Jimmy Carter, our 39th President and man who ran the most disastorous presidency of the 20th century, has come out today calling President Bush's foreign policy the worst in our nation's history. He has equally kind and uplifting words for Tony Blair.
One wonders what is going on with Mr. Carter. His presidency was an utter catastrophe. In his post-presidency years, Mr. Carter actually accomplished far more for humanity building houses and erradicating parasites in Africa then he ever did as President. Why he did not maintain some dignity and stick with what has worked for him is a mystery.
Please note that I am not criticizing Mr. Carter solely to make an ancillary attack on his veracity and judgment. Rather, Mr. Carter's history and his view of acceptable foreign policy must be considered in assessing the worth of his judgment. And that assessment can only be that Carter's judgment of Bush's foreign policy is worthless as a valid criticisim. Actually, one could even go beyond that and argue that Carter's censure is actually to be taken as a sign that Bush is doing all the right things in the foreign policy arena.
Carter, besides domestically presiding over double digit inflation and the worst economy since the depression, was a tsunami of disaster in foreign policy. His one success was the Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel. For a general walk down bad memory lane, here is a retrospective on the Carter years from 2002 by Jay Nordinger.
Perhaps President Carter's most infamous contribution to the mess that is the world today was his enablement of Khomeini's revolution in Iran and Carter's refusal to take effective action to end the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. As Amir Taheri recently explained:The first contact between the US and the mullahs was established in November 1978, soon after Khomeini set up shop in a suburb of Paris. George Cave, the CIA's Iran specialist traveled to Paris and met Khomeini's close aides at the time: Abol-Hassan Banisadr and Ibrahim Yazdi. The message from President Jimmy Carter was one of support for the ayatollah and his Islamic Revolution.
See here. And, for those of us who lived through the next 444 days, treated to video of our citizens paraded on t.v. while Khomeini consolidated power and made speech after speech about the Great Satan America, Carter's ineffectualness is seared into our consciousness. It is not unfair to say that Carter was midwife to the birth of political and radical Islam in the modern era.
When the Shah's regime collapsed, the early signs were encouraging for Carter. Khomeini's first Cabinet, under Mahdi Bazargan, included five ministers who had immigrated to the US from Iran and had become US citizens.
The Carter administration saw the Khomeinist revolution as the first step towards creating what Zbigniew Bzrezinski, the National Security Advisor, described as "a green Islamic belt" around the Soviet Union. The idea was that, in time, the "belt" would, become a noose that, when pulled, would strangle the Soviet empire.
Eight months after Khomeini had seized power, Bazargan met Bzrezinski in Algiers and obtained promises of US aid, and a resumption of military supplies, in the context of shared anti-Communist sentiments. Bzrezinski told Carter that Bazargan was "a man with whom we could do business."
A few days later, however, a band of militants raided the US Embassy in Tehran and seized its diplomats hostage. Bazargan and Yazdi, foreign minister at the time, were kicked out, never to return to power.
Carter's recollection of events varies somewhat. According to Carter, he was responsible for ending the hostage crisis by his noble efforts.:President Carter committed himself to the safe return of the hostages while protecting America's interests and prestige. He pursued a policy of restraint that put a higher value on the lives of the hostages than on American retaliatory power or protecting his own political future. The toll of patient diplomacy was great, but President Carter's actions brought freedom for the hostages with America's honor preserved.
That from an article on the subject available at the Carter Library. It's not even good fiction. Actually, the hostages were not released until the day Ronald Regean was sworn in as President. Only a fool would credit Carter with ending the crisis rather then Khomeini's calculus of Regean's likely response to Iran on Day 2 of his Presidency.
Possibly just below Iran on the scale of calamity, there was Carter's disastorous meddling in North Korea. In 1994, Clinton was in the midst of addressing North Korea's nuclear program when Carter, on his own initiative, travelled to North Korea and negotiated an utterly worthless agreement with North Korea that has, today, resulted in North Korea attaining nuclear weapons capability.
I could go on, but the legacy has been covered in far greater detail by far better authors then I. I would recommend that you go to Powerline and do a search for Jimmy Carter. The bottom line is, for Jimmy Carter to criticize Bush's foreign policy is the height of lunacy.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Jimmy Goes (Pea)Nuts
A Tale of Two Iraqs
This is a tale of two polar opposite views of Iraq. Since both purport to tell objective fact on the same topic, only one can be true. The first is written by an influential left wing British think tank. The author drafted it safely in the confines of London. That study was recently relied upon by the Washington Post for the proposition that Iraq is a lost cause. The second is written by a former soldier who has spent most of the last four plus years embedded with troops in Iraq and Afganistan. He is currently living with the Marines in Anbar province. His reporting is routinely ignored by the Washington Post, along with the rest of the MSM. The first view of Iraq comes from a study by Chatham House. The second view comes from Michael Yon.
First, the view of Chatham House, whose study on Iraq the Washington Post cited the other day. I posted:
[The WP] headline is "60 Die in Iraq, Study Warns of Collapse." . . .Do please read the Chatham House Study. Then read this e-mail from Michael Yon sent yesterday to Glen Reynolds and that Glen posts on his site, Instapundit. It discusses life at the moment in Anbar Province after the "local actors" decided to challenge Al Qaeda a few months ago:
The WP quotes liberally from the study's conclusions - mostly to give a very contrarian view to statements by our own U.S. Ambassador in Iraq. But the WP does not quote from the Chatham House study's underlying findings, few if any of which seem supported by fact.
For example, Al Qaeda in Iraq is under extreme pressure, having been largely driven into Diyala Province from its former bases in Anbar Province and Baghdad. Indeed, one major change on the ground in Iraq that is extremely well documented has been the success of the locals in Anbar Province turning on Al Qaeda in Iraq and, with MNF support, driving them largely out of the province. Its been so successful that Marines in Ramadi are complaining of boredom and monotony. Nonetheless, in asserting that things are only getting worse in Iraq, Chatham House actually roots for al Qaeda, ascribing to them the big mo' while downplaying the incredible success of the Anbar Salvation Council:Al-Qaeda has a very real presence in Iraq that has spread to the major cities of the centre and north of the country, including Baghdad, Kirkuk and Mosul. Although Al-Qaeda’s position is challenged by local actors, it is a mistake to exaggerate the ability of tribal groups and other insurgents to stop the momentum building behind its operations in Iraq.
This gives a bit of the flavor that thoroughly infests the Chatham House Study. They do the same for the Mahdi Army and downplay recent moves by the SICI to switch allegiance to Grand Ayatollah Sistani. . . .
Am still in Anbar and just went another day without hearing a single shot fired. Am out with a small group of Marines who live with a much larger group of Iraqis. I enjoy the Iraqi food more than the food at the dining facilities. . . .So who do you think is giving us an accurate picture of Iraq and the effects of the "local actors?" Well, at least we know whom the Washington Post would have us believe. As Bernard Lewis let's us know, leaving Iraq now is fraught with extreme peril and long term consequences for us and the world. So why is the Washington Post unquestioningly citing to a Chatham House study so obviously flawed?
I was told that a chemical munition (artillery shell) was found within the last few days.
Today, went on a patrol with Iraqis and a couple of Marines and we talked with Iraqi villagers for a couple of hours. I got to talk with a man who was about 81. His hearing was not good, so I had to sit close. He said he worked for the British RAF here in about 1945-46. I asked him if the British treated him well and he said they treated him very well. Said he made the equivalent of about 25 cents per day but that was good money back then. There is, in fact, a British-Polish-Indian-Aussie-Kiwi cemetery nearby. (I visited and photographed many of the headstones some days ago.)
All the villagers we got to talk with were very friendly. Kids wanted their photos taken, that sort of thing. They were not asking for candy and that was nice. There was a train track nearby (looked to be in very good condition), and a locomotive turned over on its side, derailed. I asked a man what happened, and he said that about four years ago, during the war, an "Ali Baba" (thief) tried to steal the train but ran head-on into another train! He said the police caught the Ali Baba and he has no idea what happened after that.
Marines are getting along well with the locals. They wave a lot, and stop to talk. If the rest of Iraq looked like this, we could all come home!
A Psychological Perspective on the OIC & the Canard of Islamaphobia
I posted below on the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), who first, in a move that can only be described as Orwellian, redefined terrorism as Islamaphobia before the next day coming out with strong statement condemning terrorism. You can't make this stuff up, unfortunately. As a cure for the sickening hypocrisy of it all, I posted a critical and humorous look at Islam by British comic Pat Condell. Now Dr. Santy has waded into the morass.
Dr. Santy, psychologist to the Islamaphobic masses, has, in the wake of the OIC's ominous and fantastical actions, graced us with a psychological perspective on the canard of Islamaphobia. It is well worth the read:
. . . [B]eing afraid of "the religion of peace" after the innumerable acts of violence, terror and depravity committed in the name of Allah is not exaggerated; not inexplicable; and most certainly not illogical.Read the entire post here. So sayeth the doc. So let it be written. And for what it is worth, I note here my prior post arguing that Islam has to have reasoned criticism - such cannot be cut off by charges of hate speech or Islamaphobia else we doom ourselves and the Islamic religion.
What the OIC is exhibiting is a sort of meta-Islamophobia--an Islamophobicphobia, to be precise; or, as I would define it, " an exaggerated,usually inexplicable and illogical fear of mere criticism of Islam, as well as a pathological reluctance to hold it to account for the actions and behavior of its followers.
"There is much written both in the Middle East and in the West about the proposition that Islam is "under siege" and that hatred of Islam is a rising concern. This has been repeated frequently particularly since the global war on terror (which actually is a global war on Islamic fanatiacism).
Those who decry this reality are not only reluctant to admit that the wave of terror and irrational hatred sweeping the world is specifically associated with the religion of Islam; they simultaneously blame the victims of the terror and the objects of the irrational hatred as the one's responsible for its existence. Islam is given a free pass and the shouts of "God is Great" that precede the latest atrocity apparently have nothing to do with what is written in the Koran.
It is getting harder and harder to keep a straight face as the knee-jerk denial and sanctimonious utterings of organizations like CAIR and the OIC fill the news media on a daily basis.
Islamophobia? Anyone who by now has not realized that Islam has given carte blanche to the fanatics in its midst is either completely out of touch with reality, or living on another planet (e.g., planet Hollywood, or planet Marx).
Muslims in Europe claim they are justified in rejecting Western society for a variety of reasons:
(1) oppression;
(2) poverty;
(3) the Iraq War; and/or
(4) the institutionally "racist" culture of the West, which "forces" Muslims to accept the values of the countries they choose to imigrate to.
Interestingly, Muslims seem to expect that those countries should be forced to abandon their own traditions and adopt Muslim values.So, let me say for the record that I reject being labeled as "Islamophobic" utterly.
Rather, I have a healthy, rational fear of a religion that aggressively seeks my submission or death. . . .
Islam has forced me to explicitly and loudly state that I absolutely, thoroughly and unequivocally reject Muslim values. What follows is not an exhaustive list, but let me touch on some of the highlights that form the basis of my rejection:
. . . After September 11th, I could continue to live in a state of denial and ignorance about the fact that Islam had come to represent all the values that are incompatible with human life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Or, I could face reality and recognize Islam as a serious threat to all I hold dear and value in the world.
No; a rational, healthy fear of Islam's barbaric medievalism and its desire to subjugate the entire human race under the yoke of its god is perfectly appropriate and continually justified by the fanatical behavior of millions of Muslims everywhere on the planet.
This is not Islamophobia; this is common sense.
Vote . . . Buying?
Vote buying of one sort or another has a long history in democracies. Indeed, our founding father, George Washington, was known for providing free libations to voters as election day neared. Most vote buying schemes of more recent vintage amount to little more then pedestrian corruption. Others . . . well, others are more creative. And as to this particular scheme in Belgium, ahh, what the hell, she has my vote. See here. Only if over 18 and a consenting adult.
(h/t Jules Crittenden)
Thomas Sowell on Left Brain versus Right Brain
Thomas Sowell has one of his always insightful articles out today, this time discussing the fundamentel differnce in paradigm between the left and the right. He opines that elite left's belief, that by their superior knowledge, they can better govern by fiat then can the unwashed masses by voting, is fundamentally and fatally flawed.
Radically different conclusions about a range of issues have been common for centuries. Many have tried to explain these differences by conflicting economic interests. Others, like John Maynard Keynes, have argued that ideas trump economic interests.Read the entire story here.
My own view is that differences in bedrock assumptions underlying ideas play a major role in determining how people differ in what policies, principles or ideologies they favor.
Millions died of starvation when the economic ideas of Stalin in the Soviet Union and Mao in China were inflicted on the population living . . . under their iron rule. . .
Yet what the political left, even in democratic countries, share is the notion that knowledgeable and virtuous people like themselves have both a right and a duty to use the power of government to impose their superior knowledge and virtue on others.
They may not impose their presumptions wholesale, like the totalitarians, but retail in innumerable restrictions, ranging from economic and nanny state regulations to "hate speech" laws.
If no one has even one percent of all the knowledge in a society, then it is crucial that the other 99 percent of knowledge - scattered in tiny and individually unimpressive amounts among the population at large - be allowed the freedom to be used in working out mutual accommodations among the people themselves.
These innumerable mutual interactions are what bring the other 99 percent of knowledge into play - and generate new knowledge.
That is why free markets, judicial restraint, and reliance on decisions and traditions growing out of the experiences of the many - rather than the groupthink of the elite few - are so important. Elites are all too prone to over-estimate the importance of the fact that they average more knowledge per person than the rest of the population - and under-estimate the fact that their total knowledge is so much less than that of the rest of the population.
Central planning, judicial activism, and the nanny state all presume vastly more knowledge than any elite have ever possessed.
The ignorance of people with Ph.D.s is still ignorance, the prejudices of educated elites are still prejudices, and for those with one percent of a society's knowledge to be dictating to those with the other 99 percent is still an absurdity.
Democrat Politics - Iraq, Murtha on Pork, Pelosi Trys to Silence Republicans, Ethics Rules, - Its a Circus
Lots going under the big top on the left side of the aisle this past week that I haven't had time to blog about - at least not until my recent bout of insomnia.
The lead has to be the political games being run by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, sending the Iraq bill to the President, this time only sans the pork and earmarks that had no business in the bill to begin with. You have to love their feigned disappointment when President Bush refused to agree to Democratic terms of surrender in Iraq, whether or not waiverable. See here. My favorite of all the Democratic posturing on this, though, has to be David Obey, House Appropriations Committee Chairman:
The offers that we made today represented very large steps toward compromise on our part . . . And I think we got an inchworm response from the administration.Sorry, Mr. Obey, but including terms of surrender in the funding bill does not qualify as any reasonable attempt at compromise.
Jack Murtha apparently likes his pork without criticism or challenge. The government moved to close down National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) located in Murtha's district on the grounds that it is not functioning to expectations and it is no longer needed. When Murtha had continued funding for the NDIC put into the budget, Republican Mike Rogers of Michigan sought to have it cut. Murtha went ballistic, accroding to the WP story: According to Rogers' account, which Murtha did not dispute, the Democrat angrily told Rogers he should never seek earmarks of his own because "you're not going to get any, now or forever."Rogers will submit a motion to censure Murtha before the House on Monday. Nice to see someone standing up to Murtha. It needs to go a lot further, though.
"This was clearly designed to try to intimidate me," Rogers said in an interview Friday. "He said it loud enough for other people to hear."
House rules prohibit lawmakers from placing conditions on earmarks or targeted tax benefits that are based on another member's votes.
On a different front, there are the lobbying rules that Democrats promised to clean up as a function of their campaign against a "culture of corruption." But it seems now that many Democrats kind of like that culture. This from the NYT:
House Democrats wavered Thursday in their vow to tighten Congressional ethics rules as their leaders scrapped a campaign pledge to double the current one-year ban on lobbying by departing lawmakers and senior staff members.Then there was the attempt by Nancy Pelosi to change a House Rule in effect since 1822
Democratic leaders in the House faced a rank-and-file revolt over the measure, which would significantly cramp the ability of lawmakers to cash in on their government service for million-dollar paychecks on K Street as soon as they leave office. . .
allowing the party in the minority to submit a Motion to Recommit on bills before the House. You can get a thorough explanation at Fausta's Blog and the links therein. Nancy's talk of bipartisan cooperation was, it would seem, lacking in any substance - she attempted to completely shut off the minority from their 185 year old procedural right to impact on legislation she and her Democratic majority would bring before the House. Fortunately, she failed in this endeavor, at least for now.And on the "insuring ideological purity" front, Steny Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader, was one of several Democrats who voted against the McGovern Bill a few days ago. That bill, would have mandated an immediate withdraw from Iraq. Enjoying the full support of the George Soros propaganda machine MoveOn.org, it was nonetheless defeated by a vote of 255 to 171. Hoyer, it should be noted, at least as recently as December, 2005, admitted to strong differences of opinion on the Iraq War with Nancy Pelosi, saying that if she "had her way it 'could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility.'" See here. I couldn't agree more.
Such ideological variance from the mainstream of Soros-thought is not to be tolerated in the Democratic Party. Thus, it is no surprise that Soros's MoveOn.org is running attack ads against Hoyer in his district for failing to vote "yea" on the McGovern bill. They are also running attack ads against Carl Levin for his suggestion that Democrats would vote to fund the war without requiring surrender on a date certain. See here. It is not nice to disagree with George Soros. Not if you are a Democrat.And thus ends a week of politics in the Democratic majority. I personally was glad to see the Republicans bounced from the majority on the grounds that they had become wholly unmoored from their conservative, small government roots. What I am not glad to see is the Democratic circus that has replaced them.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Fjordman on the Islamization of UK & European Cities
Fjordman, noted European essayist and a keen and insightful chronicler of the growth of Islam in Europe, has crafted yet another troubling essay on the matter:
. . . Historically, the major cities have constituted a country’s “head,” the seat of most of its political institutions and the largest concentration of its cultural brainpower. What happens when this “head” is cut off from the rest of the body?. Read the entire story here.
In many countries across Western Europe, Muslim immigrants tend to settle in major cities, with the native population retreating to minor cities or into the countryside. Previously, Europeans or non-Europeans could travel between countries and visit new cities, each with its own, distinctive character and peculiarities. Soon, you will travel from London to Paris, Amsterdam or Stockholm and find that you have left one city dominated by burkas and sharia to find… yet another city dominated by burkas and sharia.
For some reason, this eradication of unique, urban cultures is to be celebrated as “cultural diversity.” Britain’s population is projected to rise by more than seven million in the next 25 years. The predictions were even greater than those made by the Migrationwatch UK think-tank, whose forecasts had been dismissed in the past as alarmist. Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, said the figures were “staggering.” “They totally demolish the Government’s claim that it has a ‘managed migration’ policy. In fact they show that immigration into the UK is out of control.” British citizenship has been granted to nearly one million foreign nationals since Labour and Tony Blair came to power in 1997. “Grants of citizenship have quadrupled under the present Government. This is a direct result of their ‘no limits’ immigration policy.” “Immigration on this scale is changing the nature of our society without public consent. It is no longer acceptable.”
More white families are moving from London to the regions while many immigrants arrive in the capital from overseas. Migrationwatch said that the change in 10 years had been “extraordinarily rapid” and “unprecedented.” Whites will soon become a minority in Birmingham and other major British cities, posing a “critical” challenge to social stability, Britain’s race relations watchdog warned. Statistics showed that white and ethnic minority communities were becoming increasingly segregated.
“Asian youths,” a British euphemism for Pakistanis and Muslims from South Asia, in parts of Oldham are trying to create no-go areas for white people. One of them told: “There are signs all around saying whites enter at your risk. It’s a matter of revenge.” However, it’s not just the white natives that are targets of Muslim violence, but other non-Muslims, too. A report on Hindus being driven out of the English city of Bradford by young Muslims was described by some Hindus as “ethnic cleansing.” Some of them want to leave the city to escape the “Talibanization of Bradford.”
In an online story in newspaper The Daily Telegraph that was removed “for legal reasons,” former Muslim Dr. Patrick Sookhdeo warned that British Muslims could soon form a state within the state. Dr Sookhdeo believed that “in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law.” “In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe laid out their strategy for the future – and the fundamental rule was never dilute your presence. That is to say, do not integrate.” “Rather, concentrate Muslim presence in a particular area until you are a majority in that area, so that the institutions of the local community come to reflect Islamic structures. The education system will be Islamic, the shops will serve only halal food, there will be no advertisements showing naked or semi-naked women, and so on.”
The next step will be pushing the Government to recognize sharia law for Muslim communities – which will be backed up by the claim that it is “racist” or “Islamophobic” to deny them this. Sookhdeo noted that there is already a Sharia Law Council for the UK. “There are Muslim men in Britain who marry and divorce three women, then marry a fourth time – and stay married, in sharia law, to all four.” “The more fundamentalist clerics think that it is only a matter of time before they will persuade the Government to concede on the issue of sharia law. Given the Government's record of capitulating, you can see why they believe that.”
In France, Muslims already have many smaller states within the state. Criminologist Lucienne Bui Trong wrote that: “From 106 hot points in 1991, we went to 818 sensitive areas in 1999.” The term she used, “sensitive areas,” was used to describe Muslim no-go zones where anything representing a Western institution (post office truck, firemen, even mail order delivery firms) was routinely ambushed with Molotov cocktails. The number was 818 in 2002, when the French government decided to stop collecting the statistics.
In some of these areas, the phenomenon of gang rape “has become banal.” Violence against and pressure on women is part of daily life in the suburbs, where boys can dictate how girls should dress. Pressure is mounting for Muslim women to wear veils. In 2002, a 17-year-old girl was set alight by an 18-year-old boy as his friends stood by. The support group “Ni Putes, Ni Soumises” (“Neither Whores nor Submissives”) says the number of forced marriages has risen in recent years, with roughly 70,000 girls pressured into unwanted relationships each year in France. A leaked study conducted between October 2003 and May 2004 under the auspices of France’s inspector-general of education, Jean Pierre Obin, described an educational system where Muslim students regularly boycotted classes that concerned Voltaire, Rousseau and Moliere, whom the students accused of being anti-Islamic. Orbin’s report cited Muslim students’ refusal to use the “plus” sign in mathematics because it looks like a crucifix; Muslims boycotting class trips to churches, cathedrals and monasteries; and forcing wholesale changes in school lunch fare to accommodate their religious practices.
The influence of radical Islamist groups is a growing threat to French business, too, a leading intelligence expert warned, citing the discovery of secret prayer-rooms at the Disneyland theme-park outside Paris. A report commissioned by several retail and courier companies stated that the Islamists’ strategy is to “take control of Muslims within the workforce” and then “challenge the rules in order to impose Islamic values.” French Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy said that the riots in 2005 were rather “well organized.” Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post noted that some Muslim leaders explained that what they wanted was autonomy in their ghettos: “They seek to receive extraterritorial status from the French government, meaning that they will set their own rules based, one can assume, on Sharia law. If the French government accepts the notion of communal autonomy, France will cease to be a functioning state.” Following three weeks of unrest, the police said 98 vehicles torched in one day marked a “return to a normal situation everywhere in France.” Some of the rioters left boasting messages on various Internet forums. “We aren’t going to let up. The French won’t do anything and soon, we will be in the majority here.” One observer stated: “In France, the majority of young Muslims believe that French society is dying, committing suicide. More like 10 percent to 20 percent of them believe that they are in the process of replacing European civilization with an Islamic one.” In the southern city of Marseille, Muslims make up at least a quarter of the population, and rising fast.
In the Netherlands, Muslims will soon make up the majority in all major cities. “Today, we have 1 million Muslims out of 16 million Dutch,” according to Frits Bolkestein, Dutch politician and former EU Commissioner. “Within 10 years, they will have an absolute majority in both Amsterdam and Rotterdam. We are staring into the face of a shortly to be divided community. Muslims have the right to their own schools, so there is no teaching of evolution, gay teachers are not tolerated but anti-Semitism is.” A researcher for the Netherlands Ministry for Immigration and Integration found that 40% of young Moroccan Muslims in the Netherlands rejected Western values and democracy. Six to seven percent were prepared to use force to “defend” Islam, and the majority were opposed to freedom of speech for offensive statements, particularly criticism of Islam.
We are witnessing a dramatic change in Europe, which men like Bolkestein see as underlined by a drop in national confidence in European countries over the entirety of the last century. The immigration problem, he said, “has to do with the loss of confidence in one’s own civilization. It started with World War II, which was really a mass European suicide. Then, the rise of fascism, the Holocaust and the 1968 student cultural revolutions across Europe. There is no clear European identity today. This has a real impact on foreign policy.”
Douglas Murray attended a conference in memory of the murdered Islam critic Pim Fortuyn in 2006, and noted with concern the strict security measures and what he saw as a nation under siege. “All across Europe, debate on Islam is being stopped. Italy’s greatest living writer, Oriana Fallaci, soon comes up for trial in her home country, and in Britain the government seems intent on pushing through laws that would make truths about Islam and the conduct of its followers impossible to voice. Europe is shuffling into darkness. It is proving incapable of standing up to its enemies, and in an effort to accommodate the peripheral rights of a minority is failing to protect the most basic rights of its own people.” A survey in April 2005, after the murder of another critic of Islam, Theo van Gogh, indicated that 32 percent of Dutch people wanted to emigrate abroad.
They leave what was once their country in favor of people such as Dyab Abu Jahjah, founder of the Arab European League (AEL). The AEL, founded in Belgium in 2000, now has branches in the Netherlands and France, and intends to spread across the EU. Jahjah, who has called the 9/11 attacks “sweet revenge,” recruits Muslim youth to spread his ideology, which calls for the introduction of sharia in Europe. “We have three basic demands,” he says. “Bilingual education for Arab-speaking kids, hiring quotas that protect Muslims, and the right to keep our cultural customs.” “Assimilation is cultural rape. It means renouncing your identity, becoming like the others.” Jahjah has also demanded that Arabic should be made an official language in Belgium. Belgium’s Jews, in particular Antwerp’s Jewish diamond merchants, have earlier felt threatened by the Arab European League (AEL), which issued a statement: “The AEL calls on the Jewish community in Antwerp to cease its support of, and distance itself from, the state of Israel. If not, attacks in Antwerp are almost unpreventable.”
Security sources in Germany warned that the country was home to between 3,000 and 5,000 potential Islamic suicide attackers. A Berlin court in 2005 ruled that a well-known Turkish religious leader should be extradited to Turkey. In his Berlin mosque he repeatedly said that “all Germans were stinking people and doomed to go to hell because they were useless creatures and infidels.” Shortly before, the press spokesman of this mosque had told about the Turks’ strong interest in fostering good relations with native Germans. TV correspondent Reinhard Laska feared that the opinions voiced by the Imam were only the tip of the iceberg: “There was nobody in the mosque who stood up and demanded that the Imam stop his nasty talk about Germans,” he said. “Nobody seemed to mind at all.” In 2006, “Valley of the Wolves,” a virulently anti-Semitic film about the Iraq war, sold out to cheering audiences from Germany’s 2.5 million-strong Turkish community.
According to Der Spiegel, Germany’s and Europe’s biggest weekly magazine, an estimated number of 50 women in Germany have been murdered in so-called honor killings in the past decade. Their crime? Trying to break free and live Western lifestyles. Within their communities, the killers are revered as heroes for preserving their family dignity. Much of this insular and ultra-religious world is out of public view, “often hidden in inner-city apartments where the most influential links to the outside world are satellite dishes that receive Turkish and Arabic television and the local mosque.” “In these families, loyalty and honor are elevated virtues and women are treated little better than slaves, unseen by society and often unnoticed or ignored by their German neighbors.” It caused an outcry when a group of 14-year-old Turkish boys mocked one victim during a class discussion. “She deserved what she got. The whore lived like a German.”
In Denmark, the nation-wide organization of Women’s Crisis Centres claims that a number of taxi drivers with immigrant background are spying on female immigrants who are in hiding, sending information about their whereabouts to their families. It was a group of taxi drivers who informed a Pakistani man where he could find his sister. He murdered her in broad daylight outside a train station because she had married a man from Afghanistan against her family’s orders. 80% of the women seeking help at crisis centres in the city of Oslo, Norway, are from immigrant background.
Non-western immigrants account for nearly 86% of the Norwegian capital’s total population growth over the past ten years. Muslims make up such a high percentage of cab drivers that it can be hard to obtain a taxi during Islamic holidays. Blind people with their guide dogs are finding it increasingly difficult to get a taxi ride, as demonstrated by a lady in the city of Drammen outside Oslo. Grethe Olsen, accompanied by her guide dog Isak, experienced being rejected by no less than 21 taxis before finally getting a ride. Olsen thought the taxi drivers said no for religious reasons. The Norwegian Blind Association confirmed that this is a well known problem all over the country, especially in cities with many immigrants. Dogs are considered extremely dirty animals in Islam and only permitted for certain limited uses, such as guarding your property. Two hadith, traditions relating to the words and deeds of Muhammad, state that: “The Prophet said, ‘Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or there are pictures’ and ‘Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) ordered the killing of dogs and we would send (men) in Medina and its corners and we did not spare any dog that we did not kill.’”
Mullah Krekar, former leader of Kurdish guerilla group Ansar-al-Islam, lives in Oslo. He has praised Iraqi al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has stated that “Osama bin Laden is a good person” and that he was willing to sacrifice himself for bin Laden. Krekar told an Oslo newspaper that there’s a war going on between the West and Islam, and that he was sure that Islam would win. Rumor has it that Krekar is such a respected man among many fellow Muslims that he gets taxi rides for free. Which means that it is easier to get a taxi ride in Norway’s capital if you praise Osama bin Laden than if you are blind.
It has been reported that shopkeepers in certain areas of Oslo now need to pay protection money. The criminals are more trigger-happy than ever, and since many of them abide by the rules of blood vengeance, violence is rapidly increasing. In Sweden, reports about criminal gangs and mafias, a phenomenon that is growing day by day, are coming in from urban areas all over the country, and a feeling of powerlessness is spreading among ordinary citizens. “We have no other possibility than to flee from this area. Families cannot fight against these problems alone. We are talking about survival, you can get stabbed here. We can only survive by attempting to avoid getting targeted.”
Feriz and Pajtim, members of youth gang Gangsta Albanian Thug Unit in the Swedish city of Malmö, explain how they mug and beat people downtown. “Many of us participated in gangs that fought against the Serbs during the war in Kosovo. Violence is in our blood,” Feriz said. They target a lone victim and make him a scapegoat. “We make it look like he bumped into one of us. Then we have an opportunity to attack him. We surround him and beat and kick him until he no longer fights back,” he said. “You are always many more people than your victims. Cowardly?” “I have heard that from many, but I disagree. The whole point is that they’re not supposed to have a chance.” Neither Feriz nor Pajtim expressed any sympathy for their victims. “If they get injured, they just have themselves to blame for being weak,” said Pajtim and shrugged.
They bring with them a rather brutal culture to Sweden. A BBC article described how the centuries-old custom of blood feuds has made a comeback in Albania in recent years. “The law and order vacuum created by the collapse of communism sent many Albanians back to the ancient customary laws of their tribal roots.” “The Kanuns sanction blood feuds and regulate them from all points of view,” said professor of law Ismet Elezi. “And first they established the rule: whoever kills will be killed. Blood is avenged with blood.” In an effort to end to this perpetual cycle of revenge, the Albanian education ministry has set up programmes for children affected by blood feuds. Each local authority tries to identify the children who do not attend school because they are in hiding or confined to their homes. “It’s between the families. If we go and ask for the police to help this thing will get even worse.”
What the BBC conveniently “forgot” to mention in this article was that these blood feuds are rooted in Islamic teachings. Two men were killed in a row involving a group of second generation immigrants in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2005. According to imam Abu Laban, who was later responsible for whipping up hatred against his country of residence because of the now famous cartoons of Muhammad in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, the thirst for revenge could be cooled if 200,000 kroner were paid by the family of the man who fired the shots. 200,000 Danish kroner is approximately the value of 100 camels, a number based on the example of Muhammad himself. The idea of blood money originates from the Koran, 2.178. Indemnity is secured through the payment of blood money to the next-of-kin or the injured party, as opposed to retaliation, in which the killer is put to death or has a like injury inflicted on him/her. It depends upon what the family of the deceased or the injured party wants.
Politiken, a left-leaning newspaper championing Multiculturalism in Denmark, argued that the principle of blood money might be worth considering. Luckily, they were met by an outcry from angry citizens. Apart from the apparent 7th century time warp Muslims seemed stuck in, many commentators missed out on the worst part of the blood money concept: The compensation to be paid is not the same for all people. The only full members of the Islamic community are Muslim men. All others have fewer rights, due to their religion, sex or slave status. The rates for blood money mirror this religious apartheid system, which is deeply ingrained in Islamic law. A Saudi Arabian court ruled that the value of one woman’s life was equal to that of one man’s leg.
A secret high-level UK police report concluded that Muslim officers were more likely to become corrupt than white officers, with complaints of misconduct and corruption against Muslim officers running 10 times higher than against their colleagues. “Asian officers and in particular Pakistani Muslim officers are under greater pressure from the family, the extended family [...] and their community against that of their white colleagues to engage in activity that might lead to misconduct or criminality.” The report argued that British Pakistanis live in a cash culture in which “assisting your extended family is considered a duty” and in an environment in which large amounts of money are loaned between relatives and friends. It recommended that Asian officers needed special anti-corruption training. Only an extremely small percentage of the inhabitants of Pakistan, and many other Muslim countries, actually pay taxes. If Pakistanis don’t even pay taxes in Islamic Pakistan, why should they pay taxes to, or feel any loyalty towards, infidel, Western states? The clan is everything, the state is an enemy, a mentality people from these countries bring with them to the West, along with the corruption and the tribal violence associated with it.
The massive concentration of Muslims in major European cities will have dramatic consequences, some of which are already visible. If it is allowed to continue, it will destroy the coherence of society that is necessary for our democracies and our legal systems to work. Increased urban insecurity means that the state is not able to guarantee the security of its citizens. If ordinary citizens feel that the state is no longer able to guarantee the safety of their loved ones, then perhaps native Europeans will create groups and “clans” of their own, to counter the Muslim clans. The result will be a re-tribalization of our countries. The downfall of the nation state, if it happens, will be chaotic, painful and bloody. Can it still be avoided? Only time will tell
A Cure for Islamic Hypocrisy
If there ever was a cure, it is free speech, reasoned criticism, and a dash of humor. Or, in other words, Pat Condell, the British comedian. Well, at least most of his criticism is reasoned. Below is his scathing and a humorous take on the religion of peace. A bit over the top, but well worth watching, particularly if your stomach is still churning from reading my posts on the latest from the OIC. They would no doubt define this video as the worst terrorism imaginable.
Mr. Condell does not really care for any religion and has made similar videos on Christianity. Though he received no criticism for that one, I doubt that will be the case for putting Islam under the microscope. I wonder how long it will be before there are calls to have him jailed in the UK for the crime of hate speech. This is one to watch closely. For what it is worth, I note here my previous post arguing that the last thing Islam or the world need is for criticism of Islam to be silenced by charges of hate speech or Islamaphobia.
The Hypocrisy of Islamic States is Breathtaking
The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), is an organization made up of fifty-seven Islamic nations. During their conference this week, the OIC managed to come up with a definition of terrorism - something even the UN can't do - and to condemn it in no uncertain terms. Of course their definition sounded a bit unusual to the average Westerner who has been on the receiving end of what most of us would conclude was terrorism - i.e., the cold blooded slaughter of civilians to achieve political ends. That is not how the OIC saw terrorism - defining the "worst form of terrorism in the world today" as "Islamaphobia," something which they further defined as any criticism of Islam. See here.
One must keep that firmly in mind when one tries to make sense of the final declaration issued by the OIC today, "strongly" condemning "the global menace of terrorism and vow[ing] to make collective efforts to fight against it."
The OIC further followed up with calls for "a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict and an end to the "foreign occupation" of Muslim countries to promote global peace and security." Apparently, surrendering to al Qaeda in Iraq and allowing Israel to be over-run by Hamas are the OIC cures for global peace and security. Oh, and the worst forms of terrorism - one cannot forget that. I predict that following the OIC suggestions is a sure way to ultimately solve the worst forms of terrorism.
Do read the entire article here.
Update: A link is included in the first comment below that I now include here. I strongly recommend reading it.
It's Not Just The 800 lbs Gorillas in the Room That You Have To Watch Out For
Hillary Gets All Important Porn Star Demographic
. . . "I love Hillary. I think that in some ways she's pretty conservative for a Democrat, but I would love to have a woman in office. I think that it would be a step in the right direction for our country, and there would be less focus on war and more focus on bettering society."But then Ms. Jameson indicated that there were also significant business considerations:
The Clinton administration was the best years for the adult industry and I wish that Clinton would run again.Apparently Bill was single handedly supporting the porn industry during his tenure in office. Though this is the first time I have heard this, who could possibly be surprised. I wonder if its still possible to get the pay-per-view records for the White House during the Clinton Administration? At any rate, Jenna continues, letting us know the deep thoughts behind her choice of candidates:
When Republicans are in office, the problem is, a lot of times they try to put their crosshairs on the adult industry, to make a point. It's sad, when there are so many different things that are going on in the world: war, and people are dying of genocide...I look forward to another Democrat being in office. It just makes the climate so much better for us, and I know that once all our troops come home, things are going to be better and I think that getting Bush out of office is the most important thing right now."Read the whole story here.
The Washington Post & Chatham House - Two Sides Of One Sided Reporting
There is little new about today's Washington Post reporting on Iraq. It is its usual one sided anti-war self, giving a count of friendly casualties while ignoring all else in Iraq. Reading the news about the Iraq War in the Washington Post is like getting half of all the baseball scores. "In baseball today, its the Orioles 3, and in other games . . ."
If you want a realistic view of ongoing operations in Iraq - at least other then al Qaeda and Iranian successes - one must go to sources outside of the Washington Post to places such as here (coalition kills 4, captures 30 al Qaeda terrorists), here (soldier receives silver star for bravery in combat), here (Iraqi SOF capture terrorist leader in Basra), or here (Iraqi police ops kill two insurgents, capture 51). I could go on, but I am sure you get the idea. The Washington Post's reporting on Iraq is so one sided as to be despicable.
The Washington Post does go slightly beyond the norm today. Their headline is "60 Die in Iraq, Study Warns of Collapse." In the body of their story, the WP does not link to the study. I will though. Here. Its from the Chatham House in the UK.
The WP quotes liberally from the study's conclusions - mostly to give a very contrarian view to statements by our own U.S. Ambassador in Iraq. But the WP does not quote from the Chatham House study's underlying findings, few if any of which seem supported by fact.
For example, Al Qaeda in Iraq is under extreme pressure, having been largely driven into Diyala Province from its former bases in Anbar Province and Baghdad. Indeed, one major change on the ground in Iraq that is extremely well documented has been the success of the locals in Anbar Province turning on Al Qaeda in Iraq and, with MNF support, driving them largely out of the province. Its been so successful that Marines in Ramadi are complaining of boredom and monotony. Nonetheless, in asserting that things are only getting worse in Iraq, Chatham House actually roots for al Qaeda, ascribing to them the big mo' while downplaying the incredible success of the Anbar Salvation Council: Al-Qaeda has a very real presence in Iraq that has spread to the major cities of the centre and north of the country, including Baghdad, Kirkuk and Mosul. Although Al-Qaeda’s position is challenged by local actors, it is a mistake to exaggerate the ability of tribal groups and other insurgents to stop the momentum building behind its operations in Iraq.
This gives a bit of the flavor that thoroughly infests the Chatham House Study. They do the same for the Mahdi Army and downplay recent moves by the SICI to switch allegance to Grand Ayatollah Sistani. In truth, the report reads much more like a fantasy drafted by Harry "we've lost the war and the surge has failed so let's leave before the '08 election" Reid then any reasonable attempt to ascertain reality in Iraq. That certainly does not stop the Washington Post from referring to it and trumpeting its findings over the opposing views expressed by Ambassador Coker. It only stops the Washington Post from linking to the report.
Do read the article here, then you decide. And if you are tired of the Washington Posts one sided reporting, do let the WP (foreign@washpost.com) and the article's author know. Don't you think it is about time to start to demand some balance from the nation's supposedly objective journalists in MSM?
Bias, BBC & Bolton
The BBC, that incredibly left wing and virulently anti-American organization that is paid for by all Brits, interviewed John Bolton on BBC-4 radio yesterday. Every sterotype and bias of the BBC is evident in the questioning, and Bolton is utterly brutal and forthright in his answers. It gets to the point by the end that the poor Beeb interviewer is left mumbling as he attempts to defend the assumptions underlying his questions - i.e., the United States is lacking in moral authority, it had no business whatsoever invading Iraq, and the U.S. of today is a "busted flush."
If you listen to naught else this day, do listen to this here. It will brighten your day.
(H/T EU Referendum)
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Lieberman Slams All Sides of the Senate On Iraq
Senator Joe Lieberman has posted his remarks at a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He continues to be possibly the only eloquent defender of remaining in Iraq in either party. And he has appropriate words of both warning and criticism for the Democratic presidential hopefuls who would abandon Iraq to gain the Presidency and the moderate Republicans who are are dispensing with their principles as they look towards the polls:
. . . Now, I know there are some who are probably wondering—what is a nice Independent Democrat from Connecticut doing at a Republican event like this?
Well, a funny thing happened on the way to reelection last year... And as Rabbi Hillel said, the rest is commentary.
In all seriousness, many of you in this room stood with me last year through the long journey up a winding road that was my 2006 reelection campaign. You came to my side without regard for party affiliation, and you stayed there even after I ran as an Independent but said I would caucus with the Democrats. Your non-partisanship in my race is a model for what our politics should be. I thank you personally and deeply for it. I could not have won without it. And I pledge to you that I will do everything I can to vindicate your confidence.
We gather at a critical time for the future of our country. The war in Iraq has now become the defining issue for this Congress and for this presidency—although the decisions we will make in the weeks and months ahead about Iraq will have consequences that reach far beyond the terms of anyone now in office.
Part of the disagreement we face over Iraq comes down to a genuine difference of opinion.
On the one hand, there are those who believe, as I do, that the struggle against Islamist extremism really is the central challenge of our time, and that, as General David Petraeus—our commander in Iraq—recently said, Iraq is now the central front of the war against Islamist extremism.
On the other hand, there are those who reject this view—who genuinely believe that the threat of Islamist extremism is overstated, or that Iraq is a distraction from the "real" war on terror, or that the war there is lost, or not worth fighting to win.
It is my deeply held conviction that these people are not only wrong, they are disastrously wrong—and that the withdrawal they demand would be a moral and security catastrophe for the United States, for Iraq, and for the entire Middle East, including Israel and our moderate Arab allies.
Let there be no doubt—an American defeat in Iraq would be a victory for Al Qaeda and Iran... the two most threatening enemies we face in the world today. It would vindicate the hope of our enemies that America is weak and that we can be driven to retreat by terrorism, and it would confirm the fear of our friends—not only in Iraq, but throughout the world—that we are unreliable allies who will abandon them in the face of danger.
The fact of the matter is, you cannot claim to be tough on terrorism while demanding that our military withdraw from Iraq, because it is the terrorists—particular Al Qaeda—that our military is fighting in Iraq.
You cannot claim to be committed to defeating Al Qaeda, while demanding that we abandon the heart of the Middle East to Al Qaeda.
And you cannot claim to be tough on Iran, while demanding the very thing that the mullahs want most of all—the retreat of the American military from the Middle East in defeat, leaving a vacuum that Iran will rush to fill.
I recognize that this war has been controversial, and there are those who oppose it on principle. I respect that.
But too much of the debate we are having today about withdrawal from Iraq has little or nothing to do with principle, or with reality in Iraq.
It is about politics and partisanship here in Washington.
For many Democrats, if President Bush is for it, they must be against it. If the war is going badly, it is bad for Republicans and it is good for Democrats. It is as simple as that, and it is as wrong as that.
For many Republicans, the unpopularity of this war and this President has begun to shake their will. They say that they have no choice but to abandon General Petraeus and his strategy because the American people tell the pollsters they want out. If previous generations of American leaders had allowed their conduct of war to be shaped by partisanship or public opinion polls, we would not be the strong and free nation we are blessed to be today.
Republicans in Congress delude themselves if they think they will be helping either themselves, their party, or their country if they now attempt to wash their hands of Iraq, out of a sudden sense of political anxiety.
Democrats in Congress delude themselves if they think they will not be held accountable for the bloody consequences of the retreat from Iraq they seek.
The fact is, a loss to Al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq would be devastating to our security. These are fateful days and critical decisions we are making about Iraq. We must make them with our eye on the safety of America's next generation, not the outcome of America's next election.
It is to the everlasting credit of President Bush that in the war against Islamist extremism he has shown the courage and steadfastness to stand against the political passions of the moment.
I have never hesitated to express disagreement with the President on any issue when I felt he was wrong—and I have criticized his administration many times for the serious mistakes I believe it made in prosecuting the war in Iraq.
But let me tell you this: I believe that each of us should be grateful that we have a commander-in-chief who does not believe that decisions about war should be driven by poll numbers. And each of us should be grateful that we have a commander-in-chief who does not confuse what is popular with what is right for our security as a nation. The public opinion polls may not reflect this today, but I believe history will tomorrow.
My friends, as Ronald Reagan once said, now is the time for choosing.
If we stand united through the months ahead, if we stand firm against the terrorists who want to drive us to retreat, the war in Iraq can be won and the lives of millions of people can be saved.
But if we surrender to the barbarism of suicide bombers and abandon the heart of the Middle East to fanatics and killers, to Al Qaeda and Iran, then all that our men and women in uniform have fought, and died for, will be lost, and we will be left a much less secure and free nation.
That is the choice we in Washington will make this summer and this fall. It is a choice not just about our foreign policy and our national security and our interests in the Middle East. It is about what our political leaders in both parties are prepared to stand for. It is about our very soul as a nation. It is about who we are, and who we want to be.
Will this be the moment in history when America gives up—when Al Qaeda breaks our will, when our enemies surge forward, when we turn our backs on our friends and begin a long retreat from our principles and promise as a nation?
Or will this be the moment when America steps forward, when we pull together, when we hold fast to the courage of our convictions, when—with a new strategy, and a new commander on the ground—we begin to turn the tide toward victory in this long and difficult war?
I know that we can rise above the anger and smallness of our politics. I know we can rise to the greatness that this moment demands of us.
The question is—will we choose to do so?
I would like to close today by sharing with you a story from my last visit to Iraq a few months ago. It was in Anbar province in western Iraq—the center of the insurgency—a part of the country that conventional wisdom last year dismissed as hopeless.
In fact, on September 11, 2006, the Washington Post ran a front-page story reporting that even the chief of Marine Corps intelligence in Iraq had concluded that Anbar was "lost," and our position there was "beyond repair."
I was in Anbar last December, on a forward operating base just outside Ramadi, the capital of the province. As one of the briefings with our military commanders ended, a colonel who had been sitting in the back of the room came up to me. He said something that I carry with me to this day—something that I hope you will carry with you as well.
He said: "Sir, I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here, we want to finish this fight. And we know we can win it."
Today, five months later, Anbar has been dramatically transformed. Thanks to the bravery, ingenuity, and commitment of our men and women in uniform, shops and schools have reopened, Al Qaeda is on the run, thousands of Iraqis have joined the local police, and—yes—no less than the New York Times reports that we have turned the corner there.
My friends, now is not the time for despair. Now is the time for resolve.
Now is not the time for reflexive partisanship and pandering to public opinion. Now is the time for the kind of patriotism and principle America's voters have always honored.
I ask you to plead with every member of Congress you can in the days and weeks ahead—
Do not surrender to hopelessness.
Do not succumb to defeat.
Do not give in to fear.
Rise above the political pressures of the moment to do what is right for America.
Believe, like that colonel, in why we are fighting in Iraq, and know, as he and his soldiers know, that we can and must win there."
This is from Lieberman's website. It is just one more in a string of excellent speeches by Lieberman on the Iraq issue. But I think we all need to e-mail Senator Lieberman and remind him that he holds the key to shutting down Harry Reid and Chuckie Schumer today.
(H/T Steve Halter)
Orwell & Islam
There is some truly amazing stuff coming out of the Middle East today. I agree with the eco-nuts that weening us off of oil has to be priority number one in this nation. And we then need to share the technology free of charge to every nation on this earth. The only way this Muslim menace will end is when the price of a barrel of Saudi Crude falls below $5 permanently. This today from Ridyah's Arab News:
Foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) yesterday expressed grave concern at the rising tide of discrimination and intolerance against Muslims, especially in Europe and North America. “It is something that has assumed xenophobic proportions,” they said in unison.Interestingly, Walid Phares, in his book "Future Jihad," noted that it was the plan of radical Islamists to cause a significant backlash against Muslims living in the West with 9-11. Phares, said that they believed such a backlash would have been a massive boon to recruiting for radical Islamists. It appears that, in the absence of any backlash, the Muslims in the Middle East are now just as content to make one up out of whole cloth.
Speaking at a special brainstorming session on the sidelines of the 34th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM), the foreign ministers termed Islamophobia the worst form of terrorism and called for practical steps to counter it.Nice to see at least someone in the Middle East is reading, even if it is only old George Orwell novels.
The ministers described Islamophobia as a deliberate defamation of Islam and discrimination and intolerance against Muslims. “This campaign of calumny against Muslims resulted in the publication of the blasphemous cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in a Danish newspaper and the issuance of the inflammatory statement by Pope Benedict XVI,” they said. During a speech in Germany last year, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet had brought the world only “evil and inhuman” things. The Pope’s remarks aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world.And here I thought terrorism was the slaughter of innocent individuals solely for the glorification and advancement of Islam. Apparently, terrorism = Islamaphobia = any reasoned criticism of Islam or any attempt to subject it to the bright lights of critical analysis. My own personal belief is that criticism of Islam needs to be a loud and vibrant part of Western culture, and it needs to be emenating from our top leaders. So far, of all the poliiticans out there, the only one I have seen address Islam even close to head on is Fred Thompson. On the opposite end of the specturm are several of the Democratic leaders in Congress, such as Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers, who are working hand in hand with CAIR to advance the cause of radical Islam in America.
“The increasingly negative political and media discourse targeting Muslims and Islam in the United States and Europe has made things all the more difficult,” the foreign ministers said.More difficult for what? For turning the West into Dhimmis? For rolling over the West and imposing Wahhabi Islam on the world? For financing terrorism from within the West? This statement could use a bit more explanation.
“Islamophobia became a source of concern, especially after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, but the phenomenon was already there in Western societies in one form or the other,” they pointed out. “It gained further momentum after the Madrid and London bombings. The killing of Dutch film director Theo van Gogh in 2004 was used in a wicked manner by certain quarters to stir up a frenzy against Muslims,” the ministers pointed out. Van Gogh had made a controversial film about Muslim culture.
There is a very fundament psychological disconnect in this paragraph, is there not? The West suffers a series of brutal and ruthless attacks by Muslims motivated to kill by Wahhabi Islam, and any response thereto makes the victims the Muslims. The only way this statement can possibly be made is if the people making it are operating from a standpoint that Islam is and should be the only religion in this world. And it makes of Muslims perpetual victims, irregardless of the context.
The OIC foreign ministers deplored the misrepresentation in the Western media of Islam and Muslims in the context of terrorism. “The linkage of terrorists and extremists with Islam in a generalized manner is unacceptable,” they said.Funny that our own CAIR should take the same position the other day, asking America to disregard that the Ft. Dix Six were motivated by Wahhabi / Salafi Islam to murder non-believers in the West.
This is further inciting negative sentiments and hatred in the West against Muslims,” they said. The ministers also pointed out that whenever the issue of Islamophobia was discussed in international forums, the Western bloc, particularly some members of the European Union, tried to avoid discussing the core issue and instead diverted the attention from their region to the situation of non-Muslims and human rights in the OIC member states.These people are operating on a completely different plane of reality. This is what happens when from birth you are subject to teachings about your own rights to triumph and the evils of all others in racist diabrtibes that would shame the KKK.
The foreign ministers said prejudices against Islam were not helping the situation. “Because of Islamophobia, millions of Muslims in the Western countries, many of whom were already underprivileged in their societies for a variety of reasons, are further alienated and targeted by hatred and discrimination.”I don't know about you, but I am anxiously awaiting the list. It would be like having the old Soviet Union circa 1960 draw up a list of their agent provacateurs in the West. At least we'll know whom to watch.
The selective application of the existing legal frameworks and anti-discrimination and anti-blasphemy laws in Western countries also came in for criticism. “They are being applied in a selective manner when the victims are Muslims,” the ministers said.
The ministers also noted the many praiseworthy initiatives to bring together the West and the Muslim world such as the EU-OIC Forum of 2002, Dialogue Among Civilizations, Alliance of Civilizations and various other interfaith dialogue meetings. “However, it remains a fact that anti-Islamic sentiments are being fanned in the West with the implicit and explicit support of racist anti-immigrant and ultra-right political parties and certain media outlets.”
The ministers agreed that in Europe there was a need to enhance efforts to promote greater understanding and awareness of Islam. “In the Muslim world, endeavors have to be made to dispel misperceptions about the West and to promote democracy, human rights and good governance.”
According to OIC’s European observers, the taking over of the European Union presidency by Slovenia in 2008 will augur well for Muslims. “Because Slovenia has declared that intercultural dialogue will be among the first four priorities of its EU presidency, it has accordingly set up a task force to implement the ‘European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008’ program.” The OIC observers said the Slovenian minister of foreign affairs had already invited the OIC secretary-general to Ljubljana before or during the Slovenian EU presidency to discuss possible joint projects.
At the end of the session it was decided to shortlist reputable Muslim and non-Muslim think tanks, academics and NGOs in the US and UK and other leading European countries for cooperation in monitoring and countering anti-Islam campaigns. The ministers said Muslim think tanks and NGOs in the Western countries should be encouraged and urged to develop closer contacts with their non-Muslim counterparts and to remain engaged in regular contact and dialogue. They felt the international media should be properly cultivated to motivate them to be more responsible in carrying out their responsibilities.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Of Dem Presidential Candidates & the Senate Vote to Defund Iraq War
The Good: Both the Washington Post and the NYT are reporting on the failure of the Senate to pass a bill today that would have ended funding for the Iraq war. This from the NYT:
Democrats who are highly critical of President Bush’s Iraq war strategy suffered a stinging defeat today when the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a measure to cut off money for the military campaign by March 31, 2008.The Bad: Harry Reid claims that he is still not discouraged in his campaign to end the war by hook or crook, and the majority of Senate Democrats per this vote now support an immediate withdraw. Harry Reid continues his Orwellian doublespeak with calls for "fully funding" the soldiers with calls for ending the mission for which the funding is needed. And according to Congressman Steny Hoyer, it appears that Congress may adjourn for Memorial Day without passing the funding measure. Those in this country who care will be honoring our soldiers in harms way while the Dems take a much needed vacation from the trials of subterfuge. And yet again, there is no indication that in debate over this measure, anyone brought up the only issue that matters - the blank check we will be signing if we retreat from Iraq - the one that dwarfs by orders of magnitude the cost of securing and stabilizing Iraq.
The measure, in the form of an amendment to an unrelated water-projects bill, was effectively rejected, 67 to 29, with 19 Democrats voting against it in a procedural vote. Sixty “yes” votes were required for the measure to advance, so it fell short by 31 votes.
Though the vote was largely symbolic, the outcome was nevertheless significant, in that it underscored the divisions among Democrats over how to oppose the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, as well as widespread fear of being seen as undercutting American troops.
Today’s vote was preceded by an emotional debate. “Too many blank checks have been given to this president,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, who was a sponsor of the cutoff measure along with Senator Russell D. Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin.
“As we speak, more than 150,000 brave American troops are in the middle of a violent civil war,” Mr. Feingold said. “Meanwhile, the president has repeatedly made it clear that nothing — not the wishes of the American people, not the advice of military and foreign policy experts, not the concerns of the members of both parties — will discourage him from pursuing a war that has no end in sight.”
“Congress cannot wait for the president to change course,” Mr. Feingold said. “We must change the course ourselves.”
The Really Ugly: Obama and Clinton both voted for the bill, as did all other Democratic Presidential hopefuls in order to establish their bona fides with the far left, but then Hillary tried to muddy the water just enough to be able to claim that she really wasn't voting to end the war. This is dissimulation, Hillary style:
Two candidates for their party’s nomination in 2008, Senators Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, said for the first time on Tuesday that they would support legislation to curtail major combat operations in Iraq by March 31, 2008, cutting off financing for all but a limited mission of American forces. Both of them were among the 29 who voted “yes” on the procedural vote today.How ridiculous and craven can you get? Though I must admit, this is nothing more then Hillary acting consistent with with her more then a little inconsistent past. Raise your hand if you want to trust any Democrat, let alone Hillary, with this nation's national security? They have no principals that go beyond the ballot box and the polls.
“We are doing everything we can to influence the president to change the war in Iraq,” Senator Clinton said shortly after the vote. “It’s very important for us to do all we can to try to express the will of the American people.”
But when asked by a reporter whether she supported the underlying idea of the Feingold bill, to cut off financing for major combat operations next spring, she declined to say yes or no. One day earlier, a spokesman said the senator supported the legislation.
“I’m not going to speculate on what I’ll be voting on in the future,” she said today.
Read the entire story from the NYT and from the Wash. Post.
Jane Arraf Interviews General Petraeus
Jane Arraf of Iraqslogger had a short interview today with General Petraeus on May 15. His main points:
- "Petraeus . . . said he’d been shocked when he arrived back in Baghdad [for his current tour of duty] at some of the devestation caused [in 2006] by sectarian fighting unleashed by the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year."
- "[I]t is difficult to predict how well the surge of troops in Baghdad will succeed before the full number of troops arrive." They are expected in early June. And even then, it will take time to work the troops into the counterinsurgency plan and begin to see trends.
- "[T]here is "incremental progress being made on the ground in Baghdad,” as evidenced by the lack of car bombs in major markets that have seen large attacks in the past, and a dramatic improvement in security in Haifa Street, previously a haven for al-Qaeda.
- There has been “stunning progress” in Anbar where some of the fiercest fighting in Iraq has been quelled by tribes turning against al-Qaeda and allying themselves with Iraqi forces . . .
Read the entire story here.
Anbar Infects Diyala
Today, Anbar is a reasonably safe province in which to be stationed as an American soldier. A year ago, Anbar was the center of the Sunni revolt and the home of al Qaeda in Iraq. The change was driven by the Sunnis themselves when one major sheik decided to turn to the Iraqi government and to fight to expel Al Qaeda. The very first step on this road was the formation of the Anbar Salvation Counsel.
Many have speculated that this development, if replicated in other hot spots, would be a major step towards driving out al Qaeda and securing the country. Al Qaeda center of mass has now been driven into Diyala province. Baquba is the capital city of Diyala province. And today, a large cross section of Baquba's leaders have announced the formation of the "Baquba Salvation Council."
An official in Diyala Province announced that more than 280 prominent personalities and tribal and military leaders have formed a “Baquba Salvation Council” to confront acts of violence in the province, focusing especially on combatting the so-called “Islamic State of Iraq.”Read the entire story here. If this group has the success of the Anbar Salvation Council and if they embrace the Iraqi government with the same fevor, then this will be a critical development indeed.
Al-Melaf reports in Arabic that Shaykh 'Awad Najm al-Rabi'i, the head of the new “Baquba Salvation Council” announced that around 280 tribal leaders, academics, military leaders, from the full range of sects and ethnicities have formed the council to confront the deteriorating security situation in the province and confront the “gangs” that operate under the organizational rubric of the “Islamic State.”
Citing “resentment and anger among the tribal leaders at the conduct of these gangs,” al-Rabi'i said the leaders were insistent on “declaring war against them and expelling them from the province and bringing security back to the citizens,” the agency writes.
The tribal leader added, “We are prepared to cooperate with the armed factions that maintain loyalty to a nonsectarian, non-partisan Iraq with the goal of rooting out these terrorist groups,” adding that the current situation in the province was “tragic” and saying that it was urgent that the government get involved to deliver the city from the control of “takfiris and tens of Arab and Afghan terrorists that hide in the agricultural areas,” al-Melaf reports. Takfiri is a term used to refer to extremists who practice takfir, or the pronouncement of other Muslims to be non-Muslims. . .
(H/T Dinah Lord)
Fact - & Spin - Checking the NYT Iraq Reporting
Here is a gem of weak reporting and strong speculation from the New York Times, suggesting that the surge is not having an effect. They name but do not cite to the GAO report that they rely upon. I link to it below. After reading this analysis, do please read the GAO report. You have to in order to understand the rather wide swath of dissimulation cut by the NYT in this latest gem. Iraq Attacks Stayed Steady Despite Troop Increase, Data Show
Great headline. It certainly suggests that the surge is having no impact. The problem with that, of course, is we know that it is not true. The initial goals of the surge are to stop a slide towards a civil war and to secure the major areas of Baghdad and Anbar. We know Anbar today is one of the safer places to be in Iraq, and sectarian violence of the "civil war" variety is down two thirds. So how does the NYT come up with this as a headline? What Pinch's boys have done is to build that headline and an entire news story around one paragraph and one graph in a sixty odd page report dealing with Iraq's Oil & Gas sector. You can find the report here.Newly declassified data . . .
Stop. This is hogwash. The GAO just published a report and included therein is a single graph listing daily number of attacks in theatre since 03. The graph is of the kind released quaterly in the Pentagon report to Congress, and the GAO report was never classified. This is a minor point, but the NYT makes it sound like the military is playing hide the ball. Given the NYT's firm position that we should leave Iraq yesterday and the Democrats' new meme that General Petraeus and the military lie and cannot be believed, I can't let this one slip by without raising the brown flag that has "B.S." printed on it. There is nothing to suggest the information in the GAO report was ever classified.. . . data show that as additional American troops began streaming into Iraq in March and April, the number of attacks on civilians and security forces there stayed relatively steady or at most declined slightly, in the clearest indication yet that the troop increase could take months to have a widespread impact on security.
Here is the problem with looking at one statistic taken out of the larger context. Actually, that statistic tells us nothing more then the surge is underway. We have moved our troops out of cantonement areas and into the back yards of the folks we want to stop. It is sort of like the difference between watching a bee hive from 100 feet away, and walking up next to it and giving it a good swift kick. I am actually surprised that the number of attacks isin't up a lot more. For example, we have troops living in Sadr City today - what was not too long ago almost a no-go zone.
So what does the number of attacks tell us about the nascent surge. Next to nothing, really, including about the "impact on security." It is impossible to make a logical leap from the number of attacks to the overall security situation. If the number of attacks has increased in Diyala (where al Qaeda in Iraq has taken up residence after being tossed from Baghdad and Anbar) while down in Baghdad and Anbar, that means the security situation has improved in a very short period of time, and that al Qaeda is under intense pressure. If the attacks are far lesser in lethality, that is another marker of an improved security situation. But again, despite the NYT suggesting that they have reached a firm conclusion, there is nowhere near enough data inthe GAO report to support the NYT's speculation.Even the suggestion of a slight decline could be misleading, since the figures are purely a measure of how many attacks have taken place, not the death toll of each one. American commanders have conceded that since the start of the troop increase, which the United States calls a “surge,” attacks in the form of car bombs with their high death tolls have risen.
You have to love this one. Even the suggestion of a decline cannot be taken as objective proof that the surge is working. How about General Petraeus and his hour long plus brief to the United States but a few weeks ago. Does any of the enormous amount of information he imparted count as solid evidence? Or by ignoring that and concentrating on a single ambiguous paragraph in a report not directed towards the surge, is the NYT suggesting that the information provided by Petraeus is not a valid objective indicator?. . . Over all, the attack statistics, which the accountability office has been compiling since the early days of the conflict, paint a sobering picture of where the country is headed. The number of daily attacks remained low through 2003 and the early months of 2004, but then began a relentless climb even as the United States promoted what it saw as important political milestones in Iraq.
So now, the NYT says that this one paragraph about the number of attacks in theatre is indicative of greater future violence and an ever detriorating security situation, irregardless of the surge. This sounds like Pinch living in a fantasy world. The NYT ignores that the jump in violence in 2004 was the result of an Al Qaeda attack on the Golden Mosque. They ignore that Al Qaeda is on the run today. The NYT ignores switch in loyalties of the Sunnis in Anbar and Diyala, and the switch in loyalty of the SICI. And they ignore a host of other facts you can get off this blog and the links therein. The NYT are dangerous. The quicker Pinch runs their stock value down to $0, the better for America - and for honest journalism.
. . . As troops continued to arrive, the statistics show, the early effect on countrywide attacks was at best marginal, although there does appear to have been a slight decrease. The daily attack figures for March and April, released yesterday for the first time, were 157 and 149, respectively. . .
