong and the weak should come to an understanding with each other in order to survive, anarchy being the only other outcome. To sum up, he believed that man had created society by a voluntary agreement. He thus revealed himself to be the distant precursor of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his Social Contract.
Al-Farabi was a determinist as far as nature was concerned. This was a consequence of his metaphysical doctrine, founded on the belief that God was a necessary Being, and that He gave His creation only to Himself. Al-Fârâbî perceived creation in the same way as Plato, God being neither nature, creative and without conscience, nor an arbitrary will. God, the One, created Intelligence, and also the heavens, from the empyrean level to the sub-lunar universe that we inhabit, this material universe being subject to births and changes. "
Here is my response:
This essay is written in philosophical shorthand. But, let's break it down a bit.
First off, to say that Al-Farabi is "like Hobbes" is absurd, because he predates Hobbes by several hundred years. It could be that his philosophy actually contained similar tenets. However, that is not demonstrated here. In fact, the idea that the universe is "a continual struggle where the strong triumphed over the weak," is an expression of
JIHAD
The word Jihad means "struggle." It is usually interpreted by modern Islamic scholars to mean the strong (dar al-islam) stuggling against, or making war on the weak (dar al-harb, the infidels). So, how exactly is Al-Farabi's philosophy different from modern Islamofascism in this case? It is not shown to be any different in this article?
And indeed, the idea that the strong and weak need to come to "an understanding with each other in order to survive, anarchy being the only other outcome."
Well, that is dhimmitude.
It could be that Al-Farabi made some fine distinctions which put his ideas far from the more dominating ideas of Islamofascism, but as presented here, I see no evidence of it.
As I said, this essay is written in philosophical shorthand. It could be that the author has shortchanged Al-Farabi.
The comparison between Al-Farabi and Plato's ideas, once again, demonstrates no clear distinction between Al-Farabi and what we know of Islam in general. However, in this case, there is nothing Fascist about Al-Farabi's ideas. The idea that God is wholly beyond the universe is a uniquely Islamic idea. The Judeo-Christian God is tied to His Creation by His love for it. Additionally, He created it for His Glory. In both these ways, He has Need of His Universe.
The Hindu and Buddhist God, of course, in no way supersedes His Universe because He Is the Universe.
So, there are distinctions between Islam, and Hindu/Buddhism and Judeo-Christianity. These distinction need to be looked at clearly, and acknowledged.
Now, the Islamic view that God entirely supersedes His Universe
is a very Aristotelian idea. I will give you that. God is wholly apart and He is, therefore, capable of absolute analysis, using absolute logic. Since He has no need of His universe, he is not tied into a perceiver/perceived relationship, but, instead, He is wholly Other. This, as I say, allows for absolute analysis.
The problem is, other than through the Koran, Muslims have no access to the Mind of God. The Koran is the absolute and final revelation. All knowledge must work with the Koran, and can not supersede the Koran.
The fact that Muslims have no access to the Mind of God means that they do
not have the absolute ability for logic that their God does. They can not trust their analysis, but instead need to check it against the Koran. It is possible, however, for an individual Muslim to decide that he does have the ability for logic, and obviously, individual Muslims can accomplish great things.
The Christian view of the world, with a God who is intimately involved with His Universe, determines, that while there is
not an absolute ability for logic, there is an ongoing ability for revelation, tied to analysis. But this analysis, as i say is not an absolutely logical analysis, in theory.
However, Christians have gotten around this by overlaying Greek philosophy, with it's dualistic nature onto Christian civilization. This overlaying of dualism onto Judeo-Christian view of the world has served Western Civilization well. But, it is coming to an end, I believe. Science is teaching us that there is no absolute distinction between perceiver and perceived. This, I think, will eventually lead to a paradigm shift in thought, which I can not envision, but it seems inevitable.
However, that is just loose speculation on my part.
The reality is that while, in theory, the Judeo-Christian God does not have an absolute ability to analyze His own Universe because of His Need of it, He did create it in the first place, and thus has absolute control over it, which is, I'm guessing, even better than an ability for absolute analysis.
Chilean Presidents Racist DissertationFrom
Front Page Magazine:
Salvador Allende, the socialist president of Chile who was killed during a CIA-backed coup in 1973, was an anti-Semite who held fascist ideas in his youth about race and crime, it is claimed in a book which has split Chile.
The book, Salvador Allende: Antisemitism and Euthanasia, will shock many who still revere him as a martyr who was deposed by the right-wing Gen Augusto Pinochet, with the backing of Washington and big business.
The disclosures come from Allende's 1933 doctoral dissertation which has been kept secret until now. In it he asserted that Jews had a disposition to crime and called for compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill and alcoholics.
Allende also wrote: "The Hebrews are characterized by certain types of crime: fraud, deceit, slander and above all usury. These facts permits the supposition that race plays a role in crime."
Among the Arabs, he wrote, were some industrious tribes but "most are adventurers, thoughtless and lazy with a tendency to theft".
"The southern Italians - in contrast to the north Italians - and the Spanish have a tendency to barbaric and primitive crimes of passion and are emotionally unpredictable." The book's Chilean-born author Victor Farias said he had evidence that Allende tried to turn his ideas into reality as Chile's health minister from 1939 to 1941.
Only determined opposition from medical associations prevented him introducing a compulsory sterilization program harsher than that in Nazi Germany, said Farias.
The Allende family accused Farias of "manipulating documents".
Supporters said such views were common in the 1930s, and insist he should be judged on his political record, not early writings.
Yeah, pay no attention to the murderous fasicst behind the curtain.
I'll give his supporters one thing. They are right that
such ideas were definately de riguer back in the first part of the 20th century.
If Your Ex-Wife Calls the Welfare Check "Payday" You Just Might Be A DemocratFrom Jonah Goldberg at
Townhall, via
Atlas Shrugged:
According to the Pew Center, the less you like to fly the American flag, the more likely it is you are Democrat. The more you think hard work and personal initiative aren't the ticket to the good life, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. The more you believe the United Nations is a better steward of international relations, while America is a negative actor on the world stage, the more likely you are to be a Democrat.
The more you believe that the government is there to help, the more likely it is you are Democrat. The less seriously you take religion, the more likely you are to be a Democrat. Flip all of these values around and the more likely it is you are a Republican - or that you vote that way.
Of course, I'm speaking in terms of statistical generalities. Obviously, there are a great many flag-waving, God-fearing, government-mistrusting, U.N.-hating Democrats out there. But they are the exceptions to the rule.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this study is what it says about class and ideology in America. And what it says is that they don't have that much to do with each other, which runs contrary to generations of leftish stereotypes. Poor Americans who believe in the American ideal of by-your-bootstraps success are likely to vote Republican. And rich Americans who cringe at the idea of hanging a flag from their porch vote Democrat.
"Offended" Is Not The Word That Comes To MindFrom
Reuters:
Miss Universe organizers scrambled on Thursday to calm a furor over photos of bikini-clad contestants posing near an ancient Buddhist temple in pageant host Thailand after the images infuriated religious leaders.
The photos, which showed beauty queens on a Bangkok river cruise with the famed Wat Arun, or "Temple of Dawn," in the background, were swiftly removed from the pageant Web site.
But religious leaders and culture watchdogs are still upset, saying the episode violated traditional values and morality just days before a key Buddhist holiday.
"This is the time of Visakha Bucha when we are reminded of Lord Buddha's teachings. But we have allowed this thing which will mark the country with sin for a long time," Phra Thep Dilok, head of the National Center for Buddhism Promotion, told Reuters.
The chair of the Senate tourism committee, Suradech Yasawat, said the photos, which were splashed on the front pages of most Thai newspapers, had hurt the country's image. "It is completely inappropriate. When a contest is being held in Thailand, Thai traditions and culture should be respected," he told the Thai News Agency.
About 90 percent of Thailand's 63 million people are Buddhist and any slight against the religion can trigger a public outcry. And despite Bangkok's hundreds of go-go bars and its racy reputation as the "anything goes" sex capital of Southeast Asia, many Thais are uncomfortable with public nudity.
Now, the Buddhists are offended. Can I get a Hindu? Can I get a Sikh? Are you all offended?
Ok, let's shut down the entire world.
Hard At Work Writing Our Suicide Note ... Uh, MemoirsFrom
Bruce Thornton, at Victor Davis Hanson's website:
Last week riots broke out in Afghanistan and Pakistan over an unfounded rumor, irresponsibly published by Newsweek magazine, that an American interrogator had flushed a Koran down the toilet. In response, the administration has been anxiously assuring the Muslim world that we indeed respect their religion and begging them to please like us.
Meanwhile, in last Friday's sermon televised on Palestinian Authority television the paid employee of the PA described the Jews as an AIDS-like virus responsible for all the world's evils, blamed their economic sabotage of Germany for the Holocaust, and predicted the future triumph of Islam over America, a time when "everything will be relieved of the Jews, even the stones and trees." Yes, this is the same Palestinian Authority whose elected leader, himself a published Holocaust denier, will soon visit the President of the United States and whose organization will receive millions of taxpayer dollars.
Anyone familiar with the history of Islam and its 14-centuries-long violent jihad against the West and the Jews will not be surprised or shocked by these events. They express perfectly the arrogant intolerance of a religion convinced it has been chosen by God to rule the world, and so is justified in using every means, whether violence or propaganda, to fulfill that divine mandate. As the final and complete revelation of the divine, Islam feels no need to respect or tolerate other religions or secular notions like "human rights," for they are all the detritus of infidel history to be swept away in the final triumph of the one true religion.
Hence, while we in the West anxiously monitor our words and deeds for even the slightest offense against Islamic sensibilities, we receive in exchange no such consideration; indeed, our eager protestations of respect merely excite more contempt. Thus even as we protest our respect for Islam, Jews continue to be vilified with anti-Semitic rhetoric redolent of Nazi Germany, Palestinian terrorists befoul one of Christianity's most sacred churches, the Al-Aksa mosque in Jerusalem still sits on the site of the Jewish Temple, and in Istanbul Hagia Sophia, once one of Christendom's greatest churches, is still a mosque. Worse still, a whole revisionist history in which the intolerant, imperialistic conqueror is transformed into the tolerant, peace-loving victim of Western imperialism is propagated by self-loathing Westerners whose bigotry against their own culture confirms the Islamist view that we are indeed Godless heathens and spiritual cripples.
Just look at Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven, a truly Orwellian reversal of history in which the fanatical jihadists are depicted as tolerant and civilized, the Christian believers are caricatured as either venal hypocrites or psychopaths, and the only good Europeans are those who have lost their faith. The mentality that would spend over a hundred million dollars on this historical lie is that of a psychological dhimmi, the non-Moslem who concedes Islam's superiority and hence right to rule him. That is, the world-view of those for whom appetite and pleasure are the highest goods, flabby tolerance is the camouflage of moral exhaustion, and respect for the culture of the "other" is merely an expression of disbelief in the value of one's own.
In short, like the hand wringing of the administration over an obvious lie only the irrational and ignorant would believe, this willingness to demonize the culture that created you and to extol as superior the culture that wants to destroy you can only be described as suicidal.
Certainly the Islamist sees it that way, which is why he feels confident in predicting the ultimate triumph of his religion: he is willing to die and kill for his beliefs, whereas significant numbers of Westerners don't really believe that there is anything worth dying and killing for.
Well, At Least No One Said You Smell Like CheeseFrom
The Anchoress:
This is kind of interesting. People in various EU countries were asked what they thought of the French. They weren’t fed anything, they were simply asked to provide five adjectives that summed up the French.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Britons described them as “chauvinists, stubborn, nannied and humourless”. However, the French may be more shocked by the views of other nations.
For the Germans, the French are “pretentious, offhand and frivolous”. The Dutch describe them as “agitated, talkative and shallow.” The Spanish see them as “cold, distant, vain and impolite” and the Portuguese as “preaching”. In Italy they comes across as “snobs, arrogant, flesh-loving, righteous and self-obsessed” and the Greeks find them “not very with it, egocentric bons vivants”.
Interestingly, the Swedes consider them “disobedient, immoral, disorganised, neo-colonialist and dirty”.
But the knockout punch to French pride came in the way the poll was conducted. People were not asked what they hated in the French, just what they thought of them.
“Interviewees were simply asked an open question - what five adjectives sum up the French,” said Olivier Clodong, one of the study’s two authors and a professor of social and political communication at the Ecole Superieur de Commerce, in Paris. “The answers were overwhelmingly negative.”
Was Robert Kennedy's AssassinA Palestinian Terrorist?Here's some interesting information upon which to speculate. From
Front Page Magazine:
The controversy surrounding the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy has once again been resurrected with the publication of Peter Evans’s book ‘Nemesis’ in which the author accuses Aristotle Onassis of having ‘funded’ the assassination through an official of the PLO. The controversy has also provoked a number of Hollywood celebrities, including actor Robert Vaughn, to re-open the case.
For nearly 40 years conspiracy advocates have built their arguments not only around the controversies surrounding the ballistics evidence and the scene of the crime but the oft-repeated cry that the assassin had no real motive for his act. Yet there is a mountain of evidence to prove the contrary.
From the time he was a child Sirhan had been indoctrinated in ideologies that are at the center of his murderous act. Sirhan’s hatred had its roots in the milieu in which he was raised and the education he received. Later, as a young adult, Sirhan sought meaning to his increasingly hopeless life by embracing anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism and Palestinian nationalism.
As a child Sirhan had been taught by Arab teachers who instilled in him the principles of the Palestinian cause. They promoted the cause of Palestinian nationalism and made constant references to the great Arab warrior, Saladin, who had expelled the foreign crusaders from Jerusalem. Teachers would attempt to inspire the children in their care to fight for Palestinian rights.
During Sirhan’s trial his mother related how the intense feelings of the Palestinians remained with the family even though they had been far removed from the conflict when they emigrated to America. She told of how her family had lived in Jerusalem for “thousands of years” and she spoke of the bitterness and hatred of the Israelis who had ‘taken their land’.
Mary Sirhan believed her son had killed Robert Kennedy because of his Arab nationalism. She said, “What he did, he did for his country.”
Click here to read the rest.
Focus Groups Reveal Anti-Semitic StereotypesIn the Islamic WorldThe Council on Foreign Relations recently published a focus-group-based report on how the American "brand" is doing in the Islamic World. From
Associated Press, via
Little Green Footballs:
Anti-American feelings are widespread in the Muslim world and extend to U.S. consumer brands, according to a report released Wednesday. It suggested the U.S. burnish its image with a change in tone and by publicizing aid programs.
The United States should emphasize its development aid to Muslim countries rather than try to persuade Muslims to support U.S. policies in Iraq or in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to the Council on Foreign Relations report.
The report, by Charney Research, is based on 14 focus groups conducted last December and January among college-educated men and women in Egypt, Morocco and Indonesia.
Anger at U.S. foreign policy and at the U.S. government dominated spontaneous reactions in all three countries.
Many young Muslims said they admired Osama bin Laden, while views of President Bush were uniformly negative. All focus group members rejected U.S. views of the war in Iraq, saying the United States invaded on a false premise to further its own regional goals.
Anti-Semitic stereotypes also were noted. Focus group members saw the United States and Israel as synonymous and estimated the proportion of Jews in the U.S. population at up to 85 percent; it is 2 percent.
The report found negative opinions of the United States are taking a toll on U.S. companies, and that amounts of U.S. aid were massively underestimated; not one person in any focus group knew the U.S. is the world's largest donor by dollar amount.
Now, let's think about this for a second, shall we? Say you're with a major US corporation, and you're doing market research with a series of focus groups in order to complete a report on how your customers feel about your brand. But then, when you get the "customers" sitting around the conference table, you find that they are a bunch of skinheads.
Would you continue on with the report, studiously writing down the responses of the white supremacist freaks in your midst? Would you take that report back to your bosses, and explain, "Well, yes, they are skinheads, but you know what? They are our market."
Would you craft a new series of television commercials aimed at the "sensibilites" of your Nazi target market?
Let's look a little bit more of what the CFR's study brought out. What do the Muslims Nazi's want from the United States?
"Most Egyptians and Indonesians put U.S. support for their countries over 10 years in millions; the correct figures were $7.3 billion and $1 billion, respectively," the authors said.
When asked what they wanted from the United States, focus group members said respect and aid to develop as their countries choose.
Ok, check. Got that. They want us to give them money and keep our mouths shut. Right.
The Koran-Flushed-Down-The-Toilet StoryIs A New Form Of The Blood Libel/Host Desecration MythFrom
Neo-Neocon:
Ever since I heard about the violent reaction to the Newsweek Koran story, a little bell has been going off in the back of my head. One of those things that says, "This is familiar. This reminds me of something. What could it be?" You know how it is; you think and you think, but nothing specific comes up, just this general feeling.
This morning, though, it finally came to me, in that state of half-consciousness between sleep and wakening. The blood libel. The host desecration. Of course.
These are two ancient and false accusations that seem utterly preposterous today, but were believed at the time by many Christians, and have caused widespread violence against Jews--for centuries, and in many parts of the world.
For those of you unfamiliar with the myth of the blood libel and the host desecration, please go here. Please read the entire link to learn about it. But here's a short summary: Blood Libel
In 1144 CE, an unfounded rumor began in eastern England, that Jews had kidnapped a Christian child, tied him to a cross, stabbed his head to simulate Jesus' crown of thorns, killed him, drained his body completely of blood, and mixed the blood into matzos (unleavened bread) at time of Passover.
Host Desecration
The host is a wafer used during the Roman Catholic mass...the church teaches that it is converted into the actual body of Jesus Christ, just as the wine becomes Jesus' actual blood. These elements of the mass are then eaten by the believers.... A variation of the blood libel myth developed in Europe early in the 11th century. Instead of accusing the Jews of killing an innocent child, they were accused of desecrating the host. Sometimes they were accused stabbing pins into the host, or of stepping on it. Other times, they were accused of stabbing the host with a knife until Jesus' blood leaked out. Sometimes, they were accused of nailing the host, in a symbolic replay of the crucifixion.
The elements are very similar, particularly in the host desecration myth. In each case, we have believers in the sanctity of the object itself (for medieval Catholics, the host; for present day Moslem fundamentalists, the Koran), and a belief that another group showed lack of respect for the sanctity of said object and violated it in a terrible way. In the case of the blood libel, we also have allegations of an actual murder of an innocent for purposes of ritual desecration.
As I've been saying for the past few days here at CUANAS, this Koran-flushed-down-the-story is an example of Muslim idolatry. The idea that all of Western Civilization is supposed to get down on their knees and apologize to Muslims because an OBJECT was,
supposedly, flushed down a toilet is ludicrous.
Western Civilization does not halt in horror when Islamofascists burn our flag in the street. Our world does not come crashing down when they drag an effigy of our President behind a car.
I say to the Islamofascist's, "Go ahead and abuse any object until your heart is content. You buy it, you build it, it's yours to do with as you please. Those are the rules of Civilization. If you want to use the pages of the Bible to wipe yourself, it's ok with me."
Such behavior only reflects on the person who participates in it. It has no effect on the ideas, or ideals, represented by America, or by the Bible.
Muslim civilization is stuck in a medieval conception of the world. Their world is propped up by the flimsiest of physical objects. We can not allow our civilization to play by such rules. The minute we do, our world also will come crashing down.
Iranian TV SaysZionists Kidnap Babies To Harvest Their OrgansFrom Memri, via
Little Green Footballs:
Producer of Anti-Semitic Iranian TV Series "Zahra's Blue Eyes": A White Zionist Ship Sails Around the World, Kidnapping Babies to Use Their Organs
The following are excerpts from an interview with Ahmad Mir-'Alawii,who produced the anti-Semitic TV series "Zahra's Blue Eyes." Sahar TV, Iran aired the interview on February 8, 2005 in Farsi with Arabic voiceover. This translation is from the original Farsi:
Ahmad Mir-'Alawii: We have presented only a small portion of the Zionists' crimes. During our work [on the film] we received information-- even from Jews sympathizing with our point of view. They themselves were anti-Zionists. These were monotheistic Jews. They gave us information that made us regret the film had been completed. I wish we had this information before we made the film.
Oh Zionists ... In this film we treated you more than fairly, when we presented you as taking out their eyes in an operating room.
There is a white ship sailing the oceans. It doesn't enter the territorial waters of Iran or similar countries. Our Arab brothers must look out for this ship. In it [the Zionists] hold children only one or two years old, who don't know anything. These are children no one cared for. They are kidnapped by various means under the pretext of wanting to take care of them. These children are held on this ship, and no one knows their fate. They become teenagers, not knowing what their fate will be. They receive the best medical care and are under constant physical monitoring and supervision. Why do [the Zionists] give them such care? To use them for medical purposes. They use the heart, the kidneys, and their other organs.
The film is not entirely documentary. This story is the product of research we conducted and information we collected from every corner, and pieced together to compile this story. This story is a collection of facts. As I mentioned, we conducted research and reached conclusions, and we have turned them into this film to make the world aware of what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinians.
Click here to see a video cut of "Zahra's Blue Eyes."
Nazi Germany comes to mind, doesn't it?
Zarqawi's Declaration of IndeputznessFrom
Associated Press:
An Internet audiotape posted Wednesday, purportedly by the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, denounced Iraq's Shiites as collaborators with the Americans and said the country's rulers were traitors to Islam.
The tape was the first said to be from the Jordanian-born militant since a new, Shiite-dominated government was put in place in early May. In the past weeks, al-Qaida in Iraq and other militant groups have stepped up their campaign of car bombings, suicide attacks, shootings and kidnappings.
The speaker, purported to be al-Zarqawi, also justified the deaths of fellow Muslims in attacks against U.S. troops and their Iraqi allies, saying jihad — or holy war — was too important to be hindered.
"God ordered us to attack the infidels by all means ... even if armed infidels and unintended victims — women and children — are killed together," he said. "The priority is for jihad so anything that slows down jihad should be overcome."
The authenticity of the tape, posted on an Internet Web forum where al-Qaida in Iraq statements are often posted, could not be independently verified. The voice resembled that on previous al-Zarqawi tapes. U.S. intelligence was conducting a technical analysis to verify its authenticity, said an American official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Shiites are "collaborating with the worshippers of the cross," who invaded Iraq, corrupted the country and violated holy sites, the speaker said. "This is all taking place under of a state of apostasy among the rulers of this nation."
Oh come on, Abu Musab, admit it. You just like to kill people.
You see, people, this is the best Zarqawi can muster. Basically, what he's saying is the Shiites won the election, so that makes them apostates. The Shiites have somthing like 60-70% of the population in Iraq, and they got 48% of the vote. That indicates that the Shiites did not vote en bloc. Instead they, along with many other Iraqi's voted for the best person for the job.
Zarqawi can't stand that his group, the Sunni's, who had a veritable apartheid system going on in Iraq under Hussein, do not have the controlling interest anymore.
Hey, that's Democracy, Musab. Of course, that's what you call collaboration.
Go Tell It On The MountainFrom
Front Page Magazine:
The following is a speech by human rights activist Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi at the March Against Terror, hosted by Free Muslims Against Terror, at Washington D.C. this past weekend – The Editors. Despotic Islamist regimes that brutally terrorize their own people today have no qualms about exporting their brand of terror to the West. Iran serves as a clear example of this phenomenon: Both domestically and internationally, terrorism has become the main policy instrument of the mullahs, who have hijacked Iran’s natural resources to finance their culture of death. These Islamist tyrants recruit innocent and devoted believers who have been coerced into doing their dirty work for them. This was demonstrated only a few weeks ago when Palestinian women, known as the Daughters of Zeytoon, were corralled to Tehran for a “celebration” of their volunteering for suicide missions.Terrorism is generally defined as the ideologically or politically motivated use, or threatened use, of force or violence against people, with the intent to intimidate or coerce. By this or any other accepted definition of terrorism, the Islamic Republic of Iran, since its inception, has been a terrorist regime.European powers have tolerated regimes such as Iran in exchange for cheap oil and gas. Even more, the neo-colonialist Europeans have helped perpetuate the Islamist establishment, giving it an aura of international legitimacy in order to do lucrative business with the mullahs.
The people of Iran have not benefited from this economic interchange with the West: After 26 years of Islamist rule, the economy of the nation is ruined; the unemployment rate is close to 40 percent; and rampant inflation bodes ill for future growth. The clerical elites, on the other hand, by investing overseas in everything from drug running to legitimate businesses, have accumulated immense fortunes.
The events that have unfolded since January—the massive participation in the first free election in Iraq; the overturning of a fraudulent election in Ukraine, which brought true democracy to the Ukrainian people; and the popular protest in Lebanon against the de facto Syrian rulers—all show that people everywhere will participate in the democratic process if given the chance. Democracy is not a luxury for the few. It is the true aspiration of the majority. And this is especially true in the Middle East.
The mullahs of Iran know that their end is near. They will try everything in their power to postpone that end, using their traditional smoke-and-mirror games with the West as well as terrorist tactics. But this time they won’t hesitate to cross the line and resort to extreme expedients, such as nuclear bombs, to ensure their survival.
The Islamic regime’s rapid deployment of nuclear weapons has also become a huge and looming threat to the world. On May 13, the regime once again faked out the world, promising to stop enriching Uranium. And the Europeans once again believed this. Now they are essentially giving Iran more time to construct its doomsday machines on the sly. These weapons, whose technology and materials come from North Korea, China, Russia, Germany, Pakistan and Libya, will be inevitably used against the West and its’ allies. They will be used against anyone who dares stand in the Islamists’ way.
On June 17, another fake election will take place in Iran. Only the self-elected mullahs and their sycophants will be running for “presidency.” The people of Iran have made it more than clear that they will boycott this election, just as they did the February 2004 parliamentary elections that ousted the so-called “reformists.”
A suicide bomber who kills innocent civilians is indeed committing terrorism. But terrorism is also perpetrated in a more subtle way. For instance, by defending the status quo in the Middle East, and by advocating appeasement and engagement with tyrants, Western politicians and media are, in effect, condoning terrorism.
We are here today to denounce terrorism and its use by the Islamist establishment and their Cuban, Venezuelan, and North Korean allies to perpetuate hate and fear around the world. We ask our friends around the world who wish to live in peace, harmony and devotion to a kind and loving God to stand in solidarity with us today in confronting these assassins who refuse to celebrate diversity.
The Middle East has earned its freedom. We wish to impress upon the world that no ideology is worth the sacrifice of human rights and peace. Let’s hold them to this simple canon: Do unto others as you would have them do onto you!Amen.
The Practical Application Of WarFrom
The Astute Blogger:
SO: when we FAIL to intervene against socialist tyrannies, we err on the side of GENOCIDE. It SAVED LIVES to defeat Hitler. If we had marched on to Moscow in 1945 - it would have SAVED LIVES. If we had intervened MILITARILY in Rwanda, it would have SAVED LIVES.
And I believe that making war against tyrants like Mugabe and Fidel and Chavez and Kim and the mullahs would not only end their TYRANNY but SAVE LIVES, and lift the people up to lives of liberty and prosperity.
That makes me a libertarian hawk. And a HUMANITARIAN who wants to SAVE LIVES.
BOTTOM-LINE: WAR WORKS. I think this is further proof that the DOVES OF THE LEFT (since Vietnam days and all the way to the anti-Iraq War folks) have been "anti-war" because they're on the other side, and not because they want to save lives.
How do you like my totalitarian sounding title?
