scaramouche

Friday, 31 March 2006

It’s Condi Rice’s Lonely Heart’s Club Band: I was racking my brain all day trying to figure out why the city of Blackburn, Lancashire—where Condoleezza Rice has been accorded a vociferous and chilly reception—sounded so familiar. And then it hit me:

I read the news today, oh, boy.
Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire.
And though the holes were rather small.
They had to count them all,
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall…

I bet Condi isn’t going to look back fondly on this "day in the life."

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:40 | link | comments

The power of prayer: I always thought that saying prayers for sick people was like the punch line of that old joke about chicken soup: "It couldn't hurt." Apparently, I was wrong. From The Age:

NEXT time you're sick consider asking your loved ones not to pray for you.

A study of more than 1800 patients who underwent heart bypass surgery has failed to show that prayers said for their recovery had any impact. In fact, some of the patients who knew they were being prayed for did worse than others who were only told they might be prayed for.

The patients in the study at six US hospitals included 604 who were actually prayed for after being told they might or might not be; another 597 who were not prayed for after being told they might or might not be; and a group of 601 who were prayed for and told they would be.

The praying was done by three Christian groups. It started on the eve of or day of surgery and lasted for two weeks.

Among the first group — who were prayed for but only told they might be — 52 per cent had post-surgical complications, compared with 51 per cent in the second group, who were not prayed for though told they might be.

In the third group, who knew they were being prayed for, 59 per cent had complications.

After 30 days, however, the death rates and incidence of major complications was about the same across all three groups, said a report published in the American Heart Journal.

"Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on whether complications occurred (and) patients who were certain that intercessors would pray for them had a higher rate of complications than patients who were uncertain but did receive intercessory prayer," it said...

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:09 | link | comments

Islamic "tolerance": In a symposium on "Defeating Jihad" in FrontPage Magazine, journalist Serge Trifkovic explains that the Adbul Rahman case is the merest tip of the Islamic iceberg:

This became a cause célèbre only because of the presence of American troops in Afghanistan: having Rahman killed for apostasy under their noses would have made too explicit a debacle of the already farcical neocon phantasy known as "democratizing the greater Middle East."

No, when Christians are routinely mistreated and killed by our other trusted friends and allies of the United States in the region - notably Pakistan, Egypt, and even the "secular" Turkey - you don't hear about it, there are no vigils, no protests, no offers of asylum. In Pakistan, murders, endemic discrimination, and constant harassment of Christians - who are mainly poor and account for a mere one percent of the population - is persistent. Any dispute with a Muslim - most commonly over land - can become a religious issue. Christians are routinely accused of "blasphemy against Islam," an offense that carries the death penalty as Pakistan has some of the strictest blasphemy laws in the Muslim world. Charges of blasphemy can be made on the flimsiest of evidence - even one man's word against another - and since it is invariably a Muslim's word against that of a Christian, the outcome is preordained.

In Egypt, supposedly a friend of the United States and the second largest recipient of the U.S. taxpayers' largesse, not a single murderer was convicted following the January 2000 massacre of 21 Coptic Christians in the village of Al-Kosheh, and smaller-scale massacres continue unabated.

The murder of a Catholic priest in Trabzon, on Turkey's Black Sea coast, last February was a classic case of jihadism. Father Andrea Santoro was shot twice at point-blank range in his church by a youth who shouted Allahu akbar (Allah is great!) before quitting the scene.

This event should remind us that Turkey is a profoundly un-European country, steeped in an ethos deeply hostile to Western ways. As late as 1955, Istanbul's Christians suffered the worst race riot in Europe since Kristallnacht. And just look at the phenomenal success last year of the Valley of the Wolves, Iraq - the most expensive Turkish film ever made. It opens with a real life event: in July 2003 U.S. Marines raided Turkish Special Forces headquarters in the Iraqi city of Sulimaniyah, mistaking them for guerrillas. Washington later apologized but the movie makes the incident look like a deliberate American ploy. The subsequent fictional plot has Americans attacking a mosque during evening prayers. They murder dozens of innocents at a wedding (including a little boy), and allow a Jewish doctor to remove vital organs from Abu Ghraib inmates, so that they can be sold in New York - and Tel Aviv!

Sounds like a great flick. I wonder if my local Blockbuster carries it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:46 | link | comments

Tony in Jakarta: British Prime Minister Tony Blair is missing all the anti-Condi ruckus in Britain (see post below) because he's visiting Indonesia. Blair is trying to get the most populous Muslim nation in the the world to co-ordinate efforts to combat "extremists." During his visit, Blair got to meet with some Muslim leaders because, in the words of Islam Online, "he signaled a desire to learn more about Islam."

You mean there's more to learn beyond the "Islam is a peaceful, tolerant religion" trope. Who knew?

These religious leaders were able to share some sage advice with the P.M., like "distance yourself from Bush" and "get out of Iraq." (I'm not entirely sure how this expands Tony's limited knowledge of Islam, but maybe they also provided some reading material for his plane ride home.)

Blair also allowed himself to be "grilled" (I.O.'s description) by Indonesian adolescents, irate over the British presence in Muslim lands:

One teenager asked Blair in English how he would feel if he were Iraqi and had lost his family during or after the fight to topple Saddam Hussein.

Another queried: "Do you ever ask your very best friend Mr George W. Bush to stop the war in Iraq?"

"One of the most important things is that people try to understand the other point of view. You feel very strongly that what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq was wrong. I understand that," Blair answered.

"But... in this country people can vote. They voted their government and their government should decide what's right and what's wrong."

"His answer is not so satisfactory, justice should be applied in a true sense," Anissa Muzir, 17, told Reuters after the session.

And by the "true sense," of course, he (she?) no doubt means "the sharia sense."

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:31 | link | comments

Condi in Londonistanland: The indominatable Melanie Phillips has a Diary post about the hysteria that has greeted Condoleezza Rice during her visit to Old Blighty. Phillips says it's a sign of the much larger derangement now gripping her nation:

...What is so striking about these protests is not just the discourtesy shown to a senior member of the government of our most powerful ally; it is not just that it is extraordinarily bone-headed to insult and alienate the ally on whom we continue to depend for our protection; it is not just the craven appeasement of intimidation, as I wrote in the Mail this morning. It is the lethal moral inversion of the argument.

Here is a country which utters not a batsqueak of protest when Sheikh Qaradawi, who endorses and encourages human bomb terrorism in Iraq and Israel, speaks on a London platform – and indeed is actually embraced by the London Mayor Ken Livingstone as a hero of religious enlightenment – and yet is treating the US Secretary of State as if she is a major war criminal. Why? Because the US is apparently waging war against the innocent in Iraq. Excuse me?? The US is currently in Iraq at the express request of the Iraqis themselves to defend the innocent against the war being waged against them. The US went to war in Iraq to start unpicking the axis of terror that so threatens the world. The US remains in Iraq to help the Iraqis, at their express request, build the institutions of democracy, law and security. It is in Iraq to help protect innocent Iraqis against the forces of al Qaeda and the remains of the Ba’ath party who are determined to stop them and replace freedom by tyranny. It is in Iraq to help defend Iraqi lives and liberty against those who seek to destroy them.

Yet in Britain anti-war hysteria has institutionalised a Big Lie that the US is waging war not on behalf of the innocent but against them. One can make many justified and bitter criticisms of the way in which the US has prosecuted this defence of life and liberty and the terrible errors that have been made. But to say that it is waging war on the innocent is simply a gross inversion of reality. It is the big propaganda lie of the enemies of freedom and democracy, promulgated by those who have every interest in bringing about the defeat of the west – both radical Islamists and the extreme left, now in close and unholy alliance with each other – and now fast becoming the accepted unwisdom of those who opposed the war for more respectable reasons. The result is a madness which is consuming British public debate.

Welcome, Condi, to Londonistan.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:01 | link | comments

Harper's fashion faux pas: Politically speaking, I think Prime Minister Stephen Harper in on the right track. But fashion-wise...well, I think the operative expression is oy vey! The front page of today's newspapers (The Star, Post and Globe) show Harper and his other "two amigos"--Vicente Fox and George W. Bush--at their Cancun confab, standing in front of or climbing a Mayan temple. Fox and Bush are dressed for the climate, in white shirts and off-white pants. The only difference: Fox is wearing a straw chapeau that makes him look like a Colombian drug lord or that Juan Valdez guy who flogs coffee on TV. (Is he still around?)

Harper, on the other hand, looks like a journalist dressed for a tour of some war zone. He's wearing one of those baggy, khaki green vests over--and here I can't help but let off another oy vey!--a short-sleeved light blue shirt; his pants are brown. Definitely more Kandahar than Cancun, and, all in all, kinda goofy looking.

Leah McLaren in the Globe and Mail has an amusing piece on Harper's dubious sense of style:

Stephen darling, can we talk?

What I and everybody else back in Canada really need know right now is what the heck are you wearing?

Don't give me that "who me?" look. It might work on Laureen, but it won't work on a style columnist. I know you got into Cancun late Wednesday night. I know you haven't had time to shop since Afghanistan.You're Prime Minister now -- it's time to dress that way.

I don't mean to be cranky, but you're testing my sartorial patience. First there was the hair issue (ongoing), then the series of mock turtlenecks that made you look like an assistant golf pro at Club Link, then the Lone Ranger getup at the Stampede, and now this! Just when we thought it couldn't get any worse, you show up for an official visit wearing a fishing vest and clashing bottoms.

Look around, Stephen. It's Cancun. Not a war zone. Not a campaign barbeque in Moose Jaw. Everyone else is in pressed linen and khakis and there you are, looking one bucket-hat away from being the next Canadian Tire Guy...

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:44 | link | comments

Itty bitty kitty: UN nuclear watchkitten Mohammed ElBaradei (Hip Hop name: Mo ElBee) thinks sanctions against Iran are "a bad idea." From EuroNews:

China and Russia oppose any sanctions, while Washington and London continue to use tougher rhetoric. On a visit to Qatar, the UN nuclear watchdog chief spoke out on the issue. Mohamed ElBaradei said Iran posed no imminent threat and imposing sanctions on the Islamic Republic would be a "bad idea." The UN statement calls for a report from the IAEA on Iranian compliance in 30 days.

Of course, Mo hasn't come up with any other ideas--aside from doing nothing at all until Iran does pose an imminent threat (which, if the mullahs are on schedule, may well be a week from next Tuesday--just in time for Passover).

But hey, why jump the bomb, so to speak? 'Specially when doing nothing at all nets you a Nobel Peace Prize.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:31 | link | comments

Thursday, 30 March 2006

If at first you can't succeed, sue: Those Danish Muslims are like a pitbull with a meaty bone: They just won't drop it. From the CBC:

A group of 27 Muslim organizations has filed a defamation lawsuit against the newspaper that first published the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that led to protests around the world.

The cartoons sparked a wave of protests around the world.

The lawsuit was filed Wednesday, two weeks after Denmark's top prosecutor declined to press criminal charges, saying the drawings that sparked a firestorm in the Muslim world did not violate laws against racism or blasphemy.

Michael Christiani Havemann, a lawyer representing the Muslim groups, said the lawsuit sought the equivalent of about $18,800 Cdn in damages from Carsten Juste, editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten newspaper, and culture editor Flemming Rose, who supervised the cartoon project.

"We're seeking judgment for both the text and the drawings, which were gratuitously defamatory and injurious," Havemann told the Associated Press.

The Danish newspaper apologized for offending Muslims after violent protests erupted around the world, but stood by its decision to print the drawings, citing freedom of speech...

For both the text and the drawings, eh? How about for the pen that was used to draw the drawings? And the paper on which the drawings were drawn. And the store where the cartoonists bought the pen and paper, which they used to write the text and draw the drawings. And the...

What's with these guys. As if fomenting riots, embassy-torchings and widespead dementia wasn't enough for them, now they're looking for a few thousand G's in monetary compensation.

Seems a bit paltry, if you ask me.

Update: Looks like the Jyllands-Posten isn't the only one being sued. I just received this email from Ezra Levant, editor of The Western Standard:

Dear Western Standard reader,

Our magazine has been sued for publishing the Danish cartoons, and I need your help to fight back!

As you know, the Western Standard was the only mainstream media organ in Canada to publish the Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed.

We did so for a simple reason: the cartoons were the central fact in one of the largest news stories of the year, and we're a news magazine. We publish the facts and we let our readers make up their minds.

Advertisers stood with us. Readers loved the fact that we treated them like grown-ups. And we earned the respect of many other journalists in Canada who envied our independence. In fact, according to a COMPAS poll last month, fully 70% of Canada's working journalists supported our decision to publish the cartoons.

But not Syed Soharwardy, a radical Calgary Muslim imam.

He asked the police to arrest me for publishing the cartoons. They calmly explained to him that's not what police in Canada do.

So then he went to a far less liberal institution than the police: the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Unlike the Calgary Police Service, they didn't have the common sense to show him the door.

Earlier this month, I received a copy of Soharwardy's rambling, hand-scrawled complaint. It is truly an embarrassing document. He briefly complains that we published the Danish cartoons. But the bulk of his complaint is that we dared to try to justify it - that we dared to disagree with him.

Think about that: In Soharwardy's view, not only should the Canadian media be banned from publishing the cartoons, but we should be banned from defending our right to publish them. Perhaps the Charter of Rights that guarantees our freedom of the press should be banned, too.

Soharwardy's complaint goes further than just the cartoons. It refers to news articles we published about Hamas, a group labelled a terrorist organization by the Canadian government. By including those other articles, he shows his real agenda: censoring any criticism of Muslim extremists.

Perhaps the most embarrassing thing about Soharwardy's complaint is that he claims our cartoons caused him to receive hate mail. Indeed, his complaint includes copies of a few e-mails from strangers to him. Some of those e-mails even go so far as to call him "humourless" and tell him to "lighten up". Perhaps that's hateful. But all of those e-mails were sent to him before our magazine even published the cartoons. Soharwardy isn't even pretending that this is a legitimate complaint. He's not even trying to hide that this is a nuisance suit.

Soharwardy's complaint should have been thrown out immediately by the Alberta Human Rights Commission, just like the police did. But it wasn't. Which is why I'm writing to you today.

According to our lawyers, we will win this case. It's an infantile complaint, without basis in facts or law. Frankly, it's an embarrassment to the government of Alberta that their tribunal is open to abuse like this.

Our lawyers tell us we're going to win. But not before we have to spend hundreds of hours and up to $75,000 fighting this thing, at our own expense. Soharwardy doesn't have to spend a dime - now that his complaint has been filed, Alberta tax dollars will pay for the prosecution of his complaint. We have to pay for this on our own.

Look, $75,000 isn't going to bankrupt us. But it will sting. We're a small, independent magazine, not a huge company with deep pockets. All of our money is needed to produce the best possible editorial product, not to fight legal battles. This is clearly an abuse of process designed to punish us and deter other media from daring to cross that angry imam in the future.

One of the leaders in Canadian human rights law, Alan Borovoy, was so disturbed by Soharwardy's abuse of the human rights commission that he wrote a public letter about it in the Calgary Herald on March 16th. "During the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech," wrote Borovoy, who is general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Censorship was "hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons," he wrote.

Borovoy went even further - he said that the human rights laws should be changed to avoid this sort of abuse in the future. "It would be best, therefore, to change the provisions of the Human Rights Act to remove any such ambiguities of interpretation," he wrote. That's an amazing statement, coming from one of the fathers of the Canadian human rights movement.

I agree with Borovoy: the law should be changed to stop future abuses. But those changes will come too late for us - we're already under attack. The human rights laws, designed as a shield, are being used against us as a sword.

We will file our legal response to Soharwardy's shakedown this week. And we will fight this battle to the end - not just for our own sake, but to defend freedom of the press for all Canadians.

Do you believe that's important? If so, I'd ask you to help us defray our costs. We're accepting donations through our website. It's fast, easy and secure. Just click on http://www.westernstandard.ca/freedom

You can donate any amount from $10 to $10,000. Please help the Western Standard today - and protect freedom for all Canadians for years to come.

Yours gratefully,

Ezra Levant
Publisher

P.S. Remember, Soharwardy's complaint will be prosecuted using tax dollars and government lawyers. We have to rely on our own funds - and the generous support of readers like you.

P.P.S. Please help us now, at http://www.westernstandard.ca/freedom

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:02 | link | comments

Hamas fights on: Even though it is facing a financial crunch, Hamas has vowed to keep up the fight. From aljazeera.net.

Hamas has vowed to continue to resist the occupation, even as it takes the reins of government, ignoring Western isolation that has brought the Palestinian Authority to the brink of financial collapse.

Khaled Meshaal, the exiled leader, said the Islamist movement had not changed its stance now that it was in government in the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank.

"We do not promise our people to turn Gaza into Hong Kong or Taiwan, but we promise them a dignified and proud life behind the resistance in defence of their honour, their land and their pride," Meshaal said on Al Jazeera from Beirut.

"Our battle is only against the Zionist occupation."...

I'm pretty sure that no one is expecting Hamas to turn Gaza and the West Bank into Hong Kong; they downscaled their expectations a long time ago. Sudan, maybe. Possibly Chad or Madagasgar. An outside shot at Botswana. But Hong Kong? Fuggedaboudit. t's hard to become a Hong Kong when so much of your time and attention is devoted to waging a holy war intended to end the Zionist occupation of Israel.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:42 | link | comments

A poor choice of word: U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls the nuke-bound mullocracy "a troublesome regime."

"Troublesome," huh? I beg to differ. "Troublesome is how I refer to my flat-coated retriever, who likes to jump up and get muddy paws all over my clothes; who ingests all manner of the indigestible, only to regurgitate it in bile-soaked form on the back carpet; who always manages to hit my hubby in his meat and two veg; that's troublesome.

Religious fanatics with a death wish who want to scrub the Middle East map plum clean of Jews are't "troublesome"--they're insane.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:32 | link | comments

Wednesday, 29 March 2006

Hot air: To emphasize how crucial it is that the world take drastic and immediate action to prevent the mullahs from creating nukes, the members of the UN Security Council have taken the most drastic and immediate action ever: they have--hold on to your hats--issued a statement.

But it's a really, really firm, well-worded statement, expressing how upset they are and how much they hope Iran will change its plans if it doesn't want the Security Council to resort to further measures and...issue another statement.

Yeah, that should do the trick.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:41 | link | comments (1)

Democracy in Afghanistan: Abdul Rahman, the former Muslim who faced a death sentence for the "crime" of becoming a Christian, has left Afghanistan and has been offered asylum in Italy. The news isn't sitting well with many of the faithful back home. And don't think it's only the fanatical clerics who are incenced that he wasn't forced to to swallow his "just desserts". From the Times of India:

KABUL: Members of the Afghan parliament condemned the release of a man who denied Islam, insisting on Wednesday he should not be allowed to leave the country, as Italy appeared ready to offer him asylum.

Abdur Rahman, 40, was jailed this month for converting to Christianity, and could have faced trial under Islamic sharia law stipulating death as punishment for apostasy.

He was freed from prison on Tuesday after pressure from Western states whose troops helped bring the Afghan government to power.

"The release of Abdur Rahman was contrary to the existing laws of Afghanistan," Yunus Qanuni, president of the lower house of parliament, told the assembly during an unscheduled debate on the case...

Great little democracy you have there, Yunus. One any Canadian soldier would be pleased to lay down his life for--and has.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:24 | link | comments

It's not unusual: Okay, I'm back. One can trudge through the sludge of corporate communication for so long before one's brain cells begin to atrophy. (For a blistering indictment of this type of writing,see the polemic Death Sentences.) To get the neurons sparking again, I am taking a break and am posting this link to a story about how the Queen has just knighted aging Welsh Vegas fixture, Tom Jones.

Which begs the question: Is there any aging and rapidly-lapsing-into-decripitude former pop star who hasn't been knighted?

I was going to suggest the former Cat Stevens, but then I remembered what a holier-than-thou Hamas-supporting nitwit he was.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:14 | link | comments

Day off: Due to work demands, I am taking the day off today. See y'll tomorrow.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:22 | link | comments

Tuesday, 28 March 2006

Matisse in Morocco: On the day of reports that the release of Muslim “apostate” Abdul Rahman is angering the faithful in Afghanistan, I thought I’d share a few paragraphs from the book I’m reading—the recently published second volume of Hilary Spurling’s masterful biography of French painter, Henri Matisse.

In the following paragraphs, Ms. Spurling recounts Matisse’s experiences in Morocco in 1911. Thilled by the Oriental art he had seen in Spain, Matisse traveled to Morocco with his wife, Amélie, seeking sunlight and inspiration. What he found was a brutal, backward culture that reviled foreigners, considering them unwelcome and “unclean.”

Tangier was a shock, at any rate to Amélie, who had hardly ever left France…and had never glimpsed the Muslim world before. European-style cafes and hotels made the foreign quarter on the summit of the hill look, as Matisse said himself, like the seedy suburban Paris. The Great Souk, or market, immediately below was as picturesque as any romantic painting, with its camel trains straight from the desert, its flute-players, sorcerers and snake-charmers. But this was far from the fashionable Orient beloved by Parisian department stores. Beggars in the Souk displayed open wounds or bloody eye sockets, and the ground underfoot was a midden strewn with chicken feathers, bones and excrement and scraps of rotting flesh. Arab society remained closed to foreigners. Unveiled European women were treated as freaks or worse outside Tangier, an international city abandoned by its sultan as a den of infidels…Muslim women on the streets looked like surgeons masked and gowned for the operating theatre…

…Tangier’s weather had turned out chancy, and the town itself had little to show of the wonders of the Orient that had mesmerised Matisse in Munich and Granada. The mosques were closed to Christians, and there were no museums, galleries or great houses open for foreigners to inspect their gleaming mosaics, latticed marble screens and intricately patterned tiles…

Matisse faithfully reflected his own and his compatriots’ situation when he faced the camera looking awkward in an Arab djellabah, or sketched himself as a tourist in a town whose people believed that contact with foreigners made them unclean. Even acting as a servant—valet, doorman, hotel waiter—to a Christian was degrading for a Muslim. (Irish painter John) Lavery said that the few Arab sitters whose reluctance he managed to overcome were all convinced that as a painter he possessed the Evil Eye, which meant that anyone modelling for him was damned for all eternity…

...Morocco was still the strict, fundamentalist, male-oriented society the French had found when they bombarded Casablanca five years earlier…”Feminists are unheard of in this country,” Matisse wrote to Gertrude Stein on a postcard showing female coal-porters from the charcoal market near his hotel, “a pity, because the men abuse their privileges.” European residents to Tangier swapped grisly anecdotes about what happened to foreign men rash enough to overstep the bounds of Arab hospitality. Lavery told a story of a young subaltern invited to dinner by the Pasha of Tetuan, who sent him a parcel containing the head of a dancing girl he had admired the night before.

The ferocious aspect of the civilisation Matisse had glimpsed in Spain lived on in a country that had remained in many ways unchanged since the Moors ruled Seville and Granada. Violence was in the air. (French writer) Loti said that even the harsh, rasping intonations of ordinary conversation in the Arab quarter sounded as if people were slitting throats or eating one another beneath his window…

Of course, that was a long, long time ago, when the mindset of the Muslim world was much different. Today, as we all know, Islam is a religion suffused with tolerance and peace.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:34 | link | comments

Extry! Extry!: Kadima wins.

And Israel loses.

Update: Further to the above, Frank J. Gaffney explains why Israelis like Ehud Olmert are deluded if they think disengagement will make things better. From the JWR:

...If Israel's voters do, in fact, give a mandate to Ehud Olmert, the man who now leads the Kadima Party created by Sharon in the months before his illness, they will actually be indulging in not one delusion, but two.

The first delusion is that the Israeli electorate is voting — as it has done time and time again over the past fourteen years — for someone who promises them security in the face of an increasingly virulent threat from the Palestinian community. Currently, the Palestinians are led by Hamas, a terrorist organization explicitly committed to the destruction of the Jewish State. A succession of previous prime ministers have run on such a platform, then proceeded to indulge in various diplomatic maneuvers that have put Israel at still greater risk.

The second delusion is that what amounts to cutting-and-running — in this case, it is running behind a security fence, yet remaining within easy range of artillery and rocket fire — will make matters better. In fact, Olmert's plan for turning over much of the high ground of the West Bank, its vital aquifers and strategic depth in the immediate wake of Hamas' electoral victory can only embolden those and other Islamofascist enemies of freedom. It will compound the danger they pose, not only to Israel but to all of us.

This is not idle speculation. The results of Sharon's earlier disengagement from Gaza are already evident: The ascendancy of the most unabashedly hostile of Israel's foes; the creation of new Taliban-style safe-havens for terrorists (including al Qaeda); and a metastasizing threat as Russia, the European Union and the United Nations seek to legitimate Hamas, even as Kadima proposes to reward it with further territorial concessions...

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:46 | link | comments

Epiphany at the Post: Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen is shocked, shocked says he, at the Muslim world's appalling silence re: the Adbul Rahman affair. Why aren't they protesting the arrest and prosecution of someone who merely wanted the freedom to practise the relgion of his choice? From RealClear Politics:

What strikes me about the threat to execute Abdul Rahman, the Afghan who converted to Christianity, is not that Afghanistan remains deeply medieval and not even remotely the democracy that George W. Bush would like it to be, but that with the exception of the (largely) Christian West, the rest of the world has been mostly silent. The Americans have protested, the Brits have protested, the Vatican has protested and so (I assume) have some others. But if there has been a holler of protest from anywhere in the Muslim world, it has not reached my ears. That is appalling.

The murder of a person for his religious belief ought to be inconceivable. It is something we in the West stopped accepting hundreds of years ago, and while Americans and others continued to kill on account of race deep into the past century, the right of the government to take a life on account of religion has not even been argued in the longest time. We are way beyond that.

Mr. Cohen is an educated, articulate journalist who writes for one of his nation's most respected newspapers. But the news about the true nature of sharia law--its intolerance, repressiveness and punitiveness--seems to come as big surprise.

Oh, well. Better late than never, I always say. But does he really "get it" now? Sort of. Maybe. Hard to tell:

The groupthink of the Muslim world is frightening. I know there are exceptions -- many exceptions. But still it seems that a man could be killed for his religious beliefs and no one would say anything in protest. It is also frightening to confront how differently we in the West think about such matters and why the word "culture" is not always a mask for bigotry, but an honest statement of how things are. It is sometimes a bridge too far -- the leap that cannot be made. I can embrace an Afghan for his children, his work, even his piety -- all he shares with much of humanity. But when he insists that a convert must die, I am stunned into disbelief: Is this my fellow man?

This is your fellow man who believes in the primacy of sharia law, Mr. Cohen. Maybe you should suspend disbelief and read up on the subject.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:50 | link | comments (1)

Impressed by Fascist infrastructure: The mush-brains in the MSM continue to be impressed by Hamas's primary schools, those bright, well-equipped, well-run institutes of lower learning in which Palestinian moppets learn the fundamentals. Last night, for example, I watched CNN's Christiane Amanpour visit a lovely facility in the Palestinian Territories where a teacher garbed head-to-toe in a black robe (not unlike how nuns used to dress in Catholic schools, I suppose) explained how parents support Hamas's efforts to educate their children. And there they were--smiling, happy, eager young faces, the shahids of tomorrow--looking to their elders to teach them the ways of the world.

Christiane was mightily impressed. And indeed, who but a Grinch could fail to be moved by Hamas schools? Why, anyone would be thrilled to have their youngsters educated in such a setting.

Anyone looking to have their kids indoctrinated in Jew-hatred and Muslim supremacy, that is. But let's not harp on such unpleasantness. No, instead, let's go visit one of those state-of-the-art Hamas hospitals. I hear they're doing "cutting edge" work there.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:04 | link | comments

Accepting reality: On election day in Israel, Daniel Pipes itemizes the different approaches Israelis have taken to resolve their problems. Unfortunately, says Pipes, all are likely to fail because, they don't acknowledge that the solution--the only solution--is to get the Arabs to accept the permanence of the Jewish State.

Like that's ever going to happen. From FrontPage Magazine:

Those goals (of Arabs and Israelis) are simple, static, and binary. The Arabs fight to eliminate Israel, Israel fights to win the acceptance of its neighbors. The first is offensive in intent, the second is defensive. The former is barbaric, and the latter civilized. For nearly sixty years, Arab rejectionists have sought to eliminate Israel via a range of strategies: undermining its legitimacy through propaganda, harming its economy through a trade boycott, demoralizing it through terrorism, and threatening its population via WMD.

While the Arab effort has been patient, intense, and purposeful, it has also failed. Israelis have built a modern, affluent, and strong country, but one still largely rejected by Arabs. This mixed record has spawned two political developments: a sense of confidence among politically moderate Israelis; and a sense of guilt and self-criticism among its leftists. Very few Israelis still worry about the unfinished business of getting the Arabs to accept the permanence of the Jewish state. Call it Israel’s invisible war goal.

Rather than seek victory, Israelis have developed a lengthy menu of approaches to manage the conflict. These include:

· Unilateralism (building a wall, partial withdrawals): The current policy, as espoused by Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and the Kadima Party.

· Lease for 99 years the land under Israeli towns on the West Bank: The Labor Party of Amir Peretz.

· Palestinian economic development: Shimon Peres.

· Territorial compromise: The premise of Oslo diplomacy, as initiated by Yitzhak Rabin.

· Outside funding for the Palestinians (on the Marshall Plan model): U.S. Representative Henry Hyde.

· Retreat to the 1967 borders: Israel’s far left.

· Push the Palestinians to develop good government: Natan Sharansky (and President George W. Bush).

· Insist that Jordan is Palestine: Israel’s right.

· Transfer the Palestinians out of the West Bank: Israel’s far right.

These many approaches are very different in spirit and mutually exclusive. But they have a key element in common. All manage the conflict without resolving it. All ignore the need to defeat Palestinian rejectionism. All seek to finesse war rather than win it.

For an outside observer who hopes for Arab acceptance of Israel sooner rather than later, this avoidance of the one winning strategy prompts a certain frustration, one that’s the more profound on recalling how brilliantly the Israelis early on understood their war goals.

One little problem (i.e. one immense, apparently insurmountable problem): Islamic supremacy as outlined in the Koran and rest of Islam's teachings. How does Israel gain "acceptance" from people--from fanatical Islamic literatists--for whom the concept of Jewish sovereignty in Israel is anathema; people who want Jews to grovel because their holy book tells them that's the only position in which a Muslim can accept a Jew?

But I guess Mr. Pipes is looking to those 'moderates" in the Muslim world--the same ones he's touted as the "cure" for radical Islam--to also make peace with Israel.

I wonder: Who's more likely to come through first--"moderate" Muslims or the Messiah? I also wonder if Mr. Pipes has noticed that the two seem to have a few things in common: Both are legendary, longed-for and long-delayed.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:34 | link | comments

Monday, 27 March 2006

"People, people who love people, are the luckiest people in the world...": If that's true, it looks like cross-eyed canary Babs "Friend of Bill" Streisand is indeed one of the luckiest. According to a salacious new biography, she's loved a whole lot of people in her time. From Page Six of the New York Post:

JUST in time for Barbra Streisand's latest planned comeback tour comes a scandalicious new bio packed with fresh dirt on the world's most reclusive diva.

For starters, Christopher Anderson's "Barbra: The Way She Is" reconstructs her truly awe-inspiring sexual résumé.

In addition to exclusive accounts of Streisand's affairs with both Prince Charles and Princess Diana's doomed lover, Dodi Fayed, Anderson writes that her conquests include Warren Beatty, Ryan O'Neal, Steve McQueen, Kris Kristofferson, Don Johnson (whom friends dismissed as her "Goy Toy"), Jon Voight, Elliott Gould, Andre Agassi, Richard Gere, Omar Sharif, ice cream heir Richard Baskin, hairdresser-turned-studio chief Jon Peters, Liam Neeson, Peter Jennings, Tommy Smothers and "Robocop" Peter Weller.

I know I'm not the first and will likely by no means to be the last to say: Tommy Smothers? Reminds me of that Sesame Street song, "One of These Things is not Like the Others." Only in this case it would be, "One of These Lovers is Not Like the Others. And his name is Smothers."

I'm sure Tommy is a robust and virile man--or was in his time, anyway. But let's face it, he's no Omar Sharif.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:40 | link | comments (2)

Oh, puhleeze: CBC radio news had a report at the top of the hour about "apostate" Abdul Rahman, (my adjective, not the Ceeb's) who says he wants to leave Afghanistan once he's released. The Ceeb, which strives whenever possible to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative re: Islam, explained to listeners that the Afghans had "dropped their case against Rahman, partly out of concern that he was mentally ill."

Also partly out of concern that he had violated Islamic law by converting to another religion, an offense punishable, in the "democratic" nation of Afghanistan, by death. But let's pretend, shall we, that the whole thing was really about Mr. Rahman's mental integrity and not about the uproar occasioned by his prosecution for the "crime" of being a Muslim who, many years ago, freely chose to become a Christian.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:16 | link | comments

Moussaoui's confession: Zacharias Moussaoui, on trial for terrorism in a Boston court room, dropped a bombshell today. He said he and Richard Reid, infamous for his dynamite Nikes, were supposed to comandeer a fifth airplane on 9/11 and fly it into the White House. From Breitbart.com (via Drudge):

Moussaoui's testimony on his own behalf stunned the courtroom. His account was in stark contrast to his previous statements in which he said the White House attack was to come later if the United States refused to release a radical Egyptian sheik imprisoned on earlier terrorist convictions.

On Dec. 22, 2001, Reid was subdued by passengers when he attempted to detonate a bomb in his shoe aboard American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami. There were 197 people on board. The plane was diverted to Boston, where it landed safely.

Moussaoui told the court he knew the World Trade Center attack was coming and that he lied to investigators when arrested in August 2001 because he wanted it to happen.

"You lied because you wanted to conceal that you were a member of al- Qaida?" prosecutor Rob Spencer asked.

"That's correct," Moussaoui said.

Spencer: "You lied so the plan could go forward?"

Moussaoui: "That's correct." ...

Two possibilities here, of course:

Moussaoui is telling the truth. A good possibility, since it never made sense why the terrorists targeted the Capitol building over the White House--the symbol of American power.
Moussaoui is lying. Also a good possibility, since it's hard to see how anyone could think Zach and Dick, ardent though they obviously were, had sufficient wit and sang froid to to carry off such an act. Old Dick couldn't even get his shoe to ignite. Moussaoui's admisssion could be nothing more that a case of self-aggrandizing smoke and mirrors, designed to confuse the Americans and make himself sound a lot more important than he actually was. Then again...

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:56 | link | comments (2)

A fitting match up: Let's see. He's faced the Penguin, the Riddler, Catwoman, Two-Face and Mr. Freeze, among many other bizarre-looking villains. Now, Batman is set to confront his most challenging foe--none other than wily, attenuated terror-Meister, Osama bin Laden.

Batman will meet ObL in a DC comic book called, appropriately enough, Holy Terror, Batman!

Well, he is called "The Caped Crusader."

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:17 | link | comments (2)

Peace in our time, again: Hamas, the terrorist outfit whose stated mandate is the obliteration of Israel, says it is willing to participate in endless, pointless, fruitless discussions with representatives of the "Quartet."

Of course it is. How else can it persuade the West to keep it in the money? From Ha'aretz:

GAZA - The Hamas militant group on Monday said it was prepared for dialogue with the Quartet of international mediators to try to end conflict in the Middle East.

"Our people are in need more than any other nation on earth for peace, for security and stability. Our government will not spare any effort to achieve a just peace in the region," Hamas prime minister designate Ismail Haniyeh told the Palestinian parliament as he presented his governing agenda.

"We have never been seekers of war. We have never been callers for terrorism and bloodshed," he said.

Speaking of his diplomatic intentions the Hamas prime minister designate said "our government will be ready for a dialogue with the Quartet committee to look into all ways to end the state of struggle and achieve calm in the region." The Quartet comprises the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations.

Haniyeh's statement came a day after stating that Hamas is not interested in a confrontation with Israel.

"The government will seek to be open and to have dialogue with all countries, including the European Union, to pursue giving aid to our people and our Authority in order to afford a dignified life to our people," he said.

Referring to Israel's economic ban on the Palestinian territories since Hamas' victory in the elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council, Haniyeh said "whoever thinks economic pressure could push our government to succumb or that it could weaken the determination and the steadfastness of our proud people is mistaken."

Israel cut off the transfer of millions of dollars of taxes it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority and threatened to severe all ties once the Hamas government takes office, which is expected later this week.

"We will protect the right of our people to defend themselves against the occupation," he added.

Wow. Looks like the cockeyed optimists were right. The responsibilites of power--like filling in all those irksome potholes in Jenin--have transformed the terrorists. In the past, for example, they would never have pretended to talk "peace."

Just joshing, of course. As anyone who's witnessed the windy, empty gab-fests hosted by of the UN, the EU and the Quartet knows, talk is as cheap as the ammo now flooding into Gaza from Egypt. Until and unless Hamas rescinds its Charter (for starters) it's fairly safe to assume that, like other jihadis, Hamas will continue to perceive of "peace" in Islamic terms--as the peace that will obtain once the infidels have been soundly defeated.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:35 | link | comments

A bad idea: Scientists say they've created a new kind of pig which makes its own omega-3 fatty acids--the kind of healthy fat found in salmon. Which means that, potentially, "healthy" bacon may soon become a reality.

To which I say: Healthy bacon? Is nothing sacred? Not that I eat the stuff, having lost my taste for all mammal meat during that mad cow scare in Britain some years ago, the one which resulted in day after day of culled cattle with their legs in the air in full colour photos on the front page of my daily newspapers. (I continue to eat chicken and fish.) But healthy bacon strikes me as a bad idea. Like healthy Oreos. Or healthy Krispy Kreme donuts.

Basta! Enough, I say.

For the sake of flavour and freedom--the freedom to make bad food choices once in a while--I thing some things should remain out of reach of the food police.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:09 | link | comments

"All we are saying's give Sharia a chance...": After an immense hue and cry, it looks like ex-Muslim Abdul Rahman is going to be released. Maybe. Unless he's sent to the loony bin. Whatever happens, don't expect Afghani sharia fans to take this violation of sacred law lying down.

Do they ever?

From the Toronto Star:

KABUL, Afghanistan — Hundreds of people protested in a northern Afghan city Monday against a decision to free a man who faced a possible death penalty for converting from Islam to Christianity, officials said.

About 700 people, including Muslim clerics, gathered in central Mazar-e-Sharif, chanting "Death to Bush" and other anti-Western slogans, a day after a court announced it had dropped its case against Abdul Rahman, said police commander Nasruddin Hamdrad.

Security forces surrounded the demonstrators but did not intervene.

Muslim clerics have denounced the decision to release Rahman, 41, who became a Christian in the 1990s while working for an aid group in neighbouring Pakistan. They say he has clearly violated Islamic laws and must be killed.

The religious leaders have called for protests across the country against both the government and the West, which had pressured President Hamid Karzai's administration to drop the case....

Good thing Rahman didn't compound his "crime" by drawing some satirical 'toons. They he'd really be in for it.

Update: A comment in The Guardian castigates Mr. Rahman for being a "turncoat' and for furthering the misperception that Islam is intolerant.

Yeah, that was just soooo inconsiderate:

Nobody likes a turncoat. Whether it's a scab crossing a picket line, or a footballer joining his club's arch rivals, the consequences of defection will usually haunt them for life.

It's a cross that Abdul Rahman, the Afghan convert to Christianity, is currently having to bear. Charged with apostasy for abandoning Islam, a crime that carries the death penalty in Afghanistan, he was handed a reprieve at the weekend while judges examine the validity of the case against him.

Abdul Rahman's family, and more than a few red-faced officials in Karzai's westocracy, have suggested that the former aid worker has a history of mental trouble. If, or rather when, that is "found" to be the case, it would offer a convenient way out for a government keen to parade its liberal secular credentials before its foreign overlords.

What it won't do is acquit Islam of the charge that it is fundamentally intolerant, even if that is more a perception created by dilettante clerics than part of any divine dispensation.

"There is no compulsion in religion", declares the Qur'an, in an emphatic declaration on the nature of belief: it is voluntary, not coerced. Nor, according to highly placed authorities in both classical and modern Islamic jurisprudence, do any of the narrations attributed to the prophet (which form part of the second source of law after the Qur'an) provide a basis for capital punishment.

There are contesting views in the Islamic tradition, but they run counter to the letter and the spirit of the scriptures. So how do we explain the demands of Afghan clerics for Abdul Rahman's head? In part, they stem from a well-intentioned desire to protect cherished beliefs, against which any defection is deemed a direct assault.

But they are also a function of a deep-rooted hostility to continuing Christian proselytism in Muslim countries. The age of classical colonialism may have passed but where once the blunderbuss came as an adjunct to the bible, today it has been replaced by the rice bowl...

Update: FT.com headline--Afghan convert to Christianity may be sent abroad.

Good plan.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:15 | link | comments

Loney's oversight: Former hostage James Loney, one of three belligerent pacifists--two of them Canadian--rescued in Iraq, is savoring his freedom. Loney, a member of loopy fascism-enabling group, Christian Peacemaker Teams, had gone to Iraq to "get in the way" (the organization's pithy motto) of Western forces who were trying to help Iraqis turn their country into a democracy. Mr. Loney and his compadres refer to these forces as brutal "occupiers" impeding the "resistance."

Charming fellow.

Initially, Loney and his fellow hostages, as well as their organization, seemed reluctant to thank those responsible for the rescue; it took 200 soldiers and weeks of co-ordinated planning to spring three little pacifists. But now Loney, who, understandably, is thrilled to be home, is expressing gratitude to some of those who put themselves in harm's way for him.

Some, but not not all. From the Globe and Mail:

Former hostage James Loney appeared thin but grateful and a bit bewildered when he landed yesterday at Toronto's Pearson airport, four months after he was kidnapped in Iraq. Surrounded by loved ones, he praised the British soldiers and Canadian government officials who worked for his release, and said he looked forward to becoming "reacquainted . . . with freedom."

"I am grateful in a way that can never be adequately expressed in words," Mr. Loney, 41, told reporters at the airport three days after he was rescued, along with fellow hostages Harmeet Singh Sooden and Norman Kember. "It's great to be alive."

Mr. Loney's praise was effusive compared to the more guarded expressions of gratitude uttered by some of his colleagues at Christian Peacemaker Teams, a pacifist aid organization that has been working in Iraq since 2002. Mr. Loney thanked both "the British soldiers who risked their lives to rescue us" and "the government of Canada, who sent a team to Baghdad to help secure our release." He made no mention of the U.S. troops who were also involved...

There's something very un-Christian about that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:02 | link | comments

Sunday, 26 March 2006

Slow and steady loses the arms race: After springing into action to deal with the existential threat posed by Minsk, Secretary of State Condi Rice is racing to keep the mullahs from making those nukes we keep hearing about.

Well, maybe not racing so much as creeping. Like a snail. With a sprained foot. Wearing lead shoes. Carrying a backpack full of rocks.

From VOA:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice makes clear the world cannot wait until Iran has the technology to make a nuclear bomb. She says the international community must take a stand now, and take action to prevent the enrichment and reprocessing of uranium on Iranian soil.

"Enrichment and reprocessing capability is the core here," Rice says. "If you are able to enrich and reprocess, then the ability to build a bomb is there."

In a series of appearances on American television news programs, Secretary Rice stressed, the United States wants the matter resolved through diplomacy, starting with an official statement from the Security Council. She told NBC's Meet the Press program that it is important for the international community to speak as one.

"Everybody takes very seriously Iran's intransigence and Iran's unwillingness to do what the international community has determined it will do," Rice says.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, the nuclear watchdog arm of the United Nations, recently asked the Security Council to take up the Iran issue.

Three of the five permanent council members, the United States, Britain and France, have called for strong action to keep Iran from reprocessing uranium. But the other two permanent council members, China and Russia, have voiced reservations about what action to take.

On CNN's Late Edition, Rice reiterated that she discussed the matter Friday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. She stressed Moscow has already backed the demands put forward by the I.A.E.A....

Whoa. Don't give yourself a side stitch there, Condi.

Update: Iran, on the other hand, is making haste. From Iran Focus (via JihadWatch):

Tehran, Iran, Mar. 25 – Iran’s hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared on Saturday that the Islamic Republic will obtain nuclear capabilities by the end of the new Persian year (ending: March 21, 2007), the official state news agency reported.

“Our enemies want to prevent us from making progress through widespread propaganda but, God willing, this year will be the year that the Islamic Republic of Iran will obtain complete nuclear energy for peaceful purposes”.

“Iran’s advancements in various domains including the nuclear issue is in the direction of the interests of Islamic countries and the friends of the Islamic Republic”, he said.

Ahmadinejad called for a nuclear disarmament of the United States and other world’s powers.

He made the comments during a meeting with Syrian First Vice-President Farouq al-Shara.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:52 | link | comments

Today's "Duh!": In a blinding flash of insight, (you may want to put on your sunglasses before you read it), an article in MSM stalwart, The Christian Science Monitor, notes that "Conversion (is) a thorny issue in the Muslim world."

You don't say:

...The issue of religious freedoms is one in which, as in Afghanistan, modern laws are clashing with ancient traditions. Rahman's case illustrates a glaring contradiction between Afghanistan's constitution, which upholds the right to freedom of religion on one hand but enshrines the supremacy of sharia law on the other.

Most mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence call for converts to be executed. Though the Koran promises only hellfire for apostates and also says "there should be no compunction in religion,'' Islamic jurists have typically argued that execution is mandated, citing stories of comments made by the prophet Muhammad.

"The prophet Muhammad said that anyone who rejects Islam for another religion should be executed," said Mr. Mawlavezada, the judge.

Though some liberal Islamic scholars disagree, pointing out that no such rule exists in the Koran, they have been largely silenced in Afghanistan. Last year, Afghan writer Ali Mohaqeq Nasab spent almost three months in jail last autumn for an article questioning the traditional call for execution.

What happens next for Rahman is uncertain, though it appears likely that the government will find a way to sweep the case under the rug.

Officials said they're likely to allow him to go abroad for medical treatment.

"If his family can afford to send him overseas for medical treatment then of course we would give him a passport," says Mr. Aloko, the deputy attorney general. In that case, he would be free to seek asylum elsewhere and avoid a return to his homeland and its legal system...

Mainstream schools of jurisprudence call for execution, huh? I thought it was only that tiny, minute, barely-discernable infinitesimal fringe we had to worry about. Guess we'll have to rethink that one a bit.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:16 | link | comments

Another selection from West Bank Story: Wherein the natives crow about the delights of living--no, not in "America"--in their own wretched land:

We like to be here in Palestine.
Nothing is free here in Palestine.
Folks disagree here in Palestine.
Kleptocracy here in Palestine.

Now we’ve elected some jihadis
Who plan to bring all the Jews to their knee-ees.
George Bush says elections show mental health.
It hasn’t done much for our pers’nal wealth.

Rampaging people in Palestine,
Anger and outrage in Palestine,
Setting the stage here in Palestine,
Feels like a cage here in Palestine.

Don’t want to live in a Bantu-land.
We know that our friends will all understand.
They’ll help us reclaim what the Jews took.
‘Cause they fear our Prophet and his book.

Potholes are filled here in Palestine,
Rivals are killed here in Palestine.
People are thrilled here in Palestine.
Lots of blood spilled here in Palestine.

The Jews can’t withstand our demography.
We’ll have the last laugh, you’ll all see.
We’ll smash and grab everything they built
And feel no contrition, shame or guilt.

Christian Peacemaker Teams here in Palestine
Jihadi dreams here in Palestine.
Human rights themes here in Palestine.
UNRWA still schemes here in Palestine.

Here we’ll be free like the Taliban.
Those guys sure knew how to have fun.
Free to do anything we choose--
Free to be shahids and hate Jews…

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:42 | link | comments

Democracy vs. Sharia: Breaking news on CNN: The Afghan who converted to Christianity is set to be released today.

Looks like the howls of outrage from the West made an impact--this time, anyway. That doesn't change the fact that the sharia law which criminalizes and calls for the prosecution of "apostates" remains embedded in Afghanistan's "democratic" Constitution.

In his Sunday piece for the Chicago Sun-Times (which was written and printed before the report of the Christian Afghani's impending release), Mark Steyn constrasts how Muslims and Westerners reacted to an issue which deeply offended them:

Fate conspires to remind us what this war is really about: civilizational confidence. And so history repeats itself: first the farce of the Danish cartoons, and now the tragedy -- a man on trial for his life in post-Taliban Afghanistan because he has committed the crime of converting to Christianity.

The cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad were deeply offensive to Muslims, and so thousands protested around the world in the usual restrained manner: rioting, torching, killing, etc.

The impending execution of Abdul Rahman for embracing Christianity is, of course, offensive to Westerners, and so around the world we reacted equally violently by issuing blood-curdling threats like that made by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack: "Freedom of worship is an important element of any democracy," he said. "And these are issues as Afghan democracy matures that they are going to have to deal with increasingly." ...

Given the "heated" reaction of State, it's a wonder they were persuaded to release the apostate Rahman.

Steyn notes that the Prince of Wales, for one, thinks it would be "ghastly" if we failed to consider Muslim sensibilites in these matters. Steyn concludes by remarking how Charles's ancestors dealt with those who followed laws incompatible with Western civilization:

Rahman embodies the question at the heart of this struggle: If Islam is a religion one can only convert to not from, then in the long run it is a threat to every free person on the planet. What can we do? Should governments with troops in Afghanistan pass joint emergency legislation conferring their citizenship on this poor man and declaring him, as much as Karzai, under their protection?

In a more culturally confident age, the British in India were faced with the practice of "suttee" -- the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands. General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural:

''You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows.You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

India today is better off without suttee. If we shrink from the logic of that, then in Afghanistan and many places far closer to home the implications are, as the Prince of Wales would say, "ghastly."

My other favorite "wingnut", Ottawa Citizen columninst David Warren, explains the deeper meaning behind the Rahman issue this way:

I mention this case because it perfectly illustrates the impossibility of establishing a Western secular order in a country where Shariah is recognized as law. Or as the learned Bernard Lewis put it, as discreetly as he could, in his book Islam and the West: “The primary duty of the Muslim as set forth not once but many times in the Qur'an is ‘to command good and forbid evil’. It is not enough to do good and refrain from evil as a personal choice. It is incumbent upon Muslims also to command and forbid -- that is, to exercise authority.”

This is at the root of the “clash” between the worldviews of our West and the Islamic East. Because our societies were built on Judaeo-Christian foundations, we take it for granted that it is wrong to kill someone for his religious beliefs. Whereas Islam holds it is wrong not to kill him, for abandoning Islam. (On the other hand, the right to convert TO Islam has been universally affirmed.)

Shariah is logically coherent, and cannot be argued with on its own premises. The clash is therefore of premises. At the end of the day, we are attempting to impose our premises on societies that are conditioned to reject them.

But of course, the Bush administration must pretend that our premises are universal, or at least, that men anywhere would embrace them given a free choice. The latter proposition may be true, but not the former. And it is in the transition that all National Security Strategies, presidential speeches, and the like, are bound to founder.

I think Warren just exposed the fatal flaw in Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy: It proffers Western democracy as a universal organizing system but fails to consider the enduring appeal of that competing universal system, Sharia.

As we say in Canada, "East is east and West is west, and never the Shania Twain shall meet."

Update: Oops! Maybe we shouldn't jump the gun (as they say in Alberta). From CNN:

An Afghan man threatened with execution because he converted from Islam to Christianity is expected to be released from custody at the end of the day, a Western diplomat and Afghan officials close to President Hamid Karzai told CNN Sunday.

But other sources in the Afghan judiciary said the case against Abdul Rahman had been thrown out on technical grounds and sent back to prosecutors to gather more evidence. Those same sources said Rahman may not be released...

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:56 | link | comments

Et tu, Jew?: If Israel is destroyed, it won't only be because of Hamas. It will be because of clueless, self-loathing Israelis--the Christian Peacemaker Teams of Judaism--who enable Hamas. People like Jeff Halper, co-ordinator of The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and a candidate for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, who has an opinion piece in the Toronto Star. Read it and weep:

As the new Hamas government assumes power, we might ask: What would bring Palestinians, the most secular of Arab populations, to vote Hamas? Mere protest at Fatah ineffectualness and corruption doesn't go far enough.

While warning Hamas that their vote was not a mandate for an Iran-like theocracy, Palestinians took the only option left to a powerless people when all other avenues have been closed: non-co-operation.

Gandhi put it best: "How can one be compelled to accept slavery? I simply refuse to do the master's bidding. He may torture me, break my bones to atoms and even kill me. He will then have my dead body, not my obedience. Ultimately, therefore, it is I who am the victor ..., for he has failed in getting me to do what he wanted done .... The roots of non-co-operation lie not in hatred but in justice."

This is not to equate Hamas with Gandhi, but merely to point out that non-co-operation, a powerful means of non-violent resistance, arises when the oppressed have no other avenues to achieve their freedom.

The international community, the U.S., Israel and, yes, Fatah, have closed all avenues to the Palestinians. They carry the "blame" for the rise of Hamas. Palestinians have simply said: "To hell with all of you!"

To hell with the international community for failing to apply international law, and allowing Israel to construct its occupation. International law defines occupation as a temporary situation to be resolved through negotiations and prohibits unilateral action. Besides military bases, every element of Israel's occupation is patently illegal: settlements; the plunder of Palestinian water and resources; house demolitions and expropriation of Palestinian lands; military attacks on civilians. Even when Israel's "separation barrier" was ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice, nothing was done.

To hell with the U.S. for closing off negotiations, and neutralizing the UN with the U.S. veto. At the start of the Oslo "peace process," at Israel's urging, the U.S. reclassified the Palestinian areas from "occupied" to "disputed," thus removing international law from the negotiations. Had this law been respected, the occupation would have ended under the weight of its illegality.

To hell with Israel for closing off even the possibility of a viable Palestinian state by expanding into Palestinian areas.

Hamas is criticized for "not recognizing Israel" but Israel has never explicitly recognized the Palestinians' right to self-determination, and never negotiated with Mahmoud Abbas despite his government's recognition of Israel.

The world and Israel ignored the Palestinians' "generous offer" to Israel which could have ended the conflict: recognition of Israel within the 1967 borders on 78 per cent of historic Palestine, in return for a Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories on the remaining 22 per cent...

As an Israeli Jew who sees how the occupation has eroded the moral foundations of my society and, indeed, my entire people, and as a resident of Israel-Palestine who knows that my fate is intricately intertwined with that of the Palestinians, I pray that a just peace will come sooner rather than later.

As a member of civil society, I realize that the Palestinians have only one staunch ally: us, the people. Governments will not pursue peace and justice without our prodding. If the Palestinians remain steadfast and resist, it is our duty to actively support their fight for freedom and justice. Otherwise — to hell with us.

Au contraire, Jeff: To hell with you.

Update: I sent the following email to the editor of the Star. I post it secure in the knowledge that the Star will never print it:

Re: The potent power to say no:

Jeff Halper compares Hamas, a Muslim terrorist organization committed to Israel’s destruction through violent means, to Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu who dedicated his life to peaceful resistance. Mr. Halper’s curious reasoning: Both Hamas and Gandhi used “non-co-operation” to advance their cause.

That Mr. Halper would stoop to such a bizarre comparison shows that he is incapable of seeing the situation clearly. Furthermore, it is an insult to Gandhi, who as far as I know, never counseled his followers to load dynamite into their clothing and wade into a crowd of civilians.

If Israel is ultimately destroyed, it will not only be because of the violent machinations of Hamas. It will be because of deluded, self-loathing Israelis like Mr. Halper--the Christian Peacemaker Teams of Judaism--who defend and enable Israel’s enemies.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:42 | link | comments (2)

Saturday, 25 March 2006

The once and future King: God help us all. From Gulf Daily News:

RIYADH: Britain's Prince Charles yesterday called for mutual respect between religions during a visit to Saudi Arabia's most prestigious Islamic university and hinted at the need for a more modern application of Islam.

"I think we need to recover the ... generosity of imagination, the respect for wisdom that so marked Islam in its great ages. Islam called Jews and Christians the peoples of the book, because they, like Muslims, are a part of a religion of sacred texts," he told officials and professors at the Imam Mohammed bin Saud Islamic University in Riyadh.

"What was so distinctive of the great ages of faith surely was that they understood that, as well as sacred texts, there is the art of interpretation of sacred texts - between the meaning of God's word for all time and its meaning for this time," Charles said.

"It was Islam's greatness to understand this in its full depth and challenge. And this is what you ... at this great and historic institution, can give not only to Islam, but, by example, to all the other children of Abraham," he said.

The heir to the British throne met officials of the conservative university and dropped in on a class of Islamic jurisprudence on the second day of a three-day official visit to Saudi Arabia.

Charles visited the university without his wife, Camilla, in line with local traditions barring women from publicly mixing with men other than relatives.

The royal couple also met Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz and Crown Prince Sultan yesterday.

Many students at the university welcomed Charles' visit.

"It will help change wrong ideas about the university and Saudi Arabia, accused of terrorism," said Abdulaziz Al Aoufi, 20.

Asked to comment on the prince's call for a flexible interpretation of Islamic texts, student Maher Al Sehili said: "Charles and the West don't understand the true Islam. We are the ones that suffer prejudice, look at Iraq and Palestine."

Another student shouted: "There's nothing to change. Haven't they read the Quran: 'You have your religion and I have mine'," he said.

For the sake of Western civilization, I think Charles should stick to trying to save traditional architecture and chatting with his plants.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:17 | link | comments

Power play in the Palestinian territories: Looks like well-groomed Palestinian President. Mahmoud Abbas isn't going down without a fight. From YNet News:

Abbas threatens to act against Hamas

Prime Minister-designate Ismail Haniyeh declares new Hamas government to be sworn in Wednesday; meanwhile Palestinian Chairman Mahmoud Abbas says in letter to group he may 'exercise his mandate' if believes new cabinet hurts Palestinian interests, hinting he can disband government, and fire the PM.

The new Palestinian government under Islamic terror group Hamas will be sworn in on Wednesday following its ratification, Prime Minister-designate Ismail Haniyeh said on Saturday.

The Palestinian Legislative Council is to convene on Monday for a confidence vote on the 24-member cabinet. Approval is seen as a certainty given that Hamas has a majority in parliament after a crushing election victory in January.

"On Wednesday at the latest there will be a special session for the government to be sworn in before Abu Mazen," Haniyeh said.

Meanwhile, the rift between PA Chairman Abbas and Haniyeh grew deeper Saturday, with Abbas hinting he was prepared to bring down Hamas' incoming government if the group's anti-Israel policies hurt the Palestinian people.

"I will exercise my mandate and authority where and when needed to protect the higher interests of the Palestinian people," Abbas wrote in the concluding paragraph of a two-page letter to Hamas' designated prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh.

He didn't elaborate, but the Palestinians' de facto constitution, known as the Basic Law, empowers the president to fire the prime minister and disband the government.

According to Secretary-General of the Palestinian presidency, Tayeb Abdel Rahim, Abbas made it clear in a letter to Haniyeh that "the democratic election, of which we are so proud, does not mean a reversal of the legal and diplomatic commitments of the Palestinian Authority and its principles as part of the Palestinian Liberation Movement." He added that Abbas warned Haniyeh from entering a collision course with the international community.

Abdel Rahim also stated that in his letter Abbas lamented the fact the Hamas movement has decided to disregards in drafting its government's guiding principles the clauses emphasized by the chairman. However, despite the threats Abbas plans to carry on with the legal process to approve the government in Parliament, set for Monday...

Fasten your seat belts, folks. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:10 | link | comments

Warriors and "peaceniks": The Toronto Star headline about the rescue of the "peacemakers" says it all: How 200 soldiers saved 3 pacifists. That is, it took 200 men of war to save the lives of three so-called pacifists.

Ironic, no?

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:54 | link | comments

Afghanistan's "doublemint" Constitution: A piece on the RealClear Politics site admonishes us not to lose heart because a Muslim convert to Christianity in Afghanistan faces punishment for his “crime”. Democracy, writes Jay Bryant, can still take root in a nation whose constitution looks to sharia, even when its clergy is ultra-Conservative and longs for the return of those Islamic purists, the Taliban. In fact, says Bryant in the spirit of “the glass is half full,” Rahman's prosecution is actually a sign of “progress”:

The case of the Afghani Abdul Rahman is being misinterpreted by many as suggesting the hopelessness of attempting to build civil societies in the Muslim world. If Afghanistan, generally seen as the policy's success story (as opposed to Iraq), is still going to execute a man like Rahman after we've kicked out the bad guys, the argument goes, what is the point of it all?

It's a serious argument, and a serious point. But we need to get past it, because, oddly enough, the Rahman case in fact represents progress. It has caused an uproar in the West. It has focused attention on the problem with the radical Islamic law code, shari'a. It has embarrassed moderate Muslims, and widened the gap between them and the radicals in their midst. It makes it more difficult for the moderates to do nothing about the problem.

In the end, Rahman himself will probably get off on some sort of technicality, such as finding him not guilty by reason of insanity. Critics will be outraged at such a verdict, but both their outrage and the verdict itself will be constructive.

What the case allows the West, and the moderates, to do is to give a name to the enemy, and the name is shari'a. Many Muslim nations have civil societies that are not run on the basis of shari'a, and historically, many others have been absolute models of tolerance - the Ummayad dynasty in Spain, for example, and the Abassids who founded the city of Baghdad. Both, in their day, were centers of learning that drew, and welcomed, scholars from Christendom as well as Islamia. And both, by the way, were overthrown by more radical Islamic movements - not by Christians.

The question thus becomes, which way is the current trend trending? In many ways, it seems the moderate Islamic states are on the defensive against the radicals. The Rahman case, by publicizing the most odious side of shari'a, will ultimately help move the trend in the right direction. Either the man will be martyred, or the authorities will have to back down. And if they back down, it will be clear that they, and the forces of radicalism and repression, have suffered a defeat...

It comforts me not at all that Bryant has to retreat into the mists of history to dredge up an example of a tolerant, civil Muslim society. I’d feel a lot better if he could offer a single example of such a society that had flourished within living memory.

An article in the Khaleej Times points to the real problem in Afghanistan—it’s a democracy, it’s Islamic; it’s two, two, two antithetical systems in one:

President Hamid Karzai has personally intervened in the case of an Afghan man facing execution for converting to Christianity, a top official said Saturday, amid fierce criticism in the West.

Karzai was consulting with various government organisations to resolve the matter as soon as possible, the senior government official said on condition of anonymity.

“The president is personally working to resolve it peacefully. There is a way out of it,” he said. “I believe it’ll take one or two days.”

Another senior official said late Friday that the convert, 41-year-old Abdul Rahman, was likely to be released from jail soon. He said the matter would be discussed at a top-level meeting Saturday.

Rahman was arrested under Islamic Sharia law about two weeks ago after his parents went to the authorities, reportedly following a family dispute.

Sharia law, on which the Afghan constitution is partly based, rules that a Muslim who converts away from Islam should be put to death.

The case has attracted widespread international condemnation, especially from the United States, which led the campaign to remove the fundamentalist Taleban regime in 2001 and is destitute Afghanistan’s main donor.

The Islamist Taleban implemented a tough version of Sharia that included stoning people to death for adultery and chopping off the hands of thieves.

The matter has presented a dilemma for this country, which has agreed to international treaties on human rights but is under pressure from conservative Islamic clerics to abide by Sharia law...

Apparently, the primary difference between the Taliban's sharia and the modified, "democratic" form of sharia in Afghanistan's Constitution is...well, actually, I'm not quite sure. In Taliban days, stonings and choppings were spectator sports; presumably, the Karzai government has done away with such extreme spectacles. That public stonings and amputations are now out seems to be a sign of progress; that adulters and people who convert to another religion still face severe sentences for "crimes" that are not crimes in Western democracies shows how far Afghanistan has yet to come. It also calls into question whether Islam and democracy can ever really be reconciled.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:17 | link | comments

Our friends, the Russkies: With friends like these, who needs Iranians? From AP:

WASHINGTON — Iraqi documents captured by U.S. forces in 2003 say Russian intelligence had sources inside the American military that enabled it to feed information about U.S. troop movements and battle plans to Saddam Hussein.

The unclassified report does not assess the value or accuracy of the information Saddam got or offer details on Russia's information pipeline. It cites captured Iraqi documents that say the Russians had "sources inside the American Central Command" and that intelligence was passed to Saddam through the Russian ambassador in Baghdad.

Maria Zakharova, spokeswoman for Russia's U.N. mission in New York, said the allegations were false.

"To my mind, from my understanding it's absolutely nonsense and it's ridiculous," she said, adding that the U.S. government had not shown Russia the evidence cited in the report. "Somebody wants to say something, and did _ and there is no evidence to prove it."

An official in the office of Foreign Intelligence Service spokesman Boris Labusov in Moscow quoted him saying Saturday, "We don't consider it necessary to comment on such fabrications."...

I dunno. Maybe we should give them the benefit of the doubt. After all, the Russians have a long history of dealing with fabrications.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:31 | link | comments

The old switcheroo: Looks like Heath Ledger wasn't the only one who got shtupped in gay Cowboy flick, Brokeback Mountain. Actor Randy Quaid, older and less comely brother of Meg Ryan's ex, Dennis Quaid, says producers got him to work on the cheap by claiming Brokeback was going to be a small, art-house picture unlikely to make any money. He has just filed a lawsuit to get what he says are his fair share of the profits.

The movie, which was deprived of an Academy Award for Best Picture when liberal-guilt film Crash snuck up from the rear (so to speak), has so far grossed more that $160 million U.S.

Sounds like the producers may have pulled a fast one on Randy by making a molehill out of a Mountain.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:22 | link | comments

MSM mishegas: Melanie Phillips links to this excellent post by Judith Apter Klinghofer. Ms. Klinghofer questions the morally-inverted universe of the mainstream media wherein wolves in sheep's clothing who offer comfort and assistance to totalitarians are hailed as men of peace:

...There is nothing Christian or peaceful about men who actively take advantage of the misplaced solidarity of their countrymen to undermine them. There is nothing peaceful or Christian in consistently standing up for terrorists. There is something pernicious in people who praise those who murdered their American friend and torture them. There is something sick in those who abuse their rescuers. These are terrorist and Islamist enablers par excellence. But these are men, women and organizations whose pretensions, motives or actions are never seriously examined by the MSM. Nor does the MSM have the intellectual honesty to admit that the real Christians on the Iraqi battlefields, the ones turning the other cheek, are the coalition forces who routinely risk their lives and limb to secure the freedom of those whose sole purpose is to persecute and vilify them...

And why has the MSM--including the CBC, which routinely describes members of Christian Peacemaker Teams as "aid workers"--refused to examine the motivations of these groups? Could it be that such an investigation would seriously rupture its own world view? How then could it continue to hold high the fraying banner of multiculturalism and highlight the problems of the "underdogs"--Palestinian refugees, Iraqi insurgents, Muslims victimized by "Islamophobia"--who are so much more virtuous than Western democracies?

Update: These are the ingrates--belligerent, dangerous pacifists--for whom people put their lives on the line. From The Age:

THE three Christian peace activists freed by British and US troops after being held hostage in Iraq for four months refused to co-operate fully with an intelligence unit sent to debrief them, a security source claimed on Friday.

The activists said it would contradict their pacifist principles. The claim infuriated those searching for other hostages.

Neither the men nor the Canadian group that sent them to Iraq have thanked the people who saved them in any of their public statements.

One of the men, Norman Kember, 74, a retired physics professor of London, is understood to have given some helpful information. He provided details of the semi-rural area north-west of Baghdad where he was held and confirmed that his captors were criminals, rather than insurgents. Their motive was believed to be money.

The two Canadians kidnapped with Mr Kember — Harmeet Sooden, 32, and Jim Loney, 41 — were said to have been co-operative at first but less so on arriving at the British embassy in Baghdad after being given the opportunity to eat and rest.

The pacifist Christian Peacemaker Teams with which the men were visiting Iraq is opposed to the coalition's presence and has accused it of illegally detaining thousands of Iraqis.

Jan Benvie, 51, an Edinburgh teacher who is due to go to Iraq with the organisation in the coming months, said: "We make clear that if we are kidnapped we do not want there to be force or any form of violence used to release us." Although the pacifist group has welcomed the men's release, it has not thanked the rescuers in any of its statements.

It blamed the kidnapping on the presence of foreign troops in the country, which was "responsible for so much pain and suffering in Iraq today".

When told how angry the coalition was feeling, Claire Evans, a spokesman for the pacifist group in America, said: "We are extremely grateful to everybody who had a role leading to the men's release."

Mr Kember, in a statement through the embassy, said: "I have had the opportunity to have a shave, relax in the bath and a good English breakfast. I am very much looking forward to getting home to British soil and to being reunited with my family." He did not publicly thank his rescuers...

In her column today in the Globe and Mail (availble online for a fee), Margaret Wente writes: "May God bless and keep the Christian Peacemakers... far, far, away" (which sounds a lot like the Rabbi's prayer for the Czar in Fiddler on the Roof: "May God bless and keep the Czar...far away from us"). Unfortunately, so far God seems unable to fulfil this request.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:38 | link | comments

Still headin' to Armageddon: Amir Taheri, who's usually pretty dependable in his assessments, continues to be off track in his thoughts about Iran and its nukes. In a previous piece, Mr. Taheri assured us that, while Iran may be going to a lot of trouble to construct a nuclear arsenal, we needn't worry because the mullahs have no interntion of ever using it. It's just a tactic to make Iran look more muscular to its own populace and the world at large.

In a piece in The New York Post, Mr. Taheri writes that it's a bad idea for the world to rely on Israel to take out Iran's nukes (I agree with him there), and it's a bad idea for Israel to oblige because--and here I'm a bit fuzzy on his reasoning--"regardless of who rules in Tehran, Israel and Iran have common strategic interests." He goes on to "explain":

If Israel had never appeared on the map, the energy of pan-Arab nationalism movement, which dominated Arab politics in the post-war era, would have been directed against two other neighbors: Turkey and Iran. To a certain extent, it was anyway. Even today, the Arab League claims that the Turkish province of Iskanderun is "usurped Arab territory" and regards the Iranian province of Khuzestan as "occupied Arab land."

And Arab Sunni Islamism is an even more deadly threat to Iran. It was Arab Sunni Islamism that destroyed the Shiite holy shrines in Iraq in 1802, and returned last month to do so again in Samarra. The same movement is behind the cold-blooded murder of several thousand Iraqi Shiite men, women and children since 2004.

To Arab Sunni Islamists, Iranians are gabrs (Zoroastrians); Shiites, including Arab ones, are rafidis (heretics) who must be "re-converted" or put to death.

Both pan-Arab nationalism and pan-Arab Sunni Islamism are as much mortal foes for Iran as they are for Israel. Neither nation will be safe unless the twin monsters are defeated and the Arab states democratized.

Were Iran to "destroy" Israel, at a huge human cost to itself, it would only be realizing the dream of its own mortal enemies. This is why there is virtually no popular support in Iran for an anti-Israeli policy that goes beyond rhetoric or limited support for Iran's clients in Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian territories.

Thus, Israel has no reason to assume a responsibility that far stronger powers don't wish to face.

What Mr. Taheri has left out of the equation is the messianic mindset of Iran's current leader. Moo Jihad is propably well apprised of these strategic niceties, but a man predisposed to seeing green auras, convening genocide conferences and awaiting the Muslim holy man, the 9th Century deus ex machina who will swoop down from heaven and preside over the end of days, may not be looking ahead to what's likely to happen once the dust of Tel Aviv has settled; nihilists can't be counted on to consider the realpolitiks. However, Mr. Taheri has taken a good stab at explicating the internicine hatreds of Muslims. Indeed, were we to amend the words of that old Tom Lehrer comedy song, "National Brotherhood Week," it would be like Taheri in brief: "Oh, the Shias hate the Sunnis/And the Sunnis hate the Shias/And the Arabs hate the Persians/And everybody hates the Jews."

Good to know, I suppose, but it still leaves the immediate problem of what to do about genocidal, nuke-toting Jew-haters who suffer from an Apocalypse complex (and a complex complex it is).

Mr. Taheri doesn't have any thoughts about how the world might handle this thorny issue. Nor is he averse to laying some of the blame for the fraught situation on Israel:

In fact, part of Israel's problems stem from the failure of its successive leaders to steer the country clear of other people's quarrels.

In successive wars during the Cold War, Israel destroyed the Soviet-built arsenals of several Arab countries. That helped protect Washington's Arab allies against aggression by pro-Soviet Arab powers - and thus kept the the Soviets from gaining indirect control of the region's vital oil resources. Israel, however, was "rewarded" by not being allowed to translate its military victories into a political settlement that reflected its national interests.

I'm not sure how Israel could have "steered clear" of other people's quarrels--moved to another neighbourhood, perhhaps?--especially when its primary focus was fending off successive attacks by its Arab neighbours who were being supported and armed by the Soviet Union. Is Mr. Taheri suggesting it wasn't in Israel's interest to defend itself in this way? If so, he fails to offer a reasonable alternative.

Mr. Taheri redeems himself somewhat with his conclusion:

In 1980, Israel knocked out the French-made Iraqi nuclear-weapons center, even though Saddam Hussein was making that bomb to drop on Tehran. The Israeli action helped the major powers avoid catastrophe in a region vital to their interests. Israel's reward? Being described by Jacques Chirac, then mayor of Paris, as "a criminal state."

To be sure, Israel should make it clear that it would retaliate with double force against any attack. But it should also remind those urging it to act that the Islamic Republic's policies, including its quest for nuclear weapons, represent a threat not only to Israel but to many other nations in the Middle East and beyond.

True enough, Mr. Taheri. Now, what are we supposed to do about it?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:47 | link | comments

Friday, 24 March 2006

Ill-Manared: A bizarre story from Lebanon's Al-Manar TV (and translated by someone who is unlikely to claim English as a first or even a second language) about an organization based in Israel and run by a Jew that's working to "cleanse" Russia of Jews .

Since it comes from Al Manar, it's unclear if the story is real, has been mangled in the translation, or is one of those famous fabrications. (I googled the name of the organization, but came up empty). Were I a betting gal, I'd lean toward the latter:

Israeli organization warns Jews not to return to Russia

Thursday, October 13, 2005 - 03:25 PM [Kods Time]

After years of Israeli talk it is being target by hatred campaigns an Israeli based Organization appeared to have an Anti-Jewish doctrine and is working under the name The Russian national center and its mandate is purifying Russia from Jews and preventing those who emigrate from Russia to Israel from returning back.

News Anchor, Israeli Channel Two:
Now we are going to talk about a phenomenon that will shock you and please believe what you are hearing, in Israel there is a racist anti Jewish organization whose mandate is purifying Russia from Jews and preventing those who emigrated from Russia to Israel from returning back.

The Israeli newscaster in Channel 2 was right when he called on the viewers to believe what they heard, especially that Israel repeatedly accuse nations and institutions of so-called Anti Semitism, or even accusing cultures of inciting hatred towards Jews.

But what motivated a Jew inside Israel and who served in the Israeli Army to form such an organization.

Elia Boloneski, Editor of the report in Israel Channel 9:
The name of the organization is the National Russian Center, and its goal is to purify Russia the mother land from all immigrants and mainly the Jews. Also part of the members is Jews and the head of the organization is an Israeli national who served in the army and in the reserve.

Israel's channel two broadcasted some recordings by the head of the organization that are usually broadcasted on the internet, he warns Jews in Israel who think of going back to Russia to stay in Israel or they will be the organization's first enemy.

Head of the National Russian Center:
The National Russian Center warns any Jews whose dare to return to Russia, Jews must stay in Israel.

Many questions might rise concerning this subject one of the main one is who is backing this group, especially that Jews who immigrated to Israel from Russia and other countries faced a different reality than the one they were promised of, and the dreams of high standard life, were transformed to nightmares of poverty and misery.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:57 | link | comments

Spoiler alert: (Warning: If you're a fan of "The Sopranos" who has yet to see the first two episodes of season 6 and would like to retain the element of surprise, I advise you to read no further.) When last we saw Tony Soprano, he was in an induced coma in an I.C.U., with a gaping wound in his ample gut. The wound had come courtesy of his Uncle Junior, who finally seems to have lost track of that last little marble rattling around in his head, and who plugged his nephew because he mistook him for some long-dead enemy. (Ironically, Tony had stepped on a bathroom scale in the first episode and eyed his weight--which was closing in on 300 lbs--with great disgust; now it looks like his belly fat may have saved him).

At the moment, Tony languishes somewhere between life and death, Heaven and Hell. He may, in fact, be in purgatory (at least, that's the word according to the show's creator, David Chase, in this article in a Joisey rag). Wherever he is, it ain't his usual 'hood. It's a place where he has lost his identity (and adopted one belonging to someone named "Kevin Finnerty"; infinnerty, infinity--get it?), his occupation (in this alternate reality, he's a crackerjack patio furniture salesman who's supposed to be attending a convention in Costa Mesa, California; COsta MesA--get it?), his accent (gone are the Joisey "dese, dem, dose"), and his family (he has a wife and kids, but they're not Carmela, Meadow and A.J.). He also has a strange encounter with a pair of Buddhist monks who are angry at "Kevin Finnerty." (I wonder: Do Buddhist monks get angry? Aren't they supposed to be serene and equable--like the Dalai Lama.)

How will it all turn out? Hard to say. But if David Chase is planning to pull a "Six Feet Under" stunt on us and kill off his lead character at the start of the final season, I for one will be royally peeved. While I don't mind the odd dream sequence or two--talking fish and the like--I don't think I could stomach (no pun intended) an entire season of Tony locked away in some metaphysical Hotel California ("You can check out any time you like/But you can never leave...").

As for what we can expect in episode 3, I have it on good authority that meta-Tony is going to misplace his Kevin Finnerty I.D. and find a wallet belonging to one Oblie. V. Ion.

No Buddhist monks this time, but he does bump into Tom Cruise who tries to sell him a copy of "Dianetics."

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:16 | link | comments

The EU takes action: The EU devoted months, years even, to endless, fruitless yammering with a genocidal mullocracy intent on building nukes. Nukes. As in weapons of mass destruction. As in the incineration of Israel is a mere push button away. And still nothing substantial has been done to stop them. Oh, a few heated words perhaps, but to this point, certainly nothing as drastic as--gasp!--sanctions.

But let a blustering thug with no genocidal ambitions (that we know of, anyway) and no nukes to speak of get re-elected in Belarus, and the EUnuchs are all over him like ugly on Arafat. From the CBC:

EU leaders decided to slap sanctions on Belarus at the end of summit talks Friday and condemned a crackdown against opposition protesters in Minsk.

The 25 European leaders said in a declaration that the March 19 presidential vote that returned President Alexander Lukashenko to office was "fundamentally flawed," adding that they would "take restrictive measures against those . . . responsible for the violation of international electoral standards."

They said Belarus was a "sad exception . . . on a continent of open and democratic societies."

Yeah, we're all really worried about the existential threat posed by Minsk.

I guess Belarus made the fatal mistake of not having oodles and oodles of oil to sell.

Update: Looks like the U.S. is signing on to the sanctions. No doubt for the same reason as the EU.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:22 | link | comments

A bullet-free rescue: Some in the mainstream media, like the person who wrote this piece in Newsday, are harping on the fact that the hostage rescue was managed without the rescuers having to fire a single shot. The implication being that this was the best possible way to rescue "activists" who are so against all the nasty fightin' and shootin' going on in Iraq.

And if shots had been fired, would the now-freed peaceniks (who are really little more than enablers of the totalitarian enemies of Western civilization) have insisted on remaining captive?

I think not.

While Newsday and other media outlets that "don't get it" (see my post below) may choose to present these dangerous bumblers as "activists" working for a noble cause, thank heaven the rest of us can see them for what they really are.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:03 | link | comments

Thursday, 23 March 2006

Freedom on trial: Prime Minister Stephen Harper is satisfied that the man on trial in Afghanistan for converting to Islam will not be executed. President Hamid Karzi gave him that assurance over the phone. From the CBC:

Harper said on Thursday President Hamid Karzai had "conveyed to me that we don't have to worry about any such eventual outcome" during a telephone conversation on Wednesday.

Karzai also said the issue would be resolved quickly, Harper said.

So everything's hunky-dory, right?

Right. Except for the fact that Afghani clerics still believe Islam rules and want us to mind our own beeswax, even though Canadian and other Western soldiers are risking their lives in Afghanistan to protect the nascent "democracy":

But clerics interviewed by AP said the government is just trying to avoid the issue.

"The people will kill him if he is freed," one said. Others called for Rahman to be executed.

"We are a small country and we welcome the help the outside world is giving us. But please don't interfere in this issue," said cleric Mirhossain Nasri.

"We are Muslims and these are our beliefs. This is much more important to us than all the aid the world has given us."

Precisely.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:39 | link | comments

Get it, got it, good: These days I tend to divide the world not into "left" and "right", but into those who "get it" and those who "don't get it."

Here's how it works: Mark Steyn--"gets it."

Jimminy Carter--"doesn't get it," never "got it" and never will "get it."

George W. Bush--"gets it," except when he's holding hands with an oily royal or touting the advantages of the Dubai ports deal.

George Clooney--doesn't "get it," and thinks he's really "cutting edge" for highlighting the iniquity of a 1950s demagogue.

George Lucus--doesn't "get it," and, even worse, likes to don a hairshirt in front of a Hollywood audience in order to make a spectacle of his self-loathing in front of those who will most appreciate it. From Breitbart.com (link via Drudge):

Legendary "Star Wars" film creator George Lucas told a packed house the United States is a provincial country with a culture that has invaded the world via Hollywood.

Lucas made the comments as he was honored with a "Global Vision Award" by the World Affairs Council in a downtown San Francisco hotel ballroom.

"As long as there has been a talking Hollywood, Hollywood has had a huge impact on the rest of the world," Lucas said as he discussed his films and enhancing education with computer technology.

"It shows all the morality we espouse in this country, good and bad. The French were the first to start yelling cultural imperialism."

Some people in other countries are troubled by what they see as US culture "squashing" local art and cinema, Lucas said.

"I hate to say it, but television is one of the most popular exports," Lucas said.

People see shows such as "Dallas," about a wealthy Texas oil family, and decide they want the grand lifestyles portrayed, according to Lucas.

"They say that is what I want to be," Lucas said. "That destabilizes a lot of the world." ...

Yeah, it's all that "Dallas" that's destabilizing the world, and not the religious nutbars determined to blast themselves--and us--to oblivion.

You would think that a man who made his mark with a series of movies about the battle between good and evil would at least have a sense of how it operates in the real world.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:55 | link | comments (1)

A Stern rebuke: A piece in Der Spiegel Online questions the wisdom of retaining troops in Afghanistan to safeguard democracy if it exists in name only.

...The response to Western criticism of the Kabul verdict is being dismissed as a case of foreigners "meddling" in Afghanistan's "domestic affairs." This means it's high time to send a clearer message. It's not just about Abdul Rahman, who has chosen to become a Christian for reasons that are no one's business but his own. It's also about the women locked away in Afghan prisons for having been accused of adultery. It's about female students who can't walk down the street by themselves because a few male illiterates might get it into their heads to attack them. And it's about the many hundreds of thousands of Afghan women forced to live their lives behind walls -- without access to education, without the right to happiness. There is a good chance that President Hamid Karzai will pardon Abdul Rahman, as he has many of the imprisoned women, who are often convicted on bogus adultery charges made up by men who simply want to get rid of them. But this is not about mercy; it's about basic human rights. The West should insist on nothing less.

This is in no way merely a domestic matter -- it is a question of the validity of international human rights. When a Danish newspaper published a few more or less idiotic cartoons, Islamic rage flared up. Now that human lives and basic rights are at issue, we're hearing statements that could just as easily have been made during the Cold War. Back then, the phrase "domestic affairs" was invoked by the Soviet empire every time the West criticized its human rights record. What concerns Abdul Rahman and the women of Afghanistan concerns us too. And if the German army can't defend this kind of liberty in the Hindukush, then it should leave. Our soldiers have sworn allegiance to the rights enshrined in the German constitution; there's no reason to turn these soldiers into toothless operetta characters.

I'm not in favour of cutting and running, but the situation in Afghanistan does remain a cipher. Is democracy indeed starting to take root, even if it's still in the earliest stages? Or is Islamic law even now killing off the sapling? To quote Howard Stern (something I never thought I'd do, but which seems appropriate in this circumstance), "What's the dilliyo?"

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:25 | link | comments

Bad time Charlie: Guess who's jumped on the 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Bandwagon? None other than the over-sexed spawn of a TV President. From the Boston Herald:

Charlie Sheen, following in the footsteps of his politically outspoken father, Martin Sheen, has joined the chorus of conspiracy theorists who don’t believe the official version of events surrounding 9/11.

The estranged husband of Denise Richards, who is better known for his affinity for prostitutes and gambling than his Homeland Security credentials, told the GCN Radio Network he doesn’t buy the government’s explanation that “19 amateurs with box cutters (took) over four commercial airliners and (hit) 75 percent of their targets.”

The “Two and a Half Men” star, who was shooting his former sitcom “Spin City” the morning the World Trade Center towers fell, said he was immediately suspicious about the official reason given for the buildings’ collapse. After watching in horror as the South Tower was hit, he said to his brother, “call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition?”

Sheen pointed out that eyewitnesses recounted hearing what sounded like bombs and explosions coming from the basement levels of the buildings and discounted the theory that the damage to the towers’ lobbies was the result of fireballs traveling 110 feet down elevator shafts.

The father of two also questioned whether a plane actually hit the Pentagon and how President George Bush was able to see the first plane hit the north tower, when no live footage of that incident was carried.

“I guess one of the perks of being president is that you get access to TV channels that don’t exist in the known universe,” the actor-turned-pseudo-intellect quipped.

“It is up to us to reveal the truth,” Sheen asserted. “We owe it to everybody’s life who was drastically altered, horrifically that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened.”

The Herald concludes the story with this dry comment: "Excuse us if we don’t exactly feel that Charlie’s the man for that job!"

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:21 | link | comments (2)

Muslim scholars call for reconciliation: And by "reconciliation" they really mean, don't you go blaspheming our Prophet no more (i.e. no Mo blaspheming). From Islam Online:

Muslim scholars taking part in a two-day conference in Bahrain have called for the respect of all religions and agreed on the need for continued efforts to promote the truce (sic) image of Islam and Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) in the West.

Addressing the opening session late Wednesday, March 23, prominent Muslim Scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi underlined the need to respect all religions, including atheism.

He said such respect would prevent the recurrence of crises like the one triggered by the Danish caricatures which mocked Prophet Muhammad.

Al-Qaradawi, chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, urged preachers and media people to defend Prophet Muhammad by promoting his merciful teachings.

Some 300 Muslim scholars are huddling together in Manama to explore a strategy to prevent a repeat of the Prophet depiction in lampooning cartoons...

Now, if they could only get the jihadis to "defend Prophet Muhammad by promoting his merciful teachings," they might actually be on to something.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:16 | link | comments

Turning over an old leaf: Remember how pixilated Libyan potentate, Moo Moo Khadaffy, was supposed to be transforming his terror-enabling backwater into a more forward-looking, less rougue-ish nation?

Looks like old habits die hard. From the Jerusalem Post:

History was thwarted early Wednesday morning when a peace mission making its way across the Sahara Desert was refused entry into Libya due to the participation of three Israelis who were flatly denied entrance at the border.

The group of people from around the world, including four Americans, was welcome in Libya, a special representative of Libyan leader Mohmar Qadaffi told the mission as it stood on Libyan soil just five meters from the formal border crossing. But not the Israelis.

"Israel does not exist as a country, it is Palestine. We don't allow occupiers into our country," the official said. "Now I order you all to leave Libya."

Earlier, the group had decided it would not cross into Libya unless everyone was allowed in.

After being denied, the nine-person group voted to stay the night at the border and see if diplomacy and their message of goodwill to all peoples would gain them admittance Wednesday into the nation which has until now barred Israeli visitors.

As of Wednesday afternoon, it appeared those efforts had failed and the group was considering its options.

After renouncing his intentions to develop weapons of mass destruction in December of 2003, Libyan leader Mohmar Qadaffi was seen to be realigning his country with the international community after years of isolation following direct ties to terrorist activities...

Update: Looks like Khadaffy doesn't have to make any effort to change. Columbia U. likes him just the way he is, inviting him to speak today via satellite in its hallowed halls.

Update: Columbia serenades the unrepentant potentate:

Don’t go changin’
To try and please us
By thinking kindly of the Jews.
(Mmmmmmmm)
Like you we’re hoping
That those intruders
Will soon have nothing left to lose.

It’s academic
That we’re self-loathing
And think the U.S. is a beast.
(Mmmmmmmm)
We’re fairly certain
You’re in agreement
And hate us too, to say the least.

Don’t go tryin’ some new fashion.
Don’t change the shmatta on your head.
(Mmmmmmmm)
Don’t care who triumphs—
Hamas or Fatah—
Long as the Entity is dead.

We don’t want clever conversation.
Don’t think you have to work that hard.
(Mmmmmmmm)
Just want a despot
To blither on now.
We love you just the way you are…

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:50 | link | comments (2)

Laws and orders: While we continue to be told that the constitution of Afghanistan allows for freedom of religion, the Afghani courts continue to see sharia as supreme and make no such provision. From Reuters:

Afghanistan's judiciary will not bow to outside pressure over the fate of a man who faces the death penalty for converting to Christianity, a judge dealing with the case said on Thursday.

U.S. President George W. Bush said he was deeply troubled by the case of Abdur Rahman, who an Afghan judge said this week had been jailed for converting from Islam to Christianity and could face death if he refused to become a Muslim again.

Death is one of the punishments stipulated by sharia, or Islamic law, for apostasy. The Afghan legal system is based on a mix of civil and sharia law.

"Afghanistan is an Islamic country and its judiciary will act independently and neutrally," Supreme Court judge Ansarullah Mawlavizada told Reuters.

"No other policy will be accepted apart from Islamic orders and what our constitution says," Mawlavizada said, adding he was saddened by the international outcry.

The case is sensitive for President Hamid Karzai who depends on foreign troops to battle Taliban and al Qaeda militants, and aid to support the economy, but also has to take into consideration views of conservative proponents of Islamic law.

Several countries supporting Afghanistan with troops and aid, including the United States, Canada, Italy and Germany, as well as the United Nations, have raised concern about Rahman's fate and called for freedom of religion.

Rahman, 40, has yet to be formally charged.

A prosecutor has raised questions about his mental state and a cabinet minister said he would not be executed if he were found to be unstable.

Rahman told a preliminary hearing last week he became a Christian while working for an aid group helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan 15 years ago.

"I'm not an apostate. I'm obedient to God but I'm a Christian, that's my choice," Rahman told the hearing. He also said he was not mentally ill and would defend himself...

Afghanistan accepts Islamic law and freedom of religion? How does that work exactly? We'll let you practise your faith provided you're a Muslim? And if you contravene Islamic law, say by embracing some other belief system, the only way to spare you the death sentence is to label you insane, because who in their right mind would possibly reject the one true faith?

The lesson here: Sharia and democracy cannot co-exist, and when you write them into the same constitution, the religious law will inevitably win out.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:13 | link | comments

Hostages freed: After almost four months of captivity in Iraq, three hostages, members of Christian Peacemakers Teams, have been safely released in Baghdad. From USA Today:

Multinational forces freed three Western hostages early Thursday in a military operation, ending a four-month hostage drama in which an American among the group was shot to death and dumped on a Baghdad street.

There were conflicting reports on the location of the operation. The Iraqi Interior Ministry said it was believed the captives were freed in a town north of Baghdad, but a U.S. military official told Agence-France Presse the men were found west of the Iraqi capital.

British officials in Baghdad said those freed were Canadians James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32; and Briton Norman Kember, 74. The men — members of a Chicago-based Christian peace activist group — were kidnapped on Nov. 26 along with their American colleague, Tom Fox, 54, whose body was found earlier this month.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's office said he was "delighted by the news" of the trio's release. "He is particularly pleased for those released and their families. He congratulates everyone involved in the operation to rescue the hostages," Downing Street said in a statement.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he had spoken to Kember's wife Pat, who was "elated at this news."

Straw also said Kember was in "reasonable condition" in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone. The two Canadians required hospital treatment, he said, but gave no further details.

Straw also gave few details of the operation, saying only that it followed "weeks and weeks" of planning. Iraqi police Lt. Col. Falah al-Mohammedawi said it was believed the operation took place in Mishahda, 20 miles north of Baghdad.

The kidnapped men were shown as prisoners in several videos, the most recent a silent clip dated Feb. 28 in which Loney, Kember and Sooden appeared without Fox. Fox's body was found March 10 near a west Baghdad railway line with gunshot wounds to his head and chest.

The previously unknown Swords of Righteousness Brigades claimed responsibility for the kidnappings.

Peace campaigner Bruce Kent, a friend of Kember who had attended weekly vigils while he was held hostage, said their release was "news beyond belief."

"In this awful mess of Baghdad thank God there is one bright light anyway," Kent told Sky News television.

That the hostages have emerged from their ordeal in one piece (which, tragically, was not the fate of their fourth member, the American one) is indeed miraculous. But don't count on their organization--a bunch of well-meaning, soft-headed activists who believe God's work is furthered when they "get in the way"--the group's motto--to learn anything from the experience. The silly asses will continue to "get in the way" in places like Israel and Iraq, supporting the totalitarians who see them as useful idiots at best, worthless infidels at worst.

Update: Well, it didn't take long to confirm my conclusion. Here's silly ass Christian Peacemaker Bruce Kent commending his fellow Brit for going to Iraq. From the Beeb:

...But I still believe Norman was right to go to Iraq - and I don't think that he will regret having gone. And here's why.

He felt a call, a kind of vocation, to do something a bit more direct

Norman totally, bitterly, opposed the invasion of Iraq and all that was done there. He could see there were a lot of people in Iraq who were hurting and suffering, who had lost relations or been imprisoned. Whatever their nationality, our job as Christians and as people interested in peace was to offer help and consolation to people who were suffering. That was Norman's basic wish.

He also wanted to show a kind of British solidarity - to demonstrate that we were not a country which was united in favour of what had been done. It was a common Christian humanity that inspired Norman; that these were people who were suffering. He wanted to go and help.

This is not, of course, an exclusively Christian prerogative. We do not have a monopoly on compassion - in fact I think it's everyone's duty to help those who in need. But we as Christians are commanded to be concerned about the suffering and imprisonment of others - it's an explicit mandate to us...

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that while Jesus encouraged his followers to be compassionate, to console those who are suffering and empathize with their pain, he didn't require them to be stupid. And no matter how much compassion you have coursing through your veins; no matter how loud the clarion call of vocation; no matter how much you hate America and identify with the "underdog" (or at least, those whom you, foolishly, have misidentified as the underdog), seeking to aid totalitarians--the enemies of the civilization from which you spring--is just plain dumb.

Update: I posted the following comment on LGF:

I'm going to have to ingest a lot of gravol in coming days in order to stomach the reception these idiot leftist budinskies will be receiving in the mainstream press. Already they are being hailed as heroes--and for what? For assisting totalitarians? For their resolve to "get in way"--and get their sorry asses kidnapped by religious fanatics who see them as worthless infidels? For managing to survive their ordeal (three out of four of them, anyway)?

These guys aren't heroes. They're selfish, self-aggrandizing, sanctimonious fools. And it is extremely gratiying that, irony of ironies, they will be forced to acknowledge that they were rescued by "the occupiers" whom they so despise and whom they were working so hard to thwart.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:19 | link | comments

Wednesday, 22 March 2006

Paging Mr. Lincoln: Ever wonder why America's "moderate" partner in terror-fighting (but failed port purchaser), Dubai, is so stinkingly rich? Aside from the oil, I mean. Could it be because the jewel of the Gulf pays its workers such apallingly low, not to mention slave-level wages? From Breitbart.com:

Construction on a skyscraper expected to be the world's tallest was interrupted when Asian workers upset over low wages and poor treatment smashed cars and offices in a riot that an official said Wednesday caused nearly $1 million in damage.

The stoppage triggered a sympathy strike at Dubai International Airport, with thousands of laborers building a new terminal also laying down their tools, officials said.

Some 2,500 workers who are building the Burj Dubai tower and surrounding housing developments chased and beat security officers Tuesday night, smashed computers and files in offices, and destroyed about two dozen cars and construction machines, witnesses said.

The workers were angered because buses to their residential camp were delayed after their shifts, witnesses at the site said.

An Interior Ministry official who investigates labor issues, Lt. Col. Rashid Bakhit Al Jumairi, said the rioters caused almost $1 million in damage.

The workers, employed by Dubai-based construction firm Al Naboodah Laing O'Rourke, returned to the vast site Wednesday but refused to work.

Crowds of blue-garbed workers milled in the shadow of the concrete tower, now 36 stories tall, while leaders negotiated with officials from the company and the Ministry of Labor.

"Everyone is angry here. No one will work," said Khalid Farouk, 39, a laborer with Al Naboodah. Other workers said their leaders were asking for pay raises: skilled carpenters on the site earned $7.60 per day, with laborers getting $4 per day...

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:43 | link | comments

Intelligent pessimism: Ron Rosenbaum the essayist who, as the author of Understanding Hitler, knows a thing or two about genocidal Jew-haters who carry through with their stated plans to kill Jews, says its time for intelligent people to exercise some intelligent pessimism. Rosenbaum divides the world into those, like him, who take the green-aura-seeing Mahdi-man with an extreme housekeeping agenda--i.e., wiping the map clean of Jews--at his word, and those who don't. From The New York Observer:

...Some remain untroubled. There was the over-optimistic argument by M.I.T. professor Barry R. Posen in an earlier Times op-ed that the world can live with a nuclear-armed Iran, and there are those like Mr. Posen who still believe that Israel’s nuclear capability will be a “deterrent” to nuclear attack.

It’s an argument refuted by Daniel Goldhagen in an important new essay in The New Republic, in which he states that Mr. Posen “ignored [the] most obvious and devastating” counterargument to “deterrence,” which is that “[w]ith messianic leaders awaiting a promised martyrs’ place in paradise for slaughtering Islam’s enemies, deterrence and the cold war doctrine of mutually assured destruction become meaningless.” Such “rational” calculations don’t apply to those who would welcome the martyrdom that might accompany any destruction of Israel.

The further refutation of deterrence as a guarantee against a second Holocaust is that all the Iranians need to do is supply one of the bombs they will surely possess in the near future to a terrorist group not linked to any particular state. A group based in Europe, for instance.

Mr. Goldhagen, the author of Hitler’s Willing Executioners, has become one of the most important and eloquent voices indicting the world’s indifference to Iran’s explicit call for a second Holocaust for the Jews. I recommend the essays on the subject he’s written, which have appeared in the Los Angeles Times and The New York Sun.

It’s ironic that his important recent essay, “The New Threat,” in which he deals with the Iranian-bomb issue, appears in The New Republic, since, as I recall, it was some fellow in The New Republic who attacked my essay on the threat of a “second Holocaust” and scoffed at the idea that there was cause for alarm, misrepresenting the chief concern of my piece (the genocidal threat of nukes) as a response merely to the lesser threat of suicide bombers, and downplaying the Iranian threat because of Israel’s “spectacular” nuclear deterrent. In fact, he added, Jews today are the “luckiest Jews who ever lived,” apparently mistaking his own privileged situation and those of American Jews for those imperiled in the Jewish state, the ones whose situation—living in the shadow of Iranian nuclear genocidal ambitions—I was writing about...

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:33 | link | comments

Flatulent furniture: A woman who headed the department of a large school in the U.K. and resigned because of her employers' alleged sexual bias is having her case heard before an employment tribunal. Her complaint: She was subjected to undue cruelty and embarrassment because the chair she was compelled to sit in made farting sounds. From the Times Online:

THE deputy head of a large comprehensive was forced to sit in a chair that made rude noises every time she moved, an employment tribunal was told yesterday.
Sue Storer, 48, claims that her requests for a new chair were repeatedly ignored and that she was “victimised, harassed and bullied” because she was a woman.

Mrs Storer told the tribunal that her two joint deputy heads, who were both men, were given new “executive” chairs without having to ask, whereas she continually had to apologise to pupils, parents and other teachers for the noises.

She resigned from her £48,000-a-year post at Bedminster Down Secondary School in Bristol and is claiming more than £1 million, based on lost earnings and loss of pension, against Bristol City Council for constructive dismissal and sex discrimination.

Mrs Storer, who had been an art teacher for 26 years, says that she was subjected to four years of overwork, intimidation and stress after joining the 1,000-pupil school in April 2001. She said that her “farting chair” was a regular joke.

She said: “It was very embarrassing to sit on. I asked for a chair that didn’t give me a dead leg or make these very embarrassing farting sounds. It was a regular joke that my chair would make these farting sounds and I regularly had to apologise that it wasn’t me, it was my chair.”...

As I see it, that's one of the pivotal differences between a middle aged woman and a seven-year-old boy: Only one of them would be thrilled to sit on a piece of furniture that can fart.

And speaking of farts, the other day my Mother-in-Law, who was born in the U.K. but has lived in Canada for more than 50 years (although she still sounds a lot like the Queen), was asking if there might not be a better way of saying fart than by, er, saying fart.

"What's wrong with word "fart?" I asked. "Why, it's a wonderful word. It's short. Clear. Distinct. It's been around forever. It's even onomatopeic because the word sounds like what it is--a blast, an eruption, an honest, natural, no-holds-barred bodily noise. Like bum music. Like having a trumpet in your tushy."

Okay, maybe I didn't wax quite as rhapsodic as that. But the conversation did progress (or deteriorate, depending on where you stand on the fart-euphemism issue) from there. My husband reminded his Mother that when he was growing up, he and his siblings were told to refer to it as "a smell," and whenever one of them let one rip, so to speak, while they were traveling in the family car, the ensuing aroma was always blamed on "the smelly man under the seat."

A concept that would have traumatized a sensitive child like me. (As an example, I spent a fraught month after seeing Jerry Lewis in "The Nutty Professor"; the transformation as Jerry went from the nebbishy Dr. Jekyll to the "shvinging" Mr. Hyde gave me terrrible nightmares. Go figure.) In my house, for some unfathomable reason, we were instructed to call it a "pooky."

How silly is that?

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:19 | link | comments

Truth be told: Deborah Ellis, the author of "Three Wishes" the controversial book aimed at children in Grades 4 to 6, defends her work in the Toronto Star. Ms. Ellis says young children should be exposed to her book, which consists of interviews with Israeli and Palestinian children whose lives have been affected by the ongoing jihad, er, conflict, because kids are tough enough to handle "the truth":

Not all victims are equal, and not all children are equal.

We mark and mourn military deaths, but the deaths of civilians go unnamed, uncounted, and passed off as extra-collateral damage, part of the acceptable risk of achieving our objectives.

Some children are so precious, we would gladly die rather than see them harmed. Other children are considered worthy only of slavery, eating garbage, and being human punching bags.

This is the world that we, as a human community, have created. We're happy with it. If we weren't, we would have changed it, since we certainly have the ability to do so. We like being ignorant. We like being greedy, and we like having an underclass of throwaway children.

We created this mess, so why be delicate about having our handiwork reflected in our literature for young people? If children are tough enough to be bombed and starved, then they are also tough enough to read about it.

I believe anything we subject children to should be reflected in our literature for young people, limited only by the skills of the writer to present these crimes in a sensitive, respectful way. Otherwise, we are adding to the silence and the disappearance of the victims.

The books we read as children stay with us our entire lives, taking root in our minds, helping us to decide who we will become. Free access to information, to a wide variety of voices and experiences, is essential to us being able to decipher the complexities of a crazy world — and to understand that the world is complex.

I have done many school talks around my books about children in war. Kids can handle the truth about what is being done to other children. It's adults who get squeamish. They say, "We must protect our children from such things," when really they are protecting themselves from having to answer the question: "What are you doing to make the world better?"

The "truth", or rather, the version of the truth which Ms. Ellis presents in her book is the "truth" of a land dispute between two rival groups, one of whom is seen to be unnecessarily brutalizing the other, while the other is seen as having no recourse but to take out their "frustrations" by blowing up women and children--fair game since they are the "occupier" who have "stolen" their land.

Even-steven, you see. Nothing to do with the larger aspiration, as Moo Jihad so colourfully expressed it, of wiping Jews off the map. Just Israeli moppets and Palestinian moppets and the perplexing "cycle of violence" which spins them round and round, with no end in sight.

While I am not in favour of banning books, I do object to authors who claim to be objective, but who clearly have a bias. Ms. Ellis is such an author. Despite her efforts to maintain a pretence of fairness, there is no disguising the fact that her heart is with the Palestinians, those oppressed refugees who, like E.T., just want to go home. And I would venture to say that those library officials and others who defend her book because they think it's so important for children to read about the "feelings" of youngsters caught up in this endless struggle (endless, that is, until the jihadis prevail) would claim to be as unbiased as the author, but actually harbour the same biases.

What Ms. Ellis has done is proffer "feelings" at the expense of truth. And she has gotten away with--and even been praised for--it because in our Oprahfied, over-therapized culture, "feelings" trump all.

Like Ms. Ellis, I believe that, at the appropriate age, children are hardy enough to be told the truth; I have a seven-year-old son who knows that Jews were killed during something called the Holocaust. The problem is, who's doing the telling, and what sort of truth are they being told?

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:00 | link | comments

Jihad in Old Blighty: People going about their business. Out with the kids. Shopping. Strolling. Eating. Then an unwelcome intruder who's "agrieved" or "humiliated" or who simply despises the idea there yet exists a multitude of people who have not embraced the Prophet, steps onto the scene blows them all to smithereens.

Netanya? Tel Aviv? Aman?

How about pip, pip, cheerio, Jolly Old?

Welcome to your present and future, G.B.:

Seven British al Qa'eda supporters claimed a nightclub was a legitimate target because of "all the slags dancing around", a court heard today.

And the gang wanted to blow up a massive shopping centre full of families on a busy Saturday to make an "impact" similar to the Madrid commuter train bombings, the Old Bailey was told.

Bluewater in Kent was identified as a potential target and the terrorist cell were keen to set off a massive fertiliser bomb quickly in the aftermath of the bombings of commuter trains in the Spanish capital by al Qa'eda that left nearly 200 people dead.

The group also discussed targetting a central London nightclub and said the target was justified and the clubbers were not "innocent" because of "all the slags dancing around."

The potential targets were picked up during the secret bugging of the cell's conversations by the security services and anti-terror police who put two of the alleged defendants under surveillance from February 2004, the court heard.

Omar Khyam, 24, had travelled to Pakistan and had attended terror training camps on handling explosives while Jawad Akbar, 22, had claimed to be working for the terror group's "number three" Abdul Hadi, the court heard.

The British nationals, of Pakistani descent, were then alleged to have gathered more than half a tonne of ammonium nitrate fertiliser for their campaign.

But the plot was smashed after more than 700 anti-terror police swooped on a west London storage depot and discovered the fertiliser, which could be detonated to cause a deadly explosion in 2004.

The seven, the majority from Crawley in West Sussex, were arrested on March 30 2004, a week before two of the alleged plotters were to fly to Pakistan...

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:10 | link | comments

Iffy in Afghanistan: Here's an excerpt from a press conference with Afghanistan's Foreign Minister, Abdullah Abdullah, and Foggy Bottom's #3 man, Under Secretary Nicholas Burns. The officials fielded questions about the man facing prosecution and a possible death sentence for converting from Islam to Christianity and how this accorded with religious freedom as outlined in Afghanistan's constitution. You'll notice some fancy tap dancing by the Under Secretary, as he deftly sidesteps the question of whether sharia law--which requires prosecution for the "crime" of apostasy--is enshrined in their constitution. From USA Today:

QUESTION: (inaudible) wide ranging talks. Did you have occasion to take up with the Minister the prosecution of an Afghan citizen and possible death sentence for converting to Christianity? And Mr. Minister, is that representative of the type of government, the type of society that the United States has committed itself to helping Afghanistan achieve, that somebody could be prosecuted and possibly killed for his religious beliefs?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Barry, I'll be happy to answer that question first and then have the Minister say a few words. We did discuss the case of Mr. Abdul Rahman. And I said on behalf of our government that we hope very much the judicial case, which we understand is now underway, would be held in a transparent way. And of course, as our government is a great supporter of freedom of religion and as the Afghan constitution affords freedom of religion to all Afghan citizens, we hope very much that those rights, the right of freedom of religion will be upheld in Afghan court. And so I said that we would follow the case closely through our ambassador and our Embassy in Kabul and we would certainly continue our dialogue on this issue with the Afghan authorities.

FOREIGN MINISTER ABDULLAH: Thank you. Of course on this issue, I was informed about it during my trip -- the day before yesterday, and we discussed it here. We know -- I know that it is a very sensitive issue and we know the concerns of the American people. In fact, in our embassy we received hundreds of messages of such kind. As far as I understand the nature of the case has been that the wife of the gentleman has registered a lawsuit against her husband. And then the Government of Afghanistan has nothing to do in it. It's a legal and judicial case. But I hope that through our constitutional process there will be a satisfactory result out of that process.

QUESTION: Follow up on that?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Sure.

QUESTION: What will be a satisfactory outcome for you --

FOREIGN MINISTER ABDULLAH: I'm not an expert on judicial cases, but I'm sure that the guideline for our judicial system will be constitution of Afghanistan.

QUESTION: Could you respond to that and is this acceptable or unacceptable for that man to be put to death for converting his religion?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: Well, certainly from an American viewpoint, certainly not. We believe in universal freedoms and freedom of religion is one of them. But I should also note more particularly and concerning this case, that the Afghan constitution, as we understand it, also provides for freedom of religion. And so from an American viewpoint, while we understand the complexity of a case like this and we certainly will respect the sovereignty of the Afghan authorities and the Afghan system. From an American point of view, people should be free to choose their own religion and people should not receive any severe penalties, certainly not penalty of death or, in our case, we would even say penalty of imprisonment for having made a personal choice as to what religion that person wishes to follow.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that just to ask why the United States isn't calling for this man to be released? If it was any other country, if it was China, I'm sure you would. Why in this case are you not prepared to just say plainly that this is wrong and this person should be released?

UNDER SECRETARY BURNS: I think I gave you a fairly straightforward answer to the last question in particular and I'm happy to do that again if that satisfies your need. But you know, this is a case that is not under the competence of the United States. It's under the competence of the Afghan authorities. And so we raised it with the Minister. We put our view forward that our belief is in freedom of religion for all individuals. And if there is to be a trial, we hope that it's going to be transparent so all of you and we can observe that trial. And we hope that the Afghan constitution is going to be upheld. And in our view, if it's upheld, then, of course, he'll be found to be innocent. If he has a right of freedom of religion, that ought to be respected.

If the right to religious freedom is written into the constituion, and if that right is upheld, and if he's found innocent--that seems like a few too many ifs to ensure that the unfortunate Mr. Rahman will emerge from this ordeal with life and limb intact.

An impassioned Michelle Malkin has more to say on the subject. Where, she asks, are the voices of outrage--on the left and the right? From RealClear Politics:

...This is a watershed moment in the post-Sept. 11 world. The Taliban are out of power. And yet today, an innocent man sits in the jail of a "moderate" Muslim nation praying for his life because he owned a Bible and refuses to renounce his Christian faith. Rahman, who converted many years ago while working for a Christian aid agency in Germany, "is standing by his words," fellow jail inmate Sayad Miakel told Canada's Globe and Mail. Another cellmate, Khalylullah Safi, reported: "He keeps looking up to the sky, to God."

As of Tuesday afternoon, left-wing Amnesty International had nothing to say about the case. But neither did President Bush, a man of faith and a Christian brother. During his extensive White House press conference on the War on Terror and the defense of freedom overseas, Bush spent plenty of time describing what life was like for Afghanis before Operation Enduring Freedom:

"There was no such thing as religious freedom. There was no such thing as being able to express yourself in the public square. There was no such thing as press conferences like this. They were totalitarian in their view. And that would be -- I'm referring to the Taliban, of course. And that's how they would like to run government. They rule by intimidation and fear, by death and destruction. And the United States of America must take this threat seriously and must not -- must never forget the natural rights that formed our country."

President Bush, who will defend Abdul Rahman's natural rights from being usurped and terminated by Afghanistan's Islamic executioners?

Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council raises the unpleasant question Bush evaded and no one in the White House press corps bothered to ask: "How can we congratulate ourselves for liberating Afghanistan from the rule of jihadists only to be ruled by Islamists who kill Christians? . . . President Bush should immediately send Vice President Cheney or Secretary Rice to Kabul to read [Afghan President] Hamid Karzai's government the riot act. Americans will not give their blood and treasure to prop up new Islamic fundamentalist regimes. Democracy is more than purple thumbs."

Embarrassingly, the governments of Italy and Germany have already stepped forward to make direct appeals to Karzai to save Rahman's life. Hamid Karzai has ducked the issue so far. Our feckless State Department is "monitoring" the situation.

If we sit on the sidelines and watch this man "cut into little pieces" for his love of Christ, we do not deserve the legacy of liberty our Founding Fathers left us. How about offering Rahman asylum in the United States? Perhaps Yale University, proud sponsor of former Taliban official Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, can offer Rahman a scholarship. Where's the Catholic Church, so quick to offer sanctuary to every last illegal alien streaming across the borders? And how about Hollywood, so quick to take up the cause of every last Death Row inmate?

Hello, anyone, hello?

Update: Andrew Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad, explains why constitutions grounded in Islamic law are antithetical to the basic concepts of democracy.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:55 | link | comments

Tuesday, 21 March 2006

Today's oxymoron--Islamic democracy: I'm so glad Canadians are putting their lives on the line to ensure that Afghanistan continues down the path of democracy. Unfortunately, it seems to be that modified, Islamic form of democracy in which sharia is supreme and men are condemned to death for the "crime" of converting to another religion. From Islam Online:

...Abdur Rahman, 41, was arrested last month after his relatives reported his conversion to Christianity to the police.

The man, who converted 16 years ago as an aid worker helping refugees in Pakistan, is now on trial and could face the death penalty if refusing to revert to Islam.

Germany earlier condemned the persecution of Rahman as "intolerable" and appealed to Afghan President Hamid Karzai to save him from the death penalty, citing his right to religious freedom.

The United States is watching the trial closely as a test of democracy and religious freedom for the Kabul government, one of its key allies.

"Our view certainly ... is that tolerance, freedom of worship, is an important element of any democracy," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Monday.

Afghanistan's constitution states: "No law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam."

Prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi had said that all Muslim jurists agree that the apostate is to be punished. However, they differ regarding the punishment itself.

Well-known Azharite scholar Sheikh `Abdul-Majeed Subh had said that the punishment for apostasy is dependent on the public interest of the Muslim nation and the assessment of scholars to each case.

"If the apostate does not harm the Muslim society, there may be no need for killing him."

How tolerant.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:58 | link | comments

"That was great for me, honey. Can you pass me a ciggie?" "Sorry, snookums, we're all out. How 'bout an acorn?": The Ontario government is spending a heap o' cash to study the sex life of the some squirrels, and Tory leader John Tory (yes, that's his real name) is hopping mad. From the CBC:

A $150,000 grant to study the mating habits of flying squirrels should be stopped in mid-flight, Ontario Conservative Leader John Tory says.

The provincial government recently committed to fund the Laurentian University study, which will examine the effects of global warming on the procreation of northern flying squirrels.

Tory says the decision, in a province where health-care costs are spiralling, is out of touch with the needs of Ontario residents.

"Funding for research on the sex life of the squirrel is not more important than funding more nurses," Tory said, calling the project "trivial."

Tory acknowledges that academic freedom is important, but argues that the government and the public shouldn't have to support this particular research.

Given the choice, Tory said, taxpayers would redirect the squirrel study funding to health care, balancing the budget or cutting taxes.

The ecologist heading the study says Tory doesn't know what he's talking about.

"It's complete crap," said Prof. Albrecht Schulte-Hostedde, who is based in Sudbury. "It's pretty clear that he is trying to score political points.

"My research is not a Dave Letterman joke." ...

No, more like a stupid pet trick.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:47 | link | comments

Red Ken steps in it again: London's idiot Lord Mayor, Ken Livingstone, is shooting off his mouth again. This time he's accused two Jewish brothers involved in developing London's Olympic site of creating "a poisonous state of relations" with the project's builders and has advised them that if they continued to be disatisfied with how the project was proceeding they could "go back to Iran and try it under the Ayatollahs." (The brothers, David and Simon Rueben, were born in India of Iranian parents, but have lived in the U.K. for forty years). From the Jerusalem Post:

...The mayor's "latest anti-Semitic remark" was "shocking, outrageous and grossly offensive to the entire Jewish community" the London Assembly's Conservative Group said in a press statement.

"The mayor is anti-Semitic and we know that in London" Brian Coleman, Assembly Member for Barnet and Camden (Conservative), told The Jerusalem Post. "This is the most extreme remark he has made" and suggested his remarks "adds fuel to the fire" and may land him before the civil service panel again, he said.

"This was an appalling thing" for the mayor to say, Jon Benjamin, chief executive officer of the Board of Deputies of British Jews told the Post.

Benjamin said the Board hoped the mayor would reflect on the wisdom of his words, "but it will be interesting to see what his reaction is."

"To say to first and second generation immigrants to Britain that they should 'go back to where they came from', that is the kind of language one would expect from one end of the political spectrum," Benjamin said. Livingstone's "picking on the race or religion or ethnic origin of someone in a dispute" he said was "not acceptable" civic discourse Benjamin argued...

The truest test of whether Ken's comment was indeed anti-Semitic: Can you imagine him making a similar remark to a Muslim?

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:37 | link | comments

Malevolent benevolence: In keeping with their plan to wipe all trace of the Jewish presence of the map of the Middle East, the Islamic dystopia is putting its money where its mouth is. To be specific, according to Turkey's Zaman Online, Iran is funding jihadi terror outfit Islamic Jihad.

Very generous of you, Moo. But what about all those starving women and children in Gaza?

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:02 | link | comments

The EU rides to the rescue: Since Israel has refused to fork over the shekels to Hamas--something about not wanting to fund the efforts of genocidal jihadis--the EU is riding to the rescue in order to stave off a promised humanitarian crisis. From israelinsider:

The EU handed the United Nations a check Monday for US$78 million in urgent aid for destitute Palestinians in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, but warned future aid is at risk unless the incoming Hamas government commits to peace.

The money, given to the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, is half of a one-off, emergency deal agreed last month. The European Union aid package is meant to prevent the collapse of the Palestinian Authority after Israel cut off about US$50 million a month in tax revenues it collects for the Palestinians.

EU foreign ministers met Monday to discuss the future of the bloc's foreign aid program - worth more than US$600 million a year - for the Palestinians.

The ministers repeated Europe's readiness to continue the assistance only if a Hamas government recognizes Israel and past Israeli-Palestinian accords and commits to the peace process, officials said.

The violent Islamic group, which won Jan. 25 parliamentary elections, has been blacklisted by the EU as a terrorist group. Hamas nominated its Cabinet on Sunday and its government is expected to be sworn in within weeks.

"Hamas is at a crossroads," said Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik, who led the foreign ministers meeting.

She urged the group "to become a constructive force and meet the justified expectations" of Palestinians who rely on EU aid for their economic development.

"We are not asking for the moon," said EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, echoing a stock phrase Yasser Arafat often used to characterize the Palestinians' quest for statehood. "We are asking for something very reasonable."

I'm sure the UN will endeavor--as it always has--to keep the money from falling into the hands of terrorists. And, as always, the UN will fail.

As for the notion that the Palestinians' quest for statehood is not like "asking for the moon"--maybe not, but asking Hamas to become "a constructive force" definitely is.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:51 | link | comments

Today's most egregiously obvious headline: From ABC News--Roommate says Moussaoui focused on jihad.

No kidding. I thought for sure he'd be focused on knitting, hockey scores and the latest novel in Oprah's book club.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:42 | link | comments

Monday, 20 March 2006

Jew flu: Apparently, Allah has sent the scourge of bird flu into Israel in order to punish the Jews--for not being Muslims. From YNet news:

The bird-flu virus found in Israel last week was sent by Allah to punish the Jews for being "the worst of humanity" and is the beginning of the outbreak of other diseases meant to destroy the Jewish state within the next 20 years, a Gaza preacher said at mosque services this weekend.

Sheikh Abu Muhammed, an imam at the popular Al-Tadwa mosque in Beit Lahia north of Gaza City, went on to ask Muslims at his Friday night sermon to pray for the sexual organs of Jews to "dry out" so they cannot reproduce, a Palestinian in attendance at the mosque services told WorldNetDaily.

"Praise Allah the bird flu has hit the Jews. It came because of their sins against the Palestinians; because they are the most cruel enemy of humanity; because they are themselves the enemy of humanity; because they don't believe in Allah; because they falsify the book of Allah; because they cheated the prophet Muhammed; and because they cheated Allah and even their own prophet, Moses," Sheikh Muhammed was quoted as saying.

"This bird flu will be the beginning of diseases which will hit the nonbelievers. Please Allah keep hitting the enemy with more diseases. This is no doubt the beginning of the end of the Israelis. Like (late Hamas spiritual leader) Sheikh Yassin said, 2025 will be the end of Jews. This (bird flu) is the sign," said Sheikh Muhammed, according to congregants...

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:30 | link | comments (1)

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes?: Michael Herzog, a Brigadier General in the Israeli army, poses a timely question in the journal Foreign Affairs: Can Hamas be Tamed? Meaning, will the exigencies of power--you know, like filling in all those potholes in Gaza--have the effect of transforming a group of genocidal jihadis devoted to Israel's destruction into a group of less obvious genocidal jihadis, like, say, Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah, who were willing to put their ambitions on hold long enough to yammer about peace and at least pretend to toddle down a road map to Nowheresville?

One can glean from the brief except of the Brig-Gen's article that's available online that the probable answer--quel surprise--is "no, they won't":

Much has happened in the decade between the first parliamentary elections for the Palestinian Authority (PA), in 1996, and the second, this year. The Oslo peace process staggered forward and then collapsed; a second Palestinian intifada raged and subsided; Israel erected a barrier fence along part of the West Bank and withdrew from Gaza; and Yasir Arafat, the founder and personification of Palestinian nationalism, passed from the scene. Meanwhile, Hamas -- the largest Islamist group in the Palestinian community -- continued its march into the political arena. Having boycotted the first elections, it campaigned vigorously in the second, and with its stunning victory in January, now stands poised to play a major role in Palestinian governance.

Hamas' involvement in the democratic process may strike many as a profound irony. After all, the group fields a private army, embraces violence as a political tool, regularly orchestrates terrorist attacks, and is dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamist state ruling the territory of Israel and the PA. Granting Hamas legitimate political status and access to the prerogatives of state power seems to be asking for trouble.

A number of optimistic observers argue, however, that this concern is overblown. It is precisely the burdens and responsibilities that come with democratic politics, they claim, that will tame Hamas. After all, as the Carnegie Endowment's Marina Ottaway wrote last summer, "There is ample evidence that participation in an electoral process forces any party, regardless of ideology, to moderate its position if it wants to attract voters in large numbers." Once trapped in a normal political mode, these observers argue, Hamas will have to answer to a more diverse array of constituencies and either deliver practical results or risk being marginalized for failing to do so. Hamas will thus effectively be forced to sheathe its sword and behave. Instead of being concerned about Hamas' new role, the optimists contend, outsiders should actually welcome it as the most likely catalyst for moving the group's focus from radical rejectionism to mainstream politics.

The logic behind such a theoretical evolution is solid, and there are indeed examples of nondemocratic political actors making the journey to respectability through participation in routine democratic processes. The problem is that few of these examples have much in common with Hamas -- and those that do are much less encouraging. For all the confident assertions that everything will be fine, comparative analysis suggests skepticism is in order about whether the conditions are ripe for Hamas to be co-opted by its political participation or if instead Hamas will simply use political participation as another vehicle for pursuing its alarming core objectives. What the political inclusion of Hamas has really started, in other words, is a momentous experiment -- the results of which will have a major impact on the future of Palestine, Israel, and the Middle East at large...

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:13 | link | comments

Oh Lordy, not another one: The chief Rabbi of Israel is calling for the establishment of a "United Nations" of religions.

As if the United Nations of nations isn't bad enough. From the BBC:

The Chief Rabbi of Israel, Yona Metzger, has called for the creation of a world body with representatives from the major religious groups.

Rabbi Metzger was addressing the International Congress of Imams and Rabbis for Peace in Seville, Spain.

He called for the formation of a "United Nations of religious groups".

The Imam of Gaza, Imad al-Faluji, said politicians lied but religious leaders had a different objective - to work towards a higher good.

The imams and rabbis at this conference, which opened on Sunday, say the world is in crisis and it is time they acted to restore justice, respect and peace.

Straight talking

The delegates have made it very clear that now is the time for concrete initiatives.

At the opening ceremony Rabbi Yona Metzger said his idea of a "United Nations of religious groups" could "bring a bridge between religions to help the bridge of the diplomatic way".

That plan has broad support from key participants like Frederico Major, the co-president of the Alliance for Civilisations, the lobby group for international conflict resolution, supported by the United Nations and initiated by Spain's Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

The speeches at this conference rather than using polite, diplomatic language have at times been brutally direct. When the Rabbi Metzger harangued mainstream Muslims for not standing up to Osama bin Laden, Islamic leaders nodded in agreement.

Both Muslim and Jewish leaders have shown a preparedness to take criticism.

There have also been strong expressions of opposition to any killing in the name of religion.

At the end of the opening ceremony, the Muslim delegation sang an oration to the Prophet Mohammed before resuming discussions about the ideas they plan to present to their Jewish counterparts.

The religious leaders have three days to come up with a manifesto that aims to convert their words into actions.

Good luck with that one, folks. I think you might need a little divine intervention.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:04 | link | comments

Sunday, 19 March 2006

Rosencranz and Guildenstern are dhimmis: British playwright Tom Stoppard argues that absolute freedom of speech is not a right, nor is it desirable. From The Guardian:

...A "human right" is, by definition, timeless. It cannot adhere to some societies and not others, at some times and not at other times. But the whole parcel of liberties into which free expression fits has a history. To St Augustine, religious tolerance would have been an oxymoron. The concept of pluralism as a virtue is a thousand years more modern than St Augustine. To say, therefore, that the right of free speech was always a human right which in unenlightened societies was suspended from the year dot until our enlightened times is surely beyond even our capacity for condescension.

Nevertheless, we are relatively enlightened, let's say, we western liberals, and when we aver that free expression is, with or without exceptions, desirable, we mean more than that it is congenial to western liberalism. To use an old-fashioned phrase, we mean that it is good in itself. How can we support this idea, other than pragmatically?

Freedom of speech as a standalone "right" is a ghost, the flip side of inherent human rights being unintelligible: that is, you have no inherent right to limit my freedom of speech, therefore I have the right of freedom of speech.

Now things are looking even worse for the western liberal shibboleth.

Freedom of speech, far from being an absolute, a given, seems to have less to do with rights than with rules. But that's the good news. Now we can avoid the clash of absolutes, the endless, enervating, futile confrontation of irresistible forces and immovable objects. How did the concept of free speech as an inherent human right get into such a mess? It did so because we persist in the notion of a "right" as something to be claimed rather than accorded. While claim and counter-claim are presented as absolutes, this is a debate that not only will have no resolution but cannot have a resolution...

I could be way off base here, but Tom seems to be advocating that we hold our tongues about 'toons and other issues likely to rouse the faithful in order to avoid the endless, enervating, futile, messy clash of civilizations, er, absolutes. In other words, that we embrace our dhimmitude in the name of quietude.

Seems to me that's what the faithful are hoping for, too.

Ironic that someone who was born in Czechoslovakia and who despised the constraints on free expression imposed by Communist totalitarianism seems to be beseeching people to be "pragmatic" and accept another kind of totalitarism.

To echo the title of one of Stoppard's most acclaimed plays, that's a genuine "travesty."

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:21 | link | comments

Duh!: Today's most pointless iteration of the obvious: this canada.com headline which notes "Moderates absent from Hamas cabinet."

No shite. I was sure they were going to slip in at least a couple of moderates, just to throw us a curve.

Also absent from the Hamas cabinet (though not mentioned in the article):

ventriloquists;
matzah bakers;
symphony orchestra conductors;
insurance salesmen;
belly dancers;
accordian players.

I was going to include snake charmers and contortionists, but I think there may actually be a few of them among the immoderate throng.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:42 | link | comments

Open to interpretation: The Times Online has a piece about the brave individuals--all women--in the forefront of stirring up debate about Islam (including Dr. Wafa Sultan, the mouthy chick who set the Muslim world in a tizzy when she appeared on Al Jazeera TV and compared Muslims unfavourably with Jews). The article explains what prompted Dr. Sultan to reconsider Islam's teachings:

Sultan never imagined her life would take this path. She was born to a large middle-class family in the Syrian port city of Banias. Her father was a grain trader, her mother a housewife. She has nine brothers and sisters. The family was devoutly Muslim and Sultan, who studied medicine at the University of Aleppo in Damascus, says she never had any reason to doubt her faith. But in 1979, when she was a student, she witnessed a horrifying crime. As she stood chatting with some other students on the university courtyard, armed members of the Muslim Brotherhood began shooting at one of her teachers, killing him on the spot.
“They filled his body with bullets as they shouted ‘Allahu akbar! Allahu akbar! (God is greatest!)’,” she recalls. She says they killed him because he was an Alawite, a member of the same Muslim sect as the Syrian president Hafez al-Assad, whom they wanted to overthrow, even though he had nothing to do with politics.

“This was the turning point of my life,” says Sultan. She began to reread the Koran closely, gradually coming to the conclusion that the violence and oppression of most Muslim governments and some of those fighting against them stemmed directly from the teachings of Islam.

“I began to question every single teaching,” she says. She noticed that “there are too many verses in the Koran which say you must kill those who are non-Muslim; you must kill those who don’t believe in Allah and his messenger. I started to ask: is this right? Is this human? All our problems in the Islamic world, I strongly believe, are the natural outcome of these teachings. Go open any book in any class in any school in any Islamic country and read it. You will see what kind of teachings we have: Islam tells its followers that every non-Muslim is your enemy.”...

That's funny. Just last evening on a local cable show, I heard an imam aver that "Islam" means peace. I guess he and Dr. Sultan must have been talking about different Islams.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:10 | link | comments

The fathers of invention: Did you know they invented dental floss and gromets and soap-on-a-rope and those little things on the end of shoelaces--what are they called?--and all-U-can-eat-buffets, and kleenex and ju jubes and fire and numbers and...From aljazeera.net:

A cup of coffee, windmills, carpets, soap and the fountain pen, what do they all have in common? Apparently they were all invented by Muslims.

Muslims have invented everything from surgical instruments to the camera, according to an exhibition touring Britain.

One inventor featured is Ibn Hazm, an Andalusian astronomer the exhibition credits with proving that the world was round 500 years before Galileo made his discovery.

The exhibition opened this month in Manchester and aims to uncover the lost history of Muslim science and invention.

The exhibition, 1001 Inventions: Discover the Muslim Heritage In Our World, now showing at the Manchester Museum of Science & Industry, features some of the best-kept secrets and scientific contributions by ancient Muslim scholars to much of the Western civilisation and the world now.

Professor Salim Al-Hassani, chairman of the Foundation for Science, Technology and Civilisation (FSTC), which organised the exhibition, said: "The extent to which Muslims have contributed to Western civilisation is not generally well known. Yet these ancient scholars from the Islamic world gave us many of the everyday things we use such as coffee, soap and clocks.

"This exhibition shows that Muslims have always shared the heritage that provides a platform for developments that makes the Western world tick."..

"Developments that make the Western world tick"--and explode.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:42 | link | comments (1)

Saturday, 18 March 2006

Dame Anita sells out--again: Anita Roddick is selling her smelly, "ethical" cosmetics empire, The Body Shop, to L'Oreal for a reported 652 million pounds (or it it euros?).

This marks the second time Dame Anita has sold out. The first time was when she awarded a substantial amount of prize money to a Palestinian organization working for the "right of return"; i.e. the "right" of Arabs not born in Israel to return and "Arabize" the place through sheer numbers.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:39 | link | comments (1)

Yammering with Islamic fascists: The lead editorial in The National Post urges the U.S. to take Iran up on its offer to yammer away about its nuclear plans:

In late 2002, the Bush administration released a National Security Strategy report emphasizing America's right to launch pre-emptive military strikes against rogue states and terrorist groups. That now-famous document mentioned Iran exactly once -- and even then, only in the context of its participation in the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

What a difference three and a half years make. This week, the White House released its updated National Security Strategy. In it, the word Iran appears no fewer than 16 times, including in this sentence: "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran."

Whether or not "we" is taken to mean America or the entire free world, that rings true. Iran is not only seeking nuclear weapons, it is also destabilizing Lebanon with its Hezbollah proxy, supporting Palestinian terrorist groups, fuelling Shiite militancy in Iraq and urging that Israel be "wiped off the map." Kim Jong-Il may be a nuke-armed lunatic. But given the sheer range of Iran's bellicose ambitions, North Korea seems the paler threat at the moment.

It would be nice if the United States and its allies could walk into Tehran tomorrow and cast out the mad mullahs. Most Iranians, who have as much contempt for their backward-looking Islamist government as does the Bush administration, would no doubt welcome their ouster. But even putting aside the fact that the U.S. military is already overstretched, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Iran is not Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It is a far larger country and has a far more lethal army. Moreover, Iran produces 5% of the world's oil (as opposed to Iraq's 3%), which means it has the power to send oil prices into triple digits merely by turning off its own spigots. All told, Iran is regrettably correct when it boasts it has the ability to inflict "harm and pain" on the United States.

One of the Bush administration's trademarks is an aversion to face-to-face dialogue with its enemies. As a matter of principle, this makes sense: Dialogue leads to negotiation, which can lead to appeasement, which in turn carries the risk of more threats. But where no military solution is possible -- as in the case of North Korea and Iran -- such a "principled" approach can amount to doing nothing, or close to it.

Which brings us to recent news. On Thursday, a top Iranian official declared that his country was ready to open direct talks with Washington. While the subject matter would be confined to Iraq for now, the gesture is a significant landmark in U.S.-Iranian relations, which have been almost non-existent since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

Iran's gesture makes sense. The fact is that, for all Tehran's bluster, there are signs of moderation and division among Iran's elite. Persian nationalism notwithstanding, Iranians are tired of being treated like global pariahs -- a status that would be exacerbated if, as we expect and hope, the nation is censured by the UN Security Council in coming days. According to a New York Times article published this week, even some senior Iranian government officials are beginning to ask whether a more conciliatory approach with the West wouldn't be in the country's best interests...

The most foolish paragraph in this wrong-headed editiorial is probably the final one, which holds that "Cynics will argue" that Ahmadinejad and the mully-bullies want to flex their muscles and erase Jews from the map, but that the U.S. should open talks because it will look bad to Iran's "disgruntled masses" if it doesn't.

Tortured logic, to say the least. And torture is what's likely in store for any "ordinary" Iranians amd unnamed "senior officials" (if such concilliatory people indeed exist and aren't merely a figment of a Post editorial and an article in the New York Times) who dare express their desire for concilliation.

In any case, these folks, whether gruntled or not, have no power; Ahmadinejad and the meshuganers do. So what's the point of more fruitless yammering?

Remember all those Iranian students who were said to be fed up with living in an Islamic dystopia and were getting set, any moment now, just you wait and see if they don't, to overthrow the mullahs and set up a democracy. Whatever happened to them?

I guess they're still at the front of the line, with the "disgruntled masses" and "senior officials" bringing up the rear. And no more able or likely to throw off their shackles than they were when the Western media first brought them to our attention.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:35 | link | comments

Explaining the veil: A Muslim woman, a PhD candidate at a Swedish university, explains why Muslim men want women to cover up. It all stems from a primitive fear of female sexuality and the "chaos" they think it will unleash unless it is controlled. From Axess (link via butterflies and wheels):

...ISLAM MAINTAINS a hierarchical and clearly heterosexual understanding of sexuality. The recognition and glorification of sexual enjoyment becomes particularly problematical and sensitive when it comes to women’s sexuality. The Islamic understanding of sexuality and sexual enjoyment limits women’s opportunities of achieving sexual autonomy. It is an approach to women’ sexuality that is full of contradictions and paradoxes. One of the clearest phenomena is that women’s sexuality is unequivocally described as seductive. Women’s sexuality is regarded as fitna (that which seduces, which creates disorder). The seductive power is reflected in laws and prohibitions aimed at supporting men’s power and control over women’s bodies and sexual desires. For this reason a woman should conceal her body. She must not arouse the man’s desires, as this would create disorder in society. Disciplining sexuality in the name of civilization symbolises the maintenance of an Islamic collective moral, which advocates a social rather than individual morality. Therefore society becomes responsible for governing everybody’s conduct to “enforce the good and prohibit the evil” (a well-known Islamic regulatory code). Thus to avoid sexual temptation, collective moral imperatives control and contain sexual practices and desire. It is this view that underlies the prescriptions about women’s “modest dress.” Women should cover their beauty in order to prevent social chaos.

Controversy surrounds the origin of veiling. Although no evidence supports the claim that the veil is an Islamic invention, Islam has had a major impact on its practice and its institutionalisation by the state. Probably for this reason, women from and within Islamic backgrounds nowadays compose the majority of all veiled women in the world. While the veil appears under different names and in various forms in different societies, its primary purpose seems consistent: to cover women’s bodies. Varying distinctions are usually based on the fabric, size and the extent of overall coverage. Some items cover only the head and neck while others cover the face as well.

Through substantial discursive analysis of the history of gender in Muslim societies, Leila Ahmed in Women and Gender in Islam disentangles the reality of whether Islam as an establishment improved or harmed the condition of women. By tracing the misogynist practices in Islamic societies before and after the rise of Islam, she concludes that women’s experience and economic activities differed across class and from urban to rural contexts. She also indicates that the rules as to who had to wear veil and who did not were carefully detailed in Syrian Law: “The veil served not merely to mark the upper classes but, more fundamentally, to differentiate between

“respectable” women and those who were publicly available. That is, use of the veil classified women according to their sexual activity and signalled to men which women were under male protection and which were fair game… [This] was fundamental to the patriarchal system and, second, that woman took their place in the class hierarchy on the basis of their relationship (or absence of such) to the men who protected them and on the basis of their sexual activity."...

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:50 | link | comments

Soft-spoken CBS: Hamas has announced the roster of hardline genocidal jihadis who will fill its Cabinet positions. CBS News, which has a penchant for stating the obvious in an idiotic way, refers to this as a government that's lacking in "soft edges."

Memo to CBS: generally speaking, "softness" isn't an attribute that commands much respect among totalitarian religious fanatics. They prefer sharpness and hardness, the qualities of edges they use to slice off infidels' heads.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:15 | link | comments

Irshad Manji on "The Wall": No, not the Western Wall; the "Wall" that cuts Palestinian orchards in two and complicates the lives of ordinary Palestinians. Though she understands why the barrier was built, she understands the "pain" of those whose lives it has sundered, along with the "humiliation" of seeing Jewish newcomers being welcomed into an area where their own people have dwelled for generations. From the New York Times:

...I appreciate that Israel's intent is not to keep Palestinians "in" so much as to keep suicide bombers "out." But in the minds of many Palestinians, Ariel Sharon never adequately acknowledged the humiliation felt by a 60-year-old Arab whose family has harvested the Holy Land for generations when she has to show her identity card to an 18-year-old Ethiopian immigrant in an Israeli Army uniform who's been in the country for eight months. In that context, fences and walls come off as cruelly gratuitous.

For all the closings, however, Israel is open enough to tolerate lawsuits by civil society groups who despise every mile of the barrier. Mr. Sharon himself agreed to reroute sections of it when the Israel High Court ruled in favor of the complainants. Where else in the Middle East can Arabs and Jews work together so visibly to contest, and change, state policies?

I reflected on this question as I observed an Israeli Army jeep patrol the gap in Abu Dis. The vehicle was crammed with soldiers who, in turn, observed me filming the anti-Israel graffiti scrawled by Western activists — "Scotland hates the blood-sucking Zionists!" I turned my video camera on the soldiers. Nobody ordered me to shut it off or show the tape. My Arab taxi driver stood by, unprotected by a diplomatic license plate or press banner.

Like all Muslims, I look forward to the day when neither the jeep nor the wall is in Abu Dis. So will we tell the self-appointed martyrs of Islam that the people — not just Arabs, but Arabs and Jews — "are one"? That before the barrier, there was the bomber? And that the barrier can be dismantled, but the bomber's victims are gone forever? ...

A 60-year-old Arab woman having to account for herself to a newly-arrived black Jew: That is humiliating; in Darfur, Arabs have an effective way of dealing with unwelcome darkies. But even were the barrier to be torn down tomorrow, her humiliation would continue because, in her mind and in the minds of other Arabs, uppity dhimmis would still be exercising sovereignty over a piece of Dar al Islam. That larger humiliation--the "context" for the current conflict--transcends fences and walls, and can only be redressed through the obliteration of the Jewish state.

Ms. Manji says that, like all Muslims, she looks forward to the day when the fence is no more. But many of those Muslims--even if she doesn't count herself among them--are looking even further ahead, to the day when Israel itself is no more and the land has reverted to its "rightful" owners.

All of which makes her observations about the security barrier more or less irrelevant.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:59 | link | comments

Imagine there's lots of gullible fools, it's easy if you try...A pay-per-view special will be devoted to dredging up the spirit of the late John Lennon. From the CBC website:

The folks who produced a critically slammed TV séance that attempted to contact the late Princess Diana are trying again, this time with John Lennon.

The pay-per-view special will travel to places associated with former Beatle John Lennon and psychics will attempt to contact him.

Starcast Productions has announced it will air a pay-per-view special next month that will show psychics travelling to sites around the world related to the former Beatle. The sites include the New York apartment building where he lived and was shot, an Indian town where he took a spiritual retreat and a Los Angeles studio where he once recorded.

The group will then stage a séance to try to contact Lennon, who died 25 years ago.

"People say this is disgusting, and I accept that criticism," Paul Sharratt, Starcast Productions founder and veteran TV producer, told Reuters.

"But we're making a serious attempt to do something that many, many millions of people around the world think is possible." ...

"We're also looking to line our pockets by relying on the credulity of people who have nothing better to to with their money, " is something didn't say, but was likely thinking.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:50 | link | comments

Oppression as freedom: That's "The Chomsky Paradox." From The American Thinker:

The other day, the U.K. Guardian ran an article by Noam Chomsky, a man celebrated in much of Europe as one of the world’s foremost intellectuals, which turned on a mind-boggling premise.

Mr. Chomsky alleged with palpable personal satisfaction that people of some Latin American and Asian countries are finally becoming free by breaking away from America’s imperialistic influence. Venezuela, China, and Cuba were some of the nations of whose exploits he spoke in congratulatory accents.

But here is the problem: Many of those whose freedom Mr. Chomsky celebrates live under the tyranny of leftist dictators. And in some of those countries – like Cuba and China for example – this tyranny often assumes an inhuman and brutal form.

All of this world’s oppressed invariably yearn for freedom, and most of them look beseechingly in America’s direction hoping thence it shall one day arrive. Notwithstanding the cynical propaganda of their tyrants, most of the downtrodden instinctively know where true liberty and goodness live. This is why so many of them run away to America every year.

When oppressed people read Mr. Chomsky’s article, they are bound to be deeply confused. For how are they going to reconcile the harrowing fact of their subjugation with the celebration by a famous western intellectual of their supposed freedom on the pages of a respectable British daily?

How can anyone among us explain to these poor souls the meaning of Mr. Chomsky’s monstrous claim?

The truth is we can’t. Mr. Chomsky’s anomalous reasoning is the symptom of a psychological condition for which there is no simple rational explanation. Still, there is a little something we can do. We can at least define it.

I would hereby like to coin the term “Chomsky Paradox.” The Chomsky Paradox is a singular phenomenon which takes place in the brain of a western leftist when he looks at an oppressed people and thinks they are free...

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:31 | link | comments

Seeking out a "higher" authority: Having failed in their quest to have the Danish government abase itself in postures of chastened subservience, (i.e. to act sufficiently dhimmified), Danish Muslims are taking their complaints about those infernal 'toons to a more receptive forum. From Islam Online:

Danish Muslims are planning to take the publication of cartoons lampooning Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) by a Danish newspaper to the United Nations.

"The UN is the natural place for us to file our complaint," Agence France-Presse (AFP) quoted Qassem Said, spokesman for the Danish Islamic Community, as telling the Ritzau national news agency Friday, March 17.

The Islamic Community, an umbrella body grouping 27 Muslim organizations in Denmark, said it will take the cartoon issue to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva.

Said had told IOL in January, that the Muslim minority would take the case to the EU human rights commission if rejected in Denmark.

"Muslims living in the Islamic world have greater confidence in the United Nations than in the European Union," he said.

The move comes after Denmark's State Prosecutor Henning Fode turned down Wednesday, March 15, charges against daily Jyllands-Posten over its publication of the Prophet cartoons.

"The state attorney's ruling was lousy," stressed Said...

Twelve cartoons, including one showing the Prophet with a bomb-shaped turban, were first published by the daily in September and later reprinted by several newspapers worldwide on claims of freedom of expression.

The drawings, considered blasphemous under Islam, have triggered massive and sometimes violent demonstrations across the Muslim world...

Maybe they can get the UN to pass a resolution blaming the publication of the 'toons on the Israeli "occupation."

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:21 | link | comments

Peace in their times: Incoming Prime Minister of Hamastan, Ismail Haniyeh, told CBS News that he could envision peace with Israel.

Of course he can. Unfortunately, it's the kind of "peace" that Islamic-Fascists always envision--the world peace, or Dar es Salaam, that will only come once the infidels have been trounced.

But don't expect CBS News and other dhimmified news outlets to figure that out.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:07 | link | comments

Friday, 17 March 2006

Bye, bye, birdie: Looks like Abbas's goose may be cooked. The Fatah chorus is calling for his resignation:

Pack up all your grooming gear.
Time to make one thing clear:
Bye, bye Abbas.
Though you had your turn at bat
You were no
Arafat.
Bye, bye, Abbas.
No one left who cares to see your flailing.
Hamas is here and now you should be bailing.
So fold your tents and go and sit.
We won’t miss you a bit.
Abbas, bye, bye,
Abbas, bye, bye.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:54 | link | comments

Welcome to Hades: The road to Hell, we are told, is paved with good intentions. The perfect aphorism to keep in mind when reading this piece by Caroline Glick. Ms. Glick writes about various public policy failures, including the UN's "new and improved" Human Rights Council. The new Council is actually nothing more than the "old and wretched" UN Human Rights Commisssion, the one which set up the most repressive regimes on the planet to tell the rest of us how to behave. The newer incarnation, says Ms. Glick, is even more appalling than the previous one, granting even more power to those places where the concept of "human rights" is just that--a concept--and not a fact of life for their citizens. And the reason we now find ourselves even worse off than before? Because the U.S., in its naivete and awash in good intentions, urged that the UN Human Rights body be rejigged instead of scrapped. From JWR:

If a doctor treated a breast cancer patient by amputating her big toe, he would doubtlessly be kicked out of medicine. Medical quackery is punished today. Sadly the same cannot necessarily be said of public policy malpractice.

On Wednesday the US suffered a predictable diplomatic defeat. The UN General Assembly approved the establishment of a new human rights council to replace the existing human rights commission. The lopsided vote was similarly preordained: 170 supported the move and four — the US, Palau, Israel and the Marshall Islands — opposed it. The irony is that forming a new human rights body to replace the current one was the US's idea.

Over the past several years, the UN Human Rights Commission has distinguished itself for its subversion of human rights. With members like Cuba, Sudan, Libya and China, the UNHRC acts as a shield for human rights abusers while — in the finest UN tradition — its members name Israel the single worst human rights abuser on the planet.

This corruption of the notion of human rights caused the Bush Administration to seek the UNHRC's replacement by a new body that would make a clear distinction between democracies that respect human rights and dictatorships that abuse them. This initiative was one of the central planks of the US's UN reform agenda.

Unfortunately, the Americans' noble plan had no chance of ever being implemented. The same forces that caused the UNHRC to become a refuge for tyrants were the ones responsible for establishing the new organization. Not surprisingly, the new human rights body will enhance, rather than detract from the ability of human rights abusers like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, China and Iran to exploit the "human rights" label as a means of condemning the US and Israel.

So by pushing its reform agenda, the US not only did not solve its problem with the UN, it compounded it…

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:41 | link | comments

Shame and guilt--a lethal mix: FrontPage Magazine has a symposium on the election of Hamas. Experts are weighing in on the reasons the Palestinians are would chose an Islamic-Fascist regime--and why Israel's useful idiots in the peace-at-any-cost camp would chose to see Hamas as a force for good instead of acknowledging the reality: Hamas is a genocidal jihad outfit bent on the Jews' destruction.

One of the experts, David Gutmann, sees this as a danse macabre of shame and guilt:

Churchill once said, "The Hun is either at your feet or at your throat." Similarly with the Arabs; and I suggest that their oscillations between quiescence and ferocity are driven by the Shame/Honor dynamic that is central to Arab psyche and Arab society. Shame and loss of honor, while toxic to the Arab, cannot be metabolized within the Arab self. Instead, the stigma must be ejected, spat out from the self, and downloaded onto lesser beings: women, defeated enemy, infidels and especially Jews. Once the weakness that originated in the Arab is discovered in the Other, then - symbolically or literally - he must be killed.

The shamed enemy has come to represent some hated part of the Arab's persona, and Killing him is a substitute for suicide, for the killing of the self. This is the psychodrama that Zionist Jews and Arabs have been playing out in Palestine for almost a hundred years.

Most recently, having crushed the Second Intifada, Sharon trades Gaza, which is a liability, for the strategic West Bank settlements around Jerusalem that he intends to keep. These would be guarded behind the Security Wall - the barrier that will, in the absence of a negotiating partner, unilaterally define Israel's final boundaries. Sharon has drawn back the better to advance; but - particularly now that Sharon is comatose - Hamas spins Sharon's calculated disengagement into a great victory for their own gunmen: "the Jews are running away from us. This is only the beginning: we will make them drown in the sea."

In it's turn, the Palestinian street sees in Hamas, the "liberators" of Gaza, the agents of final victory over Israel, and votes them into power. As in 1947 and 2001, the Palestinians smell blood in the water, indulge their triumphalist fantasies, and again choose the fever-dream of total victory over peace and statehood. They are by now so seriously addicted to Judeo-cidal Dreams that, like true junkies, they will pay almost anything - statehood, peace, the future of their children, life under Sharia law - in order to feed their habit. And in this hectic scenario, Hamas is the more reliable pusher. Again, the fantasied goals are murderous, destructive towards others; it is the Palestinian willingness to pay an exorbitant price for them that is self-destructive.

Not all Palestinians share this genocidal syndrome. Some no doubt voted against Fatah's corruption, while others elected for Hamas' Welfare State (Hitler's wartime charity, Winter Hilfe, comes to mind). But for Hamas' True Believers, why is the addiction to blood-drenched fantasy so powerful? Why this overwhelming desire to see the Jews blown to pieces, terrified, and running? Again, we must refer to the dynamics of shame: I saw the Palestinians abandon their villages in 1947 without a fight, even before we of the Israeli Hagana had enough guns or men to make them run. Their resulting shame was compounded by their Arab "brothers" in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and egypt, who contemptuously shoved the dishonoured Palestinians into squalid camps. There, refugee kids grew up hearing taunts like these: "You Palestinian whores who sold your land to the Jews, and then ran away!

To repeat, Shame/Honor societies cannot manage shame except by inflicting it back on the enemy who shamed them. Until that happens, the timeless sense of humiliation festers in the soul, and breeds Psychosis: Arab leaders still bristle at the word "Crusade," and demand the return of Seville and Andaluz (Andalusia), since 1490 the "occupied territories" of Spain.

So of course the Palestinians will always sabotage - as they did in 1947, 2000 and now in 2006 – a negotiated peace with Israel. For the Palestinians, the only acceptable negotiating partners are Jews who mirror the Palestinians of '47 and '48 : defeated Jews, SHAMED Jews whose terrified mobs run like lemmings to the sea. Good faith negotiations with a still powerful, still undefeated Israel means living forever with the shame of NAQBA , and giving up the wet-dream of a total, redemptive victory.

Thus far, the Palestinian addiction to such orgiastic visions has proven too strong to be broken. In some ways Israeli and American-Jewish peaceniks are even more pathological than the Palestinians: it is the former who exhibit motivated rather than incidental self-destructiveness.

If the Palestinians constitute a typical Shame/Honor culture, then by contrast, Jews - especially Peaceniks - constitute a Guilt culture. The Arabs worry about what has been done to them by way of insults and humiliations; the Jews worry about has been done to others by them, or in their name. History is a tale of blood, and statehood shoved the Jews back into history, into the middle of the battle, where the choices were to fight or die. The Israelis proved to be successful warriors, but many Jews - Israelis as well as Americans - have sickened of the killing, and are fashioning a separate peace. They have reached the point where they plead the enemy's cause against their own people, and ultimately against their own children. Currently, they are starting to spin HAMAS as the wardens of a benign welfare state – Mother Teresa with a suicide belt.

The Palestinians won't be shame-free until they have defeated the Jews; the Peacenik Jews won't be guilt-free until they have helped them do it...

"Mother Teresa with a suicide belt"--good one.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:38 | link | comments

Etiquette lessons from Iran: The Islamic dystopia on the cusp of nuclear capabality is looking to carve out another niche for itself. Seems it's not enough to want to be the pre-eminent Muslim power in the world and convene conferences dedicated to wiping the Jews off the map. No, Iran is also looking to become the arbiter of the world's etiquette, the Miss Manners of international discourse. The guy in charge of Iran's nuclear program (in name, at least) is telling a certain loutish superpower to straighten up and quit "humiliating" Iran because, as the EU and UN--those purveyors of politesse--know, you can catch more flies with honey than you can with piss 'n' vinegar. (The UN and EU haven't actually apprehended any flies to speak of at this point, but the mully-bullies are much more comfortable with their scraping and grovelling approach--so much more dhimmified, er, dignified, no?) From IranMania:

LONDON, March 17 (IranMania) - Iran said in its proposed talks on the Iraqi crisis it wanted the United States "to take a harder look at the way it acts," and to show more respect for other countries and people, The New York Times said Friday.

In an interview shortly after he announced on Thursday that Iran was ready to negotiate with Washington about Iraq, Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani said there were some conditions to be met.

"I think Iraq is a good testing ground for America to take a harder look at the way it acts," Larijani told the US daily in his office. "If there's a determination in America to take that hard look, then we're prepared to help."

Larijani said his offer to talk with Washington came in answer to urgings by Abdel Aziz Hakim, the leader of one of Iraq's main Shiite parties, who three months after elections are still struggling with Sunni and Kurdish parties to form a government.

"We have repeatedly said that we are willing to help bring stability in Iraq and bring to power a democratic government," Larijani told The New York Times.

"We are prepared to give our hand. But the condition is that the United States should respect the vote of the people. Their army must not provoke from behind the scenes."

"We do not have much trust," Larijani added. "We have certain doubts about the way Americans act. We do not hear one voice. We hear distorted voices from the US."

Larijani is also Iran's nuclear chief, but the United States has made it clear that the proposed talks would exclude Iran's nuclear program, which White House spokesman Scott McClellan said was a "separate issue ... being discussed at the United Nations."

Larijani, said the newspaper, defended his country's right to develop nuclear energy and branded the United States as arrogant, evil and disrespectful of other countries. He spelled out grievances and slights Iran, clearly saying that Iran wanted respect.

"If America wants to be a superpower, it should learn its manners," Larijani said. "One should not humiliate others."...

I hear that other genocidal map-wiper--the one who wanted to preside over a Thousand Year Reich--had exquisite manners.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:11 | link | comments

Thursday, 16 March 2006

Playing ball: Sharia law is pretty clear on the penalties for hanky-panky between men. If you want to play hide the kebob with someone of the same gender, you're looking at the death penalty, not to mention an eternity of hellfire. Some multicultists in Holland who understand nothing about Islam or the nature of religious ardor believe all that can be set aside if gays and Muslims are willing to mix it up on a soccer field. From Breitbart.com (link via Drudge):

A Dutch multicultural group is organizing a soccer tournament between gays and Muslims, hoping to counter what a study published on Thursday said was a rising tide of fear among gays.

A nationwide survey by the Police Research Academy said that most gays questioned feel unsafe and reported experiencing verbal attacks in the last year.

Of the 776 homosexuals who responded to an internet questionnaire, 80 percent said they believed their safety was threatened at some time during the year, said academy director Frits Vlek, who commissioned the research.

Only 3 percent said they were physically assaulted, Vlek said in an interview, but some 40 percent claimed they had been insulted or verbally abused.

Youths from Moroccan and Turkish backgrounds often were blamed for the incidents, Vlek said, since homosexuality is not widely accepted in many Muslim cultures.

"Parts of the Muslim community still resist homosexuality and receive little education about it," he said.

Muslim-gay tension is the theme of the soccer tournament organized by the Institute of Multicultural Development, to be held next week.

An organizer of the group, Suzanne Ijsselmuiden, said she hoped the competition will "help ease these tensions so that people can openly talk about homosexuality."

Gay Muslims can take their choice of teams, she said. "People can have many identities."

True enough, although in sharia-ridden countries--which, given the way things are going, Holland may become in a not too distant time--gay Muslims often have only one identity: dead.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:31 | link | comments

Funny Muslim: The CBC is planning to air a TV pilot about a Muslim family in small town Saskatchewan. The working title: Little Mosque on the Prairie. From the Ceeb website:

Zarqa Nawaz is a Regina Muslim renowned for saying that she "wants to put the 'fun' back into fundamentalism."

She'll bring her unique brand of humour to the pilot of a new show that will feature a fictional Muslim family living in a small town in Saskatchewan.

CBC-TV has ordered a pilot of the show from Regina's Westwind Pictures.

Nawaz, a former CBC radio and television producer, began making films in 1995. Her BBQ Muslims, a five-minute comedy about two brothers who are suspected of being terrorists after their barbecue blows up, was shown at the Toronto International Film Festival in 1996.

Nawaz has continued to write humorously about the Muslim experience in Canada. The show would be based on her writing...

Any decision on a series will depend on how the show is received.

Something tells me that once some of the un-fun fundamentalists get wind of the show, it will never see the light of day.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:06 | link | comments

Runaway agency: The piece I posted yesterday by Jonathan Toobin about the UN's terror-sustaining Palestinian relief agency, UNRWA, inspired the following song parody (with apologies to Mr. Shannon):

As we scan the scene
We wonder
Why refugees
Still molder
Near six full decades on.
And as we scratch our heads
And ponder
The reason for this blunder
It's clear who we should blame.
It's the internationalists
Employing terrorists.
Ensuring things deteriorate
So as to foster hate.
Yes, it's UNRWA.
It's UN, UN, UN, UN, UNRWA.
Why?
Why, why, why, why, why
Is it still about?
Because UNRWA,
There is no doubt
Sustains the hatred,
The hay, hay, hay, hay, hatred.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:40 | link | comments

Thumbs up for Fallaci: A review in the L.A. Weekly praises Oriana Fallaci's book, The Force of Reason, for its insight, wit and wisdom (link via RealClear Politics):

In The Force of Reason, the controversial Italian journalist and novelist Oriana Fallaci illuminates one of the central enigmas of our time. How did Europe become home to an estimated 20 million Muslims in a mere three decades?

How did Islam go from being a virtual non-factor to a religion that threatens the preeminence of Christianity on the Continent? How could the most popular name for a baby boy in Brussels possibly be Mohammed? Can it really be true that Muslims plan to build a mosque in London that will hold 40,000 people? That Dutch cities like Amsterdam and Rotterdam are close to having Muslim majorities? How was Europe, which was saved by the U.S. in world wars I and II, and whose Muslim Bosnians were rescued by the U.S. as recently as 1999, transformed into a place in which, as Fallaci puts it, “if I hate Americans I go to Heaven and if I hate Muslims I go to Hell?”

In attempting to answer these questions, the author, who is stricken with cancer and has been hounded by death threats and charges of “Islamophobia” (she is due to go on trial in France this June), has combined history with snatches of riveting firsthand reportage into a form that reads like a real-life conspiracy thriller.

If The Force of Reason sells a lot of copies, which it almost certainly will (800,000 were sold in Italy alone, and the book is in the top 100 on Amazon ), it will be not only because of the heat generated by her topic, but also because Fallaci speaks for the ordinary reader. There is no one she despises more than the intellectual “cicadas,” as she calls them — “You see them every day on television; you read them every day in the newspapers” — who deny they are in the midst of a cultural, political and existential war with Islam, of which terrorism is the flashiest, but ultimately least important component. Nonetheless, to give the reader a taste of what Muslim conquest can be like, in her first chapter, Fallaci provides a brief tour of the religion’s bloodiest imperial episodes and later does an amusing job of debunking some of its more exaggerated claims to cultural and scientific greatness.

The book is also animated by a world-class journalist’s dismay that she could have missed the story of her lifetime for as long as she did. In the 1960s and ’70s, when she was a Vietnam War correspondent and a legendarily ferocious interviewer — going mano a mano with the likes of Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat, Fallaci was simply too preoccupied with the events of the moment to notice that an entirely different narrative was rapidly taking shape — namely, the transformation of the West. There were clues, certainly. As when, in 1972, she interviewed the Palestinian terrorist George Habash, who told her (while a bodyguard aimed a submachine gun at her head) that the Palestinian problem was about far more than Israel. The Arab goal, Habash declared, was to wage war “against Europe and America” and to ensure that henceforth “there would be no peace for the West.” The Arabs, he informed her, would “advance step by step. Millimeter by millimeter. Year after year. Decade after decade. Determined, stubborn, patient. This is our strategy. A strategy that we shall expand throughout the whole planet.”

Fallaci thought he was referring simply to terrorism. Only later did she realize that he “also meant the cultural war, the demographic war, the religious war waged by stealing a country from its citizens … In short, the war waged through immigration, fertility, presumed pluriculturalism.” It is a low-level but deadly war that extends across the planet, as any newspaper reader can see...

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:48 | link | comments

The Star ponders the curious case of Palestinian hand-biting: The Toronto Star has been showing up--unwanted and unrequested--on my doorstep for the past six weeks. It's a ploy to get me hooked on the Star's version of life in our multiculuti wonderland, but since I already subscribe to two other newspapers, and since the Star has been in the "slam Israel" camp for so long that even well before 9/11 it was nicknamed the Toronto Starafat (in homage to one of its heroes), I am tempermentally resistant to the lure.

Nonetheless, I admit to scanning its pages some mornings, just to see, for example, what resident Islamist Haroon Siddiqui is on a tear about, or what resident Israelophobe (one of them, anyway) Antonia (pronouced An-toe-NEE-ah) "The Beast" Zerbiasias has to say. (The Beast is supposed to be a media critic, but her antipathy toward Israel and the U.S. is so pronounced that it often oozes out into her commentary.)

While I would never actually waste good money to buy a Star, on occasion I must admit it does provide some mild amusement--often of the unintentional variety. Today, for instance, there's an editorial about how oddly the Palestinians have been behaving of late--especially toward tender-hearted folks who only want to lend them a helping hand. Why, asks the Star, would anyone want to bite the hand that aids you?

Why, indeed:

Do Palestinians want to make themselves pariahs? Their Jan. 25 election of a Hamas government devoted to Israel's destruction shocked even long-time friends.

Now Palestinian mobs have vented their rage at Israel by seizing foreigners, including a Canadian, shooting up American and European Union missions, and forcing diplomats and aid workers to flee for their lives. This is madness.

Israel's raid Tuesday on a West Bank prison triggered this fury. Troops seized Ahmed Saadat and other militants whom Israelis deem responsible for the 2001 murder of cabinet minister Rehavam Ze'evi.

Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal recently vowed to free Saadat, just before Israel's March 28 election.

All of which has precisely nothing to do with foreign aid workers.

Yet Canadian aid worker Adam Budzanowski was one of 10 people abducted as anarchy swept the West Bank and Gaza. So were two French journalists and a South Korean newsman. A Swiss worker for the Red Cross. Two French women doctors. An American teacher. And two Australians seized at a school.

Happily, all were freed unharmed. Even so, targeting them was folly.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other Western leaders are looking for ways to funnel $1 billion in aid to the Palestinians, through the United Nations, Red Cross, churches and other agencies.

The idea is to bypass Hamas unless it shuns violence, recognizes Israel and abides by peace agreements. If all aid is cut off, people will starve and desperation will breed violence.

But how can aid be delivered if donors are treated like targets?

The Red Cross was forced this week to withdraw staff. The U.N. shut operations and the European Union pulled out monitors. In such chaos, who would there be to deliver aid?

There will be many more Palestinian-Israeli flare-ups before peace ever comes to the region. During those moments of crisis, Palestinians must learn to distinguish their friends from their foes.

Yeah, what's wrong with you Palestinians? To jog your memories: Jews--foes. Well-meaning Jew-loathers belonging to the EU, the UN, various NGOs and international organizations--friends.

Sheesh. You'd think they'd know the difference by now.

The point being that the Star, in its foggy-minded, We-Are-The-World euphoria doesn't realize that no matter how much "help" these and other groups provide, at the end of the day, they're all still infidels.

Just like the Jews.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:00 | link | comments

Wednesday, 15 March 2006

Three for three: Ken Livingstone's favourite "moderate" Muslim cleric, Yousef al-Qawadiri, explains the rules of intermarriage. In this clip translated by MEMRI (that mysterious, right-wing translation service run by Israelis, as Globe and Mail media scribe, Russell Smitth describes it) Qawaridi says a Muslim man is allowed to marry a Christian woman as long as she's chaste and prays a lot to God. But since everyone knows women in the West are obliged to give up their virginity by the age of 14--seems it's compulsory--the odds of finding a suitable Christian babe are pretty low.

If a Muslim man wants to marry a Jewish woman, there are even thornier challenges. For example, he must limit his quest to those Jewesses who have it in for the State of Israel, otherwise he'll be saddled with a
"spy" who might also be tempted to slip some pork or alcohol into the house, who will be unfit company for the rest of the Muslim mishapachah, and who will be a bad influence on any progeny.

No, it's best, says Qawadiri, for Muslim men to marry Muslim women, especially since if they don't marry Muslim women, who will?

Looks like Qawadiri is batting a thousand: He managed to insult women belonging to all three monotheistic faiths.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:44 | link | comments

Cliché alert: "Cycle of violence" is so last year, when Fatah was in charge and everyone still clung to the fantasy of toddling down a roadmap. The new, improved phraseology has made an appearance on the Times Online. Ladies and gents, I give you the "new spiral of violence."

I'm not sure: does a spiral twist faster than a cycle, or is it more or less the same kind of spinning?

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:29 | link | comments

Humanitarian insanity: Jonathan Toobin reports there's good news and bad news on the aid-to-Hamas front. The good news: the U.S. is standing firm is its refusal to send money to Hamas. The bad news: the plan is to bypass Hamas by allowing UNRWA--yes, UNRWA--to receive and distribute funds for "humanitarian" purposes.

Yeah, that'll work. From JWR:

...The United States and the European Union (which is also considering an aid cutoff to the P.A.) will be diverting a lot of the money that supported the P.A. kleptocracy to humanitarian aid. That way, it is reasoned, innocent Palestinians won't be forced to suffer from the crimes of their new masters.

That rationale sounds compassionate and logical. The only problem is that the humanitarian group that will receive the lion's share of the aid is one of the most thoroughly politicized and terrorist-infiltrated organizations in the world: the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.

For 56 years, UNRWA has been the symbol of the world's double standard about the war on Israel by the Arab world.

While the United Nations deals with the rest of the world's refugees with a single agency — the U.N. High Commission for Refugees — the Palestinian refugees have their very own agency — UNRWA — with a particular mission.

Unfortunately, unlike virtually every other refugee aid group (including those that dealt with the hundreds of thousands of Jews who fled Arab lands in the aftermath of Israel's independence), UNRWA's primary mission has never been to help the Palestinians deal with the reality of the post-1948 world. Resettling the Palestinians wasn't the point. UNRWA exists to keep the Palestinians alive exactly where they are, so they can serve as justification for continued conflict with Israel...

Good plan, George. But for the sake of efficiency--since we know where the money will end up; where UNRWA money always ends up--why bother with the middleman?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:55 | link | comments

Anger, fury, rage: The Palestinians are furious--again (or still, take your pick). From the Times Online:

The last of nine foreign hostages kidnapped in retaliation for Israel's dramatic raid on a Jericho jail were released today, but Palestinian anger that triggered the wave of kidnaps and arson attacks showed little sign of abating.

The three hostages - a correspondent from South Korea and two journalists from France - were driven back to Gaza City from a hideout in the south of the territory where they had been held for almost 24 hours. They all appeared to be in good health.

Anger at yesterday's raid, in which Israeli troops seized Ahmed Saadat, a Palestinian leader wanted in Israel on murder charges, erupted on the streets of Gaza and the volatile West Bank today, where Palestinians called a protest strike and organised demonstrations. Thousands gathered in Ramallah, Nablus and Hebron carrying portraits of Mr Saadat, the leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

Five other prominent Palestinian militant prisoners were also taken into Israeli custody after troops with bulldozers and tanks mounted a ten-hour siege. British and American monitors had left the prison just 20 minutes before, prompting accusations that the US and UK colluded with Israel in the operation.

The suspicion of collusion led to reprisal attacks against Western missions. The offices of the British Council were among several buildings torched. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, denied that the British colluded with the Israeli army, and said that the British observers had been withdrawn because of mounting fears for their safety. It is believed that the prison was effectively in the control of the PFLP.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian President, cut short a high-profile tour of Europe to return to deal with the crisis. Before he left he angrily blamed Britain and America for going back on the arrangements under which the prisoners had been held at the prison in Jericho since 2002.

The raid has underscored the President's lack of control over day to day events in the Palestinian Authority, and cast fresh doubts on his credibility. Saeb Erakat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, conceded: "This operation has had a destructive impact on the status of the Palestinian Authority."

The mood on the streets of the occupied territories was still angry, but some of the rage was now being directed towards Mr Abbas. "There is a lot of anger here but we must remain united among ourselves," said Wissam Rafidi, a PFLP central committee member, who addressed one of the rallies in Ramallah. "It’s clear that the British and Americans told the Palestinian Authority that they were leaving but the PA didn’t tell us. President Abbas must explain what happened and why it happened." ...

Can anyone spare a few billion Xanax to calm these infuriated folks down?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:38 | link | comments

Pressing for freedom: What do you call those who seek freedom or expression in one of the most repressive regions of the world? Optimists? Fools? Reuters reports on a conference being held in Cairo where Arab journalists are decrying their lack of freedom and the way the powers-that-be prevent them from doing their job and turn them into little more than mouthpieces for despotic regimes. From Reuters:

Conference participants blasted the poor state of regional news media, which many said reflected the political stagnation seen in the Middle East. "As things stand, we don't have an active media anywhere in the Arab world," said Bahraini journalist and APFW vice-president Maha al-Salhy. "We need to reform our laws in order to start working for the creation of more open societies, spurred by open, public debate."

On the whole, journalists agreed that in recent years some Arab countries – such as Egypt, Lebanon and Morocco – have witnessed gradual improvements in questions relating to freedoms of press and expression. "Four or five years ago, women were completely forbidden from presenting their own television programmes [in Saudi Arabia]," said Saudi Arabian journalist Badr Mohamed al-Abbas. "Now that's changed."

Nevertheless, no Arab country can claim to have reached a satisfactory level of freedom in this domain, said Nawar, explaining that different countries faced different challenges. Nawar pointed out that journalists in Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, for example, face relatively fewer press restrictions, while Saudi Arabia and Tunisia have worse records. "The problems faced by journalists in the Arab region vary from country to country," he said. "What unites us, perhaps, is that we all have a long way to go."

Not surprisingly the most hazardous places to ply your trade these days: Iraq and Palestine:

But it is in Iraq and the Occupied Palestinian Territories where journalists suffer the greatest threat, often losing their lives in the pursuit of their profession: according to the Paris-based Reporters without Borders, 85 journalists and media assistants have died in Iraq since the US-led invasion in 2003. "In 2006 alone, 26 journalists have already been killed," said Iraqi journalist Nada Omran.

According to Nawar, Iraqi journalists hired by international organisations are the most vulnerable. "They risk their lives while chief [foreign] correspondents, whose lives are insured, work from hotels in Baghdad," he said.

Some attending the conference realize, however, that calling for change is not enough; freedom of expression is impossible in an unfree society.:

"Not until the political face of our countries changes and we have greater democracy will we have a truly free press," said Magdy al-Gallad, editor-in-chief of independent Egyptian daily Al-Masri Al-Youm.

But even in ostensibly free societies, freedom of the press is being tempered by those who resort to self-censorship--Danish 'toons, anyone?-- in an effort to placate people whose notions of freedom conflict with our own.

Which leads to an ironic observation: Arab journalists are pressing for greater freedom of expression, even as Western media outlets are willingly ceding some of theirs so as to keep antsy Islamists happy.

But I'm pretty sure the Arab journalists wouldn't see it that way.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:26 | link | comments

Tuesday, 14 March 2006

Bedside manners: A pilot project in Germany is retraining prostitutes to work with the elderly. From Der Spiegel Online:

She used to call herself "Angie" and described herself to potential customers as "the buxom blonde from Bochum -- without taboos and available around the clock." She satisfied machos and mama's boys, blue-collar workers and ivory-tower academics, old and young. She learned how to adjust to completely different temperaments and needs. She did it six years long four or five times a day. Then she got pregnant, cancelled her ad in the newspaper and changed her job.

Angie, the whore, became Angelika the care worker for the elderly. Employed by a mobile social care service, the one-time blonde now has short brown hair and has traded her stilettos for sensible shoes. Instead of taking care of their sexual needs, she now helps her customers bathe and change their bandages. "It's easy for me," says Angelika, who just finished her training.

What the woman from Germany's industrial Ruhr Valley managed to do on her own is now being considered by the state of North Rhine-Westphalia as a model for other sex trade workers: off the street and into the old folks home. The novel retraining scheme is being financed with over €1 million in state and EU money.

"It was a logical move," says Rita Kühn from Diakone Westfalen, which runs nursing homes across the country and is organizing the project. According to Kühn, prostitutes have "good people skills," aren't easily disgusted and have "zero fear of contact."...

Sounds a lot like my retriever.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:04 | link | comments

No comparison: In the days of ragin' and rampagin' over the publication of the Danish 'toons, the faithful kept crying foul over the "double standard" of infidels being able to poke fun at the Prophet while Holocaust deniers are verboten (sorry, couldn't resist) to, um, deny the Holocaust. French philosopher Andre Glucksmann explains why this is comparison is completely cracked. From Sight and Sound (via Arts & Letters Daily):

The anti-caricature campaign started by attacking a newspaper. It then focussed on Denmark as a defender of the freedom of the press, and now it has all of Europe in its sights, which it accuses of having a double standard. The European Union allows the Prophet to be denigrated with impunity, but it forbids and condemns other "opinions" like Nazism and denial of the Holocaust. Why are jokes about Muhammad permitted, but not those about the genocide of the Jews? This was the rallying call of fundamentalists before they initiated a competition for Auschwitz cartoons. Fair's fair: either everything should be allowed in the name of the freedom of expression, or we should censor that which shocks both parties. Many people who defend the right to caricature feel trapped. Will they publish drawings about the gas chambers in the name of freedom of expression?

Offence for offence? Infringement for infringement? Can the negation of Auschwitz be put on a par with the desecration of Muhammad? This is where two philosophies clash. The one says yes, these are equivalent "beliefs" which have been equally scorned. There is no difference between factual truth and professed faith; the conviction that the genocide took place and the certitude that Muhammad was illuminated by Archangel Gabriel are on a par. The others say no, the reality of the death camps is a matter of historical fact, whereas the sacredness of the prophets is a matter of personal belief.

This distinction between fact and belief is at the heart of Western thought. Aristotle distinguished between indicative discourse on the one hand, which could be used to reach an affirmation or a negation, and prayer on the other. Prayers are not a matter for discussion, because they do not state: they implore, promise, vow and declare. They do not relate information, they perform an act. When the Islamist fanatic affirms that Europeans practise the "religion of the Shoah" while he practises that of Muhammad, he abolishes the distinction between fact and belief. For him there are only beliefs, and so it follows that Europe will favour its own.

Civilised discourse analyses and defines scientific truths, historic truths and matters of fact relating to knowledge, not to faith. And it does this irrespective of race or confession. We may believe these facts are profane or undignified, yet they remain distinct from religious truths. Our planet is not in the grips of a clash of civilisations or cultures. It is the battleground of a decisive struggle between two ways of thinking. There are those who declare that there are no facts, but only interpretations - so many acts of faith. These either tend toward fanaticism ("I am the truth") or they fall into nihilism ("nothing is true, nothing is false"). Opposing them are those who advocate free discussion with a view to distinguishing between true and false, those for whom political and scientific matters – or simple judgement – can be settled on the basis of worldly facts, independently of arbitrary pre-established opinions.

A totalitarian way of thinking loathes to be gainsaid. It affirms dogmatically, and waves the little red, or black, or green book. It is obscurantist, blending politics and religion. Anti-totalitarian thinking, by contrast, takes facts for what they are and acknowledges even the most hideous of them, those one would prefer to keep hidden out of fear or for the sake of utility. Bringing the gulag to light made it possible to criticise and ultimately reject "actually existing socialism". Confronting the Nazi abominations and opening the extermination camps converted Europe to democracy after 1945. Refusing to face the cruellest historical facts, on the other hand, heralds the return of cruelty. Whether the Islamists - who are far from representing all Muslims – like it or not, there is no common measure between negating known facts and criticising any one of the beliefs which every European has the right to practice or poke fun at.

For centuries, Jupiter and Christ, Jehovah and Allah have had to put up with many a joke. The Jews are past masters at criticising Yaweh – they've even made it a bit of a speciality. That does not prevent the true believers of any confession from believing, or from respecting those of a different faith. That is the price of religious peace. But joking about gas chambers, raped women and disembowelled babies, sanctifying televised beheadings and human bombs all point to an unbearable future.

It is high time that the democrats regained their spirit, and that the constitutional states remembered their principles. With solemnity and solidarity they must recall that one, two or three religions, four or five ideologies may in no way decide what citizens can do or think. What is at stake here is not only the freedom of the press, but also the permission to call a spade a spade and a gas chamber an abomination, regardless of our beliefs. What is at stake is the basis of all morality: here on earth the respect due to each individual starts with the recognition and rejection of the most flagrant examples of inhumanity.

In the words of the great Smokey Robinson, I second that emotion.

Update: The faithful sing:

Maybe you shouldn’t publish all those ‘toons.
If you don’t want to hear from all us loons.
And maybe you want to watch your ev’ry word.
Though once you might have thought that was absurd.
Oh, infidels, in that case you will keep us calm.
Your acquiescence acts just like a balm.
Oh, if you want to stop our rage,
If you “get” our notion,
You'll second our emotion.
If you want us all to chill,
You’ll get with our devotion,
And second our emotion.

Maybe you shouldn’t satirize our Mo,
‘Cause then we’ll have to tell you where to go.
And maybe you won’t miss freedom once it’s flown,
And by then, too bad, your lives won’t be your own.
Oh, infidels, in that case dhimmitude will be your fate.
There’s no way to withstand our rage and hate.
Oh, if you feel like soothin' us,
If you got the notion,
We second that emotion.
If you feel like givin’ us a lifetime of devotion,
We second that emotion.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:34 | link | comments

Salon shills for Hamas: There are those for whom Hamas does not represent the latest incarnation of genocidal Jew-hatred; usefull idiots, like the writer of this piece in Salon, who are convinced the Jews are the bad guys and Hamas is a benevolent organization that is forced to resort to violence because of Israeli intransigence.

Read, if you can stomach it, as the Salon scribe paints a glowing picture of how Hamas has empowered Palestinian women and moppets. As for me, it made by regurgitate by morning's Hamastaschen:

The preschool's iron gate clangs behind us, shutting out the dust and concrete-block ugliness of Jabaliya, the largest Palestinian refugee camp in the world (population 120,000). In here, around the paved schoolyard, everything is clean, freshly painted and orderly. An energetic young woman in full Islamic coverup is leading two dozen 4-year-olds in some vigorous phys ed. Tiny voices echo out through the open classroom windows.

In one room, a dozen kids are working on computers, "coloring" the national flag of Palestine on their screens. In another, two teachers behind an ingenious puppet theater have puppets act out an interactive skit about the virtues of brushing your teeth. In a third room, it's time for English instruction. "Where is the orange?" the teacher asks as 22 kids look at objects arrayed on a table. "This is the orange!" some overachievers yell as they race to grab it.

Forget about old-fashioned Islamic madrasas and rote learning. This is an Islamic preschool, Hamas-style. It is part of a dense network of social-service institutions that Hamas and its precursor organizations have built up over the past 30 years in the Israeli-occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank. These institutions have provided some much-needed humanitarian aid to the hard-pressed Palestinian population. They have also served a number of political purposes.

First and foremost, they helped increase the ability of the Palestinians to withstand the many collective punishments that Israel has imposed on them. Second, they have kept alive a generally (but not completely) maximalist view of how the Palestinian-Israeli conflict should be resolved. Third, they have incubated the development of a broad range of professional and management skills among the Palestinians who have run them. Finally, in the Palestinians' legislative elections of Jan. 25, these institutions, with their track record of effectively delivering vital services, provided the sprinboard for Hamas' surprise victory over the secular Fatah Party.

Today, a large proportion of the staffs, affiliated with Hamas, that run the health centers, social-work departments, preschools and emergency food banks are women. And many of the beneficiaries of the services are women -- women trying to raise families in trying conditions in the refugee camps, towns and villages of the occupied territories. Indeed, one of the secrets of the Hamas electoral win that has gone largely unrecognized in the West is the strength of Hamas' well-organized networks of empowered and politically engaged women.

During my recent 20-day reporting trip to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, several people in Gaza even told me that one reason Hamas won so strongly on Jan. 25 was that in many families where the husband voted for Fatah, his wife voted for Hamas. Gaza journalist Laila El-Haddad covered the elections quite closely. "The Hamas women made sure the women voters understood that their votes would be secret," she says. "They assured them their husbands could never find out how they'd voted. I saw it happening."

It's not clear how widespread this phenomenon was. But women freeing themselves from the traditional expectations of patriarchy are now clearly shaping Palestinian society. Tough and well-disciplined, these women espouse political views that are often to the hard-line end of Hamas' (admittedly narrow) political spectrum. As participants and leaders in Palestine's social networks and organizations, this engaged sisterhood represents a women's activism that few of the world's Islamist movements have seen...

"A generally (but not completely) maximalist view of how the Palestinian-Israeli conflict should be resolved"--is that was they're calling the jihadi genocide of the Jews these days? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might want to give that one a go. It sounds less overtly Hitlerian than vowing to wipe the Jews off the map.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:42 | link | comments

Ciao, Bernie: Looks like the Canadian Jewish Congress has competition in the "Who's the Most Obliging Dhimmi?" contest. From Islam Online:

The head of the Islamic cultural institute in Rome lauded on Monday, March 13, the stance of the Jewish community on the publication of cartoons lampooning Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him).

"I want to thank the Jewish community for the solidarity they showed towards Muslims when, recently, the Prophet Muhammad was ridiculed and insulted with offensive cartoons that were simply not funny," Abdellah Redouane said after talks with Rome's chief rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, reported Reuters.

Segni paid a landmark visit to Rome's main mosque, one of the largest in Europe, Monday for talks with Muslim leaders after the recent cartoon row.

Twelve cartoons, including one showing the Prophet with a bomb-shaped turban, were first published by Danish daily Jyllands-Posten in September and reprinted by European newspapers, including in Italy, on claims of freedom of expression.

The drawings, considered blasphemous under Islam, have triggered massive and sometimes violent demonstrations across the Muslim world.

Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli was forced to resign after sporting T-shirts displaying the caricatures.

Segni condemned the minister's move, expressing "solidarity with the Muslim world" over the drawings...

The article features a Reuters photo showing the Rabbi and the approving Muslim shaking hands. The caption reads: "Redouane (R) said the cartoon controversy was an example of how Jews and Muslims could work together."

Of course it is. Sadly, it's also an example of abject and craven dhimmitude.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:43 | link | comments

A joke for Purim: I found it here:

Most of you have probably seen the story of how various types of Jewish congregations deal with problems.

For instance, one form of the story deals with what to do with squirrels.

A Jewish community had three synagogues - Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform.

All three had a serious problem with squirrels in the shul. Each shul, in its own fashion, had a meeting to deal with the problem.

The Orthodox decided that since squirrels are God's creatures it was God's will that squirrels be in the shul and that they would just have to live with them.

The Conservative decided they should make the problem into a mitzvah and deal with the squirrels lovingly. They humanely trapped them and released them in a park at the edge of town. Within 3 days, they were all back in the shul.

The Reform seemed to have the best solution. They voted the squirrels in as members and arranged bar and bat mitzvah celebrations for all of them. Now they usually only see them at Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur.

What most people don't know is that there was also a Reconstructionist congregation in the area with the same problem. Naturally, they took a Reconstructionist approach to the problem:

Their reaction was to set up a series of study sessions at the synagogue. First they tried to study the fossil record to learn about the evolution of squirrels. Then they did a literature search to see how squirrels have been represented in various writings over the centuries. One session looked at both Talmudic and Responsa commentary and another meeting examined non-Jewish sources. After that they studied the DNA sequences of the squirrel genes. Next, they learned about squirrel adaptation to different habitats and then did a session on nutritional requirements of squirrels. There was a session on what Judaism can learn from squirrels. At this point, the squirrels, who had not been able to get much sleep because of all the discussions -- some of it quite loud -- moved out.

I am pleased to have friends from all denominations of Judaism, and have attended every kind of service (including some, like Egalitarian, not mentioned in the squirrel joke). As I like to say, Jews may distinguish--sometimes negatively--between Jews; Jew-haters don't make such distinctions. They hate us all.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:07 | link | comments

Haman, again: "Oh, once there was a wicked, wicked, man and Haman was his name, sir...": A song I sung in childhood during the Festival of Purim to remember the Jew-hater who tried--and failed--to have all the Jews killed, way back when in Persia.

In every generation, we're told, the Jews will face an existential threat--a Haman, a Hitler--who will take a crack at finishing the job of his genocidal predecessor. (Knowing this, I for one would like to make my personal pitch to the Big Guy Upstairs: Could ya get 'em to knock it off, already?)

So as Jews around the world celebrate the Festival of Purim, the Hamans of this generation get on with the eternal task--plotting to do us in.

Which leads to the obvious question: Who is the Haman of this generation?

Many, many candidates spring to mind. Is it the green aura-seeing Iraninan President, a..k.a. Moo Jihad, who's eagerly awaiting the return of the 12th iman but is happy to hasten his return through an agenda of Armageddon? Is it his grand el supremo Ayatollah, the one whose name sounds like Khomeini, the guy who gives Moo his marching orders (whether he listens to them is another matter)? Is it one of the al Qaeda boys--bin Laden, al Zawahiri--who, admittedly, don't set their sights exclusively on Jews?

My nomination: the terror outfit whose name, conveniently, is only one letter off from Haman. I speak, of course, of Hamas, the genocidal jihadis who are eagerly filling in pot holes in Jenin, even as they connive to fulfil their charter, a document which outlines their committment to divesting Palestine of the Jewish presence.

In "honour" of today's Haman, I have renamed the traditional holiday pastry, that triangular fruit-filled morsel that resembles our ancient foe's hat (or ears), a Hamastaschen. (Traditionally, this treat is said to include the blood of a juicy young Christian or Muslim, depending on which monotheism happens to be propogating the Jew-hate.)

My favourite Hamastaschen is filled with prune or cherry, and I plan to scarf one down for breakfast right now.

Happy Purim, y'all, and let's hope and pray that today's Hamans meet the same fate as the one back in ancient days.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:47 | link | comments (2)

Monday, 13 March 2006

The most dangerous book in the world: Mein Kampf? Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

How about Edward Said's Orientalism, almost thirty years young and responsible for a paradigm shift in the thinking of academe, the (un)intelligentsia and other useful idiots which plagues us to this day. David Pryce-Jones reviews a new book about Said's skewed and toxic analysis (link via Martin Kramer):

Nearly thirty years have passed since Edward Said published Orientalism. That book shifted the intellectual climate - more exactly, degraded it - by propagating a new and unusual sort of hatred, aimed at scholarship and scholars. In Said's opinion, everybody who had ever studied or written about the Middle East had done so in bad faith. Epigraphists, archaeologists, grammarians and linguists, papyrologists, geographers, the lot, including poets and travellers, had nothing to do with the advancement of learning or the recording of their findings and impressions. With sinister purpose, they were imposing themselves upon innocent and harmless people. Century after century, the activity of these assorted men was not at all what it might seem but only 'a rationalisation of colonial rule' and, since for most of the time there was no colonial rule, a justification of it 'in advance'.

Said fashioned this massive international conspiracy out of the vulgar Marxist concept that knowledge only and always serves the interest of the ruling class, and therefore cannot be objective. He spiced it up with a supportive concept, this time taken from Michel Foucault, that there is no such thing as truth, but only 'narratives'. This reduces facts to whatever anyone wishes to make of them. For the sake of his 'narrative' Said left out whatever did not fit, misrepresenting and inventing and generalising as he went along.

Why did academics and opinion-formers adopt this farrago as some sort of sudden and thrilling insight? The answer seems to be that Said had caught the tide of rising Islamism. In the 1970s when he wrote, the balance of power was beginning to tilt perceptibly against the West, and in favour of the Muslim world. As a Christian and a professor at Columbia University in New York, Said was well placed to be preaching that the West was guilty of past sins such as colonialism and racism, and would now have to pay to atone for them. His claim to be a Palestinian was infused with obfuscation, but he masterminded the cause of Palestinian victimhood. The West, he held, was responsible for creating the state of Israel, and it would have to pay for that too. Those in the West who had lost confidence in their own culture (liberals and 68ers, Third-Worlders and anti-colonialists), shoulder to shoulder with all who wished ill to Jews and Americans, made of him a totem. Moreover, Said practised in print and speech a brand of personalised snarling and sneering, so that would-be critics ducked from being condemned to a brawl. The disastrous consequence is that Middle East studies everywhere are now politicised, often to the point of being worthless, and 'Orientalist' has become an insult, a synonym for racist...

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:38 | link | comments

Guess who: In a commentary on the Khaleej Times site about how Muslims in Britain need not feel responsible for the actions of the London bombers, the writer includes these "cryptic" lines:

Everyone knows there's a race against which no one can say anything. As a people, they are so powerful. Feelings are that the Western countries are in their pocket. The reality is that they acted in ways that forced the world to recognize them and their potential. There are other communities as well, who won recognition by their actions. In the US, for example, those who had been sidelined for several generations are now being treated with respect. Politicians are careful not to rub them the wrong way.

Hmmm. I wonder to which inordinately powerful "race" he's referring. (Wiccans? Buddhists? Seventh Day Adventists?) And which formerly sidelined group is now being accorded newfound respect. (Hindus? Episcopalians? Scientologists?)

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:54 | link | comments

Smoke and mirrors in Bahrain: Still outraged over Danish 'toons, one of which drew a connection between you know who and Islamic terrorism, some of the faithful will be gathering later this month at a conference in Bahrain. The conference will serve as a corrective to false impressions in an effort to convey a true picture of their main man. From Islam Online:

Around 300 scholars and representatives of Muslim associations around the world have been invited to a conference in Bahrain to show support for Prophet Mohammad (peace and blessing be upon him) and project the true image of Islam in view of the cartoons row.

"We want to invest what happened and the unity of Muslims to project the true image of Islam," prominent Saudi scholar Sheikh Salman al-Oadah told a press conference in Riyadh late Saturday, March 11.

"We want to rationalize the Muslim anger and invest it in the service of the nation," he added.

The two-day conference will be held on March 22-23 in the Bahraini capital Manama.

A six-member delegation representing the Muslim minority in Denmark and some 300 scholars and representatives of Muslim organizations worldwide will be attending.

The conference is sponsored, among others, by al-Oadah's Islam Today organization, the International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) chaired by prominent scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.

Twelve cartoons, including one showing the Prophet with a bomb-shaped turban, were first published by Danish daily Jyllands-Posten in September and reprinted by European newspapers on claims of freedom of expression.

The drawings, considered blasphemous under Islam, have triggered massive and sometimes violent demonstrations across the Muslim world...

Seems to me they don't need a special conference to "rationalize Muslim anger"; they do it every day. And isn't it nice that that peaceful ambassador for the one true faith (and London Mayor Ken Livingstone's favourite cleric) Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi will be making an appearance. He always has something compelling to say.

Update: The captial of Bahrain is Manama? Reminds me of a song:

Manamana,
Sheikh Qaradawi.
Manamana,
He’ll set you straight.
Manamana,
Sheikh Qaradawi,
Radawi, radawi,
He’s always willing to spew lots of rage and hate.
Manamana,
Sheikh Qaradawi.
Manamana,
Loves sharia.
Manamana,
Sheikh Qaradawi,
Radawi, radawi,
Thinks sharia is the true law without a flaw.
Manamana,
Sheikh Qaradawi.
Manamana,
The Mayor’s friend.
Manamana,
Sheikh Qaradawi,
Radawi, radawi,
Sharia ‘splains how gays like Ken are s’posed to end.

Update: I hear there may be a guest appearance at the conference by a certain one-gloved, veiled former superduperstar. (Just kidding, but I wouldn't be at all surprised.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:34 | link | comments

Israel's Margaret Thatcher ( I wish): I have a dream. Let's call it a pipe dream, since I know it is a product of that sliver of my brain that is still able to muster some optimism about Israel's future. My dream is this: that Caroline Glick is Israel's Prime Minister.

In her latest Jerusalem Post column, Glick sifts through the entrails of the Ports debacle and offers the clearest explanation of what it all means--for the U.S. and Israeli goverments and their often rocky relationship. And what it means is this: George W. Bush was prepared to sell off vital American infrastructure to an Arab emirate that supports al Qaeda and Hamas and participates in an Israeli boycott because an unseemly amount of shekels were involved. And as Glick is far from the first to note, money talks; sometimes it talks so loudly that it drowns out the still small voice of reason. The Israeli government was prepared to back a deal handing over control of 21 American ports to Arabs--a deal which, clearly, was not in Israel's interests--in order to curry favour with the Bush folks. It seems Ehud and his Kadimaniks want the same thing their comatose former leader wanted: for Washington to feel all warm and fuzzy about them. Unfortunately, such abject neediness is a real turn-off in diplomatic relations. Then there's the fact that Israel lacks the financial heft of Dubai and, for that matter, Saudi Arabia. That means no romantic, hand-in-hand strolls through the Crawford flower garden for Ehud and George. That privilege is reserved for those like the Saudi King who have the means to pay for it. After all, all Israel has to offer is its status as the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. No contest. The Saudis, the UAE--they've got the dough-re-mi.

Bush's problems arose when he misunderestimated the cleverness of the American people. They knew the deal was a stinker from the get-go, and no amount of trying to make a rose out of a fart would shift them from that belief.

Prime Minister-elect Glick (at least in my dreams) sees this as a potentially encouraging development, if, and only if, the the Israeli government could get its act together and operate from a postition of strength for a change:

...In sharp contrast to the administration's counterintuitive and opportunistic preference for Arab despotisms over Israel, the American public follows its intuition and is generally unsupportive of the Arabs, whom Americans regard as their foes, and consistently supportive of Israel, which they regard as their ally in the war against the global jihad.

In the public's outcry against the DPW deal we see the vast potential for changing the administration's attitude towards Israel. Just as the American public decries the notion of turning America's ports over to Arab control, so too, the American public would back an Israeli refusal to transfer control over its national security to Hamas. And just as the public's rejection of the port deal will eventually force the administration to cancel it, so too, were Israel to decide to assert its rights as a sovereign nation in Washington by defining victory against the Palestinian terror war as its strategic aim, it would be able to tap into deep reservoirs of support in the US that would force the administration to back its moves.

Sadly, in what can only be judged as pathological opportunism, rather than encouraging its American supporters, Israel's government is undermining them by publicly siding with the administration in the Dubai port dispute. The government's behavior in this matter is reflective of the Kadima party's general policy. Kadima, like its founder Ariel Sharon, operates under the guiding assumption that Israel is weak and cannot defend itself without international support generally and American support specifically.

Like Israel's other leftist parties, Kadima assumes that the only way to receive the administration's support is by weakening Israel still further. This is why Sharon decided to withdraw from Gaza and northern Samaria and it is why Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert today claims that Israel must vacate most of Judea and Samaria, with the land to be transferred to Hamas, and continue enabling the transfer of "humanitarian aid" to the Hamas-led PA. That is, Kadima believes that its international support is dependent on weakening Israel and strengthening Israel's enemies. By all counts, it is right to believe this.

Today the Bush administration is aggressively backing Kadima in the elections. Last month, administration officials reportedly pressured PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to postpone the formation of the Hamas government until after the Israeli elections because they believed that doing so will help Kadima against the Likud.

In backing Kadima, a party committed to transferring lands and money to the Hamas-led PA, the US has effectively made strengthening the Iranian-backed Hamas its central aim in the region. From this it becomes apparent that Kadima's party interests are diametrically opposed to Israel's national interests.

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:48 | link | comments

Sunday, 12 March 2006

Excessive reverence at the Beeb: There is no better example of Western pandering to the one true faith than the BBC's website on world religions (www.bbc.co.uk/religions) . The site takes an excessively--one might even say absurdly--reverent tone in its section on Islam, going so far as to append a pbuh to the Prophet's name. Other religions, not surprisingly, are described in a far less admiring manner. From The New Criterion:

The site offers some standard historical exposition about the origin and doctrines of Islam as well as some inadvertently comical items such as the entry “Muslim internet matchmaking,” in which we learn that “The internet has sparked a revolution in the way some Muslims are meeting potential partners.” (Similar, equally comic, pages exist for other religions.) But what is most striking about the section on Islam is its tone of careful piety. No other religion—except possibly Atheism, “The ideas and story of people who don’t believe in God”—receives such fastidious treatment. (The section on Atheism, incidentally, features an interview with that secular saint, Richard Dawkins: a perfect match.) Compare, for example, the introductory caption describing Islam with the one that describes Christianity:

Islam began in Arabia and was revealed to humanity by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Those who follow Islam are called Muslims. Muslims believe that there is only one God. The Arabic word for God is Allah.

Got it? Now here’s the bit introducing Christianity:

Christianity is the world’s biggest religion, with about 2.1 billion followers worldwide. It is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ who lived in the Holy Land 2,000 years ago.
Notice anything different in the tone, in the approach? For starters, Islam “was revealed to humanity,” etc., etc., but Christianity is a statistic. And what’s this “peace be upon him” stuff—confessional language in the very secular setting of a BBC internet history lesson? In a religious setting, Catholics will often say “Glory to you, Lord” or “Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ.” But in the context of an historical document? What’s going on here?

The BBC must have some inkling that, at the very least, the “peace be upon him” wheeze is a departure from precedent, for they offer this explanation, and justification, for the practice:

Throughout the BBC’s section on Islam you will see Peace be upon Him or (pbuh) after the name Muhammad.
Muslims say Peace be upon Him after every mention of Muhammad’s name, as a mark of respect. Muslims do the same when they write the Prophet’s name, adding pbuh… .

The BBC uses the pbuh in the Islam section out of courtesy, and we would do the same for any other religion if they had a similar phrase that was universally used as a sign of respect.

Well, that’s nice to know. The BBC goes on to inform readers that “When the site refers to the Prophet on pages that are not in the Islam section, we do not use the phrase.” Not yet, anyway.

We are all for “courtesy” and marks of “respect.” We are less enthusiastic about pandering to ideological interest groups and then dressing up strategies of capitulation with the rhetoric of politesse...

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:30 | link | comments

The lucrative business of booze in Pakistan: From Der Spiegel Online:

The front line of the struggle against fundamentalism in Pakistan isn't in the mountainous border regions. It's in the country's permit rooms. Alcohol is sold there -- and customers dream of the West.

Alcohol is a touchy subject in Muslim countries -- here, booze is destroyed in Jakarty prior to Ramadan.

Temptation awaits at the end of a ramp, in the murkiness in the back corner of an underground garage. There are two holes in the wall, each covered with bars. Both though, the small one and the larger one, have enough space for an arm to reach through. A man sits behind each window, waiting for business. It's as simple as that, and yet these two nondescript little holes in a parking garage wall represent a place of beginnings, a place of hope.

Devout Muslims call it "a disgrace for the city," Ilyaz Rassar calls it "an opportunity" and Pakistan's government bureaucrats call it a "permit room." This permit room, one of about 60 scattered throughout the country, is in downtown Multan, a city of shrines and mosques in eastern Pakistan -- a city otherwise known as the City of Saints.

The men behind the bars are selling alcohol to non-Muslims, a practice that's entirely legal and sanctioned by the government. Under a system that could be dubbed Prohibition Light, this permit room sells four brands of beer, vodka, Silver Top gin, Doctor's brandy and malt whiskey. There is a purchase minimum for beer -- five cans -- at 200 rupees, or about €3 apiece. A bottle of the cheapest whiskey goes for about €30.

All of the alcoholic beverages sold here are produced in the country. The beer is brewed at the "Murree Brewery" near the city of Rawalpindi, the country's only brewery -- a holdover from colonial days and a concession to Pakistan's Christians and Hindus. This domestic liquor industry sells its products in the country's permit rooms from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m., every day except Friday...

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:37 | link | comments

Irrational fears and other accusations: Al Jazeera.com attributes the collapse of the Dubai ports deal to--what else?--"Islamophobia::

No one would have ever imagined that a routine business deal between two foreign states would be subject to rising Islamophobia and political concerns.

But that is exactly what happened when news of selling six U.S. ports to Dubai Ports World from the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., circulated across America.

As a result of the intense political pressure the Dubai-owned company at the center of the ports controversy had been facing, the firm had to withdraw from the no-win battle, and announce selling its stake in the American ports to a U.S. firm.

Analysts have repeatedly criticised some politicians’ view that selling the six major U.S. seaports to Dubai-based firm will make them vulnerable to “terror attacks”.

After the UAE-based Dubai Ports World abandoned its bid to manage East Coast U.S. harbors after the major uproar and racist reaction the deal sparked in America, a move lawmakers doesn’t see as “going away”, the U.S. President George W. Bush expressed his concern "about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East."

The collapse of the Dubai ports deal demonstrates the West biased stance against the Muslim and the Arab world that even Dubai’s Western-oriented image couldn't change. Analysts explain that the main reason behind the Americans’ opposition to handing the United Arab of Emirates control over the U.S. ports was the fact that they were giving them to an Arab and Muslim country, an editorial on The Khaleej Times said.- It was a slap in the face of UAE, a strong U.S. ally in the Arab world.

Calling for ‘Keep Arabs out of our ports!’ the Americans seemed to ignore or forget the fact that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have invested $121 billion in U.S. companies and property.

"Arab investors don't want to invest in the West if it's going to be no entry or a one-way street," said Mohammed Abdul Mannan, an executive with Dubai's Department of Tourism and Commerce Marketing. He warned that the collapse of the deal could be "the final nail in the coffin to Arab investment in the West."

"Dubai is a trendsetter for the Arab world," said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a professor of political science at Emirates University. "This is where the United States should encourage trend-setting for moderates, for a free economy, for globalization. If America loses this friend, they are losing a potential future Arab tiger."

The hysteria caused by giving a Dubai firm authority to manage parts of several American ports is a clear example of how "Islamophobia" can overpower rational discourse, The Arab American News said on its website.

What should normally have been a routine business deal with a foreign state turned into a political fiasco sending a "no Arabs or Muslims need apply" message to the Middle East countries...

And anyone having the temerity to point out that the routine business involved a Muslim emriate which supports Hamas and refuses to allow Israelis to step onto and defile its soil is ipso facto a racist, I guess.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:19 | link | comments

Sink or swim: After being an ardent suppporter of the Bush Doctrine, David Warren has become uncharacteristically pessimistic about its chances of success. Warren has belatedly come to the realization that it may have been posited on false assuptions:

...But Mr Bush was staking his bet on the assumption that the Islamists were not speaking for Islam; that the world’s Muslims long for modernity; that they are themselves repelled by the violence of the terrorists; that, most significantly, Islam is in its nature a religion that can be “internalized”, like the world’s other great religions, and that the traditional Islamic aspiration to conjoin worldly political with otherworldly spiritual authority had somehow gone away. It didn’t help that Mr Bush took for his advisers on the nature of Islam, the paid operatives of Washington’s Council on American-Islamic Relations, the happyface pseudo-scholar Karen Armstrong, or the profoundly learned but terminally vain Bernard Lewis. Each, in a different way, assured him that Islam and modernity were potentially compatible.

The question, “But what if they are not?” was never seriously raised, because it could not be raised behind the mud curtain of political correctness that has descended over the Western academy and intelligentsia. The idea that others see the world in a way that is not only incompatible with, but utterly opposed to, the way we see it, is the thorn ever-present in the rose bushes of multiculturalism. “Ideas have consequences”, and the idea that Islam imagines itself in a fundamental, physical conflict with everything outside of itself, is an idea with which people in the contemporary West are morally and intellectually incapable of coming to terms. Hence our continuing surprise at everything from bar-bombings in Bali, to riots in France, to the Danish cartoon apoplexy.

My own views on the issue have been aloof. More precisely, they have been infected with cowardice. I am so “post-modern” myself that I, too, find it almost impossible to think through the corollaries from our world’s hardest fact. And that fact is: the post-Christian West is out of its depth with Islam.

Out of its depth and on the verge of drowning.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:02 | link | comments

Spam lingo: I've noticed that the names of spammers--those intrusive folk who attempt to hawk cheap drugs and sexual aids (among other products and services) over the Internet--seem to grow more exotic by the day. And the more exotic the name, the more tenuous the spammer's grasp of the English language.

Today, for example, I recieved a missive from someone purporting to be named Rubin Delarosa. Mr. Delarosa promises "A sensttional revolution in medicine" designed to "Enlarge your p'enis up to 10 cm." by using an "herbal solution what hasn't any side effects..." (Those are his typos/syntax errors, not mine.)

Hard to resist a pitch like that. Now, if I only had a penis...

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:46 | link | comments

Assigning blame: An Israeli Arab who went on a date with a Jewish girl was violently attacked by Muslims who disapprove of such inter-religious fraternization. But he strangest part of the story: Israeli police seem to blame the incident on the Jewish girl, and not the attackers. From Haaretz:

Police on Sunday arrested three men suspected of attacking and seriously injuring an Israeli Arab man from the village of Tamra early Saturday, after he went out with a Jewish girl in Kiryat Yam.

Jalal Tawili and his older brother Mohammed escorted the girl back home, after which they encountered a group of young men, who according to the brother were immigrants from the Caucasus region. The group allegedly attacked them with sticks and stones. Tawili suffered a severe blow to his skull from a large stone that was thrown at him with force.

Tawili, who serves in the Israel Defense Forces as a driver, was hospitalized in Rambam Hospital in Haifa in serious condition and underwent brain surgery on Saturday.

Police will ask on Sunday to extend the remand of the three suspects, aged 17, 18 and 26.

The assault took place on Zalman Shazar Street in Kiryat Yam, at around 3:30 in the morning. The police classified the event as aggravated assault and not a street fight, since it appears that the two men were attacked without provocation.

According to a police source, the fact that the Jewish girl chose to go out with an Arab man may have sparked the racist and violent attack.

Yes, if only the Jewish girl had turned him down, none of this would have happened.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:16 | link | comments

Preserving our values: The Foreign Minister of Turkey, the nation that desperately wants in to the EU, explains why it's so crucial to clamp down on insults to religion. From Zaman Online:

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul called the European Union (EU) to strengthen and implement the anti-defamation laws equally for Islam as well.

Gul warned his European colleagues not to damage their prestige in the Muslim world. He talked with the EU foreign ministers at a lunch gathering and made some suggestions to overcome the cartoon crisis.

Emphasizing the fact that insulting religions is forbidden in Europe, Gul said the current regulations are not sufficient and cannot be used for Islam. Gul called his European colleagues that the anti-defamation laws should be implemented for all religions including Islam. Gul also warned that “the real danger here is EU’s prestige, which is its biggest value. If you let this prestige collapse it will be Europe at loss in the first place. But the real loser will be the whole world. We have to prevent the idea that respect for beliefs and religions is not one of the most important values of Europe anymore. This is the biggest value of Europe and we cannot let it disappear.” Gul wanted Europe to focus on solving the problems like poverty, radicalism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism and Islamo-phobia in this frame and warned otherwise the radicals will benefit from the current situation. Gul said: “Gaining the hearts and minds of people has never been as important.”...

The minister seems to be labouring under the misimpression that freedom of expression--including the freedom to lampoon and satirize--somehow detracts from the EU's "prestige." It doesn't. But the willingness to placate those who seek to impose a universal curb on "blasphemy"--does. Also, I believe the regulations to which he refers deal with spreading hate and not "insulting religions." (Britain tried to pass the kind of legislation Gul is talking about, but luckily, it was voted down.)

Furthermore, we all now whose "hearts and minds" Gul would probably most like to corral, and whose freedom would inevitably suffer as a result.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:06 | link | comments

Maintaining order in France: When some restive "youths" from the 'burbs took to the streets in an orgy of car-torching last fall, the French authorities took cover, and it was three weeks before the riots subsided to acceptable levels. Compare and contrast with how quickly police have dispatched youthful rioters at the Sorbonne. From the BBC:

The French education minister has defended the use of force to evacuate almost 200 protesting students from the Sorbonne university in Paris.
Gilles de Robien accused some of the students of "odious acts", including defacing books and equipment.

Riot police using tear gas and batons confronted students angry at a new labour law, that would allow employers to hire and fire young workers.

But a student union leader said such tactics would lead to more violence.

The prime minister, Dominique de Villepin, is due to give a nationwide television address on Sunday, in an attempt to quell disquiet over the law, which has provoked several demonstrations throughout France over the past week.

At least two people were injured and there were several arrests in Saturday's operation at the prestigious Sorbonne.

Police stormed the university early in the morning to drive out the students - some of whom had been inside for three days - clearing the main building in less than 10 minutes.

They just got attacked in the most incredible way

"This is what happens when you call for disorder," said Mr Robien...

..."but only if you don't happen to live in places like Clichy-Sous-Bois or Saint Dennis," he might have added.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:26 | link | comments

Free speech in T.O.: Over 100 protesters showed up in front of the Danish consulate in Toronto yesterday to support free speech. And, unlike protests held elsewhere by those opposing such freedom, the consulate stayed intact. From the CBC:

More than 100 demonstrators took to the streets in Toronto on Saturday to support free speech.

They were protesting against the sometimes violent riots that targeted Denmark and its embassies after a Danish newspaper published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad last year.

The strong reaction to the cartoons has highlighted the conflict between the Western ideal of freedom of speech and what some Muslims say is a blasphemous offence against a religious figure.

The Toronto demonstrators marched in front of the Danish consulate, where former TV news anchor Peter Kent said "any democracy worth its salt should be strong enough to endure the most controversial speech."

Kent represented the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, which seeks to change Canadian policy that they say "consistently fails to support sister democracies who share our values," such as India, Taiwan, the U.S. and Israel...

Supporting those who share our values: Wow, what a refreshing concept. (I like the Thomas Paine quote on the Coalition's Web site: "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." Damn straight.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:09 | link | comments

Hamas "statesman" Khaled Meshaal channels his inner Marcel Marceau:

Looks like he's trying to find his way out of one of those "mime" boxes. Sorry, Khaled: There's no way out.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:59 | link | comments (1)

Sprucing up the Beeb: The Beeb is being forced to clean up its act. From the Sunday Times:

THE BBC is to be forced to promote British citizenship and a sense of community under a new royal charter to be unveiled this week.
It will redefine the purpose of the BBC, entrusting it with a far wider brief than its established mission to “inform, educate and entertain”.

The BBC’s leading dramatists reacted with dismay to the demand — to sustain citizenship and civil society — which they fear will force the corporation to do the government’s bidding.

Tony Blair, the prime minister, and Gordon Brown, the chancellor, have placed renewal of national identity, citizenship and “respect” at the centre of their political agenda.

Andrew Davies, the BBC’s most prolific and successful drama writer responsible for hits such as Pride and Prejudice, said: “It sounds Stalinist. It looks like the BBC will be doing the government’s propaganda. Part of the BBC’s function should be to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy.”

John Fortune, the satirist, said: “It’s an extraordinary demand. Part of the role of broadcasters is be able to laugh at government and institutions. Producers will now be worried about not rocking the boat.”

Activists gave notice that they will seek to exploit the measure to force the BBC to “clean up” its programming. John Beyer, director of Mediawatch-UK, said: “This means much more than the BBC thinks.

“It’s not just things like impartial news. It is about reflecting good behaviour on the BBC and using good language. The BBC has a moral role. As a lobby group we will now use this phrase as a way to make the BBC act responsibly.”

The government white paper will spell out five other new “purposes” for the BBC. They include promoting education, “stimulating creativity”, “representing the UK, its nations and regions”, and “bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK”...

Of course, it can still be as nasty as ever about Israel and the U.S. (just like that other pro-Islamic broadcaster, Al Jazeera)

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:54 | link | comments

Curious behavior: That old "Islamophobe" Mark Steyn is stirring the pot again. This time his focus are those twin grey towers of American journalism, The New York Times and the Washington Post. Steyn says the papers aren't up to the task of explicating the activities and convictions of Muslims in the West. The Times, for example, performed a maladroit tap dance around issue of why a young Iranian psychology grad might to plow his rental vehicle into a throng of students at his Alma Mater: The Times chose to downplay the jihadi aspects of the student's statements, preferring, in its abject dhimmitude, to ignore the M word and any religious motivation for his act. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

...If Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar is not a free-lance terrorist, then what is he? Who is he? What's he thinking? In the absence of any explanatory voices from the Muslim community, all we have are the bare bones of his resume: He's a 22-year old UNC psychology major who graduated in December. And what's revealing is the link between Taheri-azar's grievance and his action.

Take him at his word: He's upset about "the treatment of Muslims around the world" -- presumably at the hands of Israelis on the West Bank, of the Russians in Chechnya, the Indians in Kashmir, the Americans in the Sunni Triangle and the Danes in the funny pages. So what does he do to avenge Islam? He goes to the rental agency, takes out the biggest car on the lot, drives it to UNC and rams it into the men and women he's spent the last few years studying with and socializing with -- the one group of infidels he knows really well.

How many Muslims feel similarly? Not many in America, perhaps -- if only when compared to Europe: For all the multiculti blather, the United States still does a better job assimilating immigrants than France or Germany. A recent poll found that 40 percent of British Muslims want sharia introduced in the United Kingdom and 20 percent sympathized with the "feelings and motives" of the July 7 London Tube bombers. Or, more accurately, 20 percent were prepared to admit to a pollster they felt sympathy, which suggests the real figure might be somewhat higher. Huge numbers of Muslims -- many of them British subjects born and bred -- see their fellow Britons blown apart on trains and buses and are willing to rationalize the actions of mass murderers.

"East is east and west is west/And ne'er the twain shall meet," wrote Kipling. Obviously, they meet every moment of the day -- the cabbie driving you to your appointment in Washington, the affable fellow at the corner store. But proximity isn't the same as understanding: Taheri-azar and that 20 percent of British Muslims think they know "the west" and they don't like it. By contrast, the New York Times and Co. insist they like "the east" but go to an awful lot of trouble to avoid finding out anything that would ruffle their illusions. The twain would never meet, said Kipling, "till Earth and Sky meet presently/At God's great judgment seat."

I'd rather find out before then. Five years after Sept. 11, it's astonishing how little we still know about the West's Muslim populations.

Update: Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later, but the news is still shocking--Mark Steyn is has been dropped by the Spectator and The Telegraph.

No doubt like politically incorrent pieces like the one above.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:42 | link | comments

Saturday, 11 March 2006

Stretch Armstrong: Contorting herself into a human pretzel, Islam-apologist Karen Armstrong tries to account for the heated reaction of those aggrieved by the sight of Mo 'toons and likens the ensuing tumult to--hold onto your hats--the Scopes Monkey Trail.

Yeah, they're dead ringers, Karen. From (where else?) The Guardian:

The crisis occasioned by the Danish cartoons, which depicted the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist, has become a microcosm of the wider conflict between Islam and the western world. It also represents a clash between two competing conceptions of the sacred. The sacred, of course, does not necessarily imply an external deity. Some faith traditions, especially those originating in the east, have no conception of the supernatural and are not theistic in the western sense. The sacred symbolises that which is inviolable, nonnegotiable, and so central to our identity that, when it is injured in any way, it seems to vitiate the deepest self. For the Muslim protesters, the figure of the prophet is sacred in this way; for the supporters of the cartoons, free speech is the sacred value.

Freedom of expression is both a product and a prerequisite of modernity. In the pre-modern world, social order was regarded as more important than freedom of thought. It was not feasible to encourage people to have original ideas or to criticise established institutions in the hope of improving them, because agrarian-based society lacked the resources to implement many new notions. But independent thinking became essential to the modern economy; society could only become fully productive if inventors and scientists were able to pursue their ideas without the supervision of a controlling hierarchy. Our right to free speech and free thought has been hard won, and western civilisation could not function without it. It has become a sacred value, symbolising the inviolable sovereignty of the individual.

Nevertheless, we should not be surprised and affronted if people challenge it. Culture is always contested. Today all over the world religious conservatives and secularists feel deeply threatened by one another; they all fear the destruction of sacred, fundamental values. As a result, the modernisation process has been punctuated by such conflicts as the Scopes trial of 1925, when Christian fundamentalists in the US tried to ban the teaching of evolution in the state schools, and the Salman Rushdie affair, when Muslims felt mortally wounded by Rushdie's portrayal of their prophet.

These conflicts both began with what was perceived as an aggressive assault on religion by the proponents of free speech. But they ended by making the religious contenders more extreme. Before the Scopes trial, for example, Christian fundamentalists had often been on the left of the political spectrum, willing to work alongside socialists in the slums of the industrialising cities. But as a result of their media humiliation during the trial, fundamentalists swung to the far right, where they have remained. In other traditions too, the militant piety that we call "fundamentalism" has developed in a similarly symbiotic relationship with a liberalism or secularism that is experienced as hostile and invasive.

The cartoon crisis is simply the latest of these disputes, and as such could be seen as part of the bumpy process whereby societies at different stages of modernisation gradually learn to accommodate one another. But in the current political climate, we can ill afford this escalation of tension. On both sides, the conflict has been fuelled and exploited by radicals, who do not represent the majority...

Well, as long as they only represent a small minority (an infinitesimal fringe), we can breathe a huge sigh of relief.

The attempt to link the Mo 'toons and the Scopes trial is part and parcel of Armstrong's belief that all fundamentalisms are essentially the same--and thus essentially equivalent--and all can be explained as a retreat in the face of modernism. The flaw in her argument, of course: only of of these fundamentalisms has jihad as a central tenet and is thus hugely threatening to non-believers.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:22 | link | comments

The evil men do: No one deserves to die like Tom Fox, the member of the Christian Peacemaker Teams who was tortured and murdered by his kidnappers in Iraq. At the same time, Fox and his comrades undoutedly made themselves a tempting target when they ventured into a war zone with the aim of helping the bad guys. In the end, this misguided budinsky made a fatal mistake: the made no allowance for true evil. From The American Thinker:

Yesterday, peace activist Tom Fox was found murdered in Iraq.

Fox, along with fellow activists Harmeet Singh Sooden, Norman Kember, and James Loney was kidnapped in Baghdad on November 26, 2005.

All belonged to the leftwing Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), which provided “human shields” in Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, works side by side with the anti-Israel, quasi-terrorist International Solidarity Movement and takes the standard leftwing position that America, as the world’s biggest terrorist, got its comeuppance on 9/11/2001. CPT’s official motto is “Getting in the Way,” and it ran a program called “Adopt a Detainee,” which was sympathetic to suspected terrorists being detained by U.S. and Iraqi forces in Iraq.

So, the late Mr. Fox belonged to a group that essentially saw the “good guys” as being equal to, if not worse than, the bad guys. He believed he was doing a righteous thing by essentially throwing stones in the path of the U.S., Iraqi and Coalition soldiers, the same men and women who are trying to round up the Islamist terror-mongers washing the streets of Baghdad in blood and misery, terror-mongers like those who murdered him.

Everything I’ve read about Mr. Fox indicates that, though misguided in his worldview, he was in many ways a decent man. Fox played in the United States Marine Band for twenty years. A Quaker, he served as a youth leader at Langley Hill Friends Meeting. His daughter, Katherine, says that while he was in the military, he refused military discounts on principle.

But Fox also harbored hatred for his culture and an overall disdain for America, as indicated by statements he made on his blog. He also suffered from a terrible naiveté:

I think it would be fair to say that a survey of opinion taken from news sources in various parts of the world would find people using the words ‘fear and hatred’ much more often than they would use the words ‘respect and love’ when it comes to describing the United States. Not only in the Middle East but in Europe and in much of Asia and other areas as well. We are seen more as an empire rather than a beacon of hope to the oppressed and downtrodden. We are seen more as a militaristic superpower, bent on imposing our will on others, rather than the keeper of the flame of the hope and promise of democracy,

said Thomas William Fox, ignoring, among other things, the fact that people fear America so much, that they flock to its shores in droves, seeking freedom and peace and economic opportunity.

After reading most of his blog entries, it seems to me that Fox’s tragic flaw, the one that ultimately got him killed, was that he did not really believe that some men are more evil than others...

The writer goes on to note that while Tom Fox may have held the scum who killed him and their cause in high esteem, to them he was nothing more than a worthless infidel:

The Utopian fanatics who killed Tom Fox could have cared less whether or not he was sympathetic towards them, or if he hated them or whether he believed in God, or not. They could have cared less if he had a family or friends who loved him. They did not care for his compassion. They did not care that, on some levels, he even empathized with them: they, who held him captive. They did not care that, in his way, he was trying to help alleviate the suffering of their brothers and sisters.

All Tom Fox was to his captors and murderers was filth—a piece of garbage; a weak, vile, subhuman infidel of the Western variety; a creature to be spit on and reviled and, when no longer useful, slaughtered like an animal and then discarded. They treated Mr. Fox like they would treat us all, as stones to be kicked aside while building the road to Paradise. They treated Mr. Fox, and if given the chance they’d treat us all, like the Nazis treated the Jews...

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:40 | link | comments

Bush's auditory problems: George W. Bush's actions in recent days, including the Dubai flapdoodle, betokens a leader who seems out of touch with the people. I might have called it being "tone deaf," while Barry Casselman on the RealClear Politics site describes it as the President having "a tin ear."

Same difference, I guess:

...What did Presidents Truman, Reagan and Clinton have in common? They were good communicators, and they had an ear for what the American public thought and felt (although they often went against what political pundits told them was what Americans thought and felt). The worst thing an American politician can have is a tin ear.

This is not about public policy. I have defended Mr. Bush's policies in the Middle East and his long-term vision, and I continue to do so. His attempts to reform Social Security and create health-savings accounts are on the right track.

Although I think his proposals so far are not enough, he is right to try to reform education and health care. I applaud his new efforts to reduce American dependency on foreign oil imports, and in insisting on drastic U.N. reform.

What is not commendable is a pattern of personal unwillingness to engage and include the American public in building support for his own policies.

There are some obvious reasons for this. Mr. Bush, who is quite capable of being charming, likeable and effective to small, friendly audiences, apparently does not enjoy his role as communicator in chief to the nation, a role that is as much part of the job as commander in chief of the armed forces. This role is not specified in the Constitution, but it has been a necessary part of the job since the first president, George Washington.

Much of the national media opposes Mr. Bush, and makes no secret of it. Many of his loudest critics make no effort to evaluate what he says and does fairly. Those in the entertainment industry, who are often badly informed, have relentlessly made fun of him. Sometimes satire was deserved, and no one denies the inherent role of the media to be critical. But there has been a venom in the media/cultural left for Mr. Bush, who has apparently long mistrusted the media, and from his 2000 campaign on has kept it at arm's length. His first press secretary, Ari Fleischer, was skillful, but his assignment was not to be forthcoming. His current press secretary, Scott McLellan, is neither skillful nor forthcoming. It is a formula for a communication disaster.

The latest flap is over a deal to allow an Arab-owned company to manage six American ports. This is a large company which is already managing several world ports, and doing it well. They submitted the best bid. The fact that this company is owned by an Arab ally raises a question of political sensitivity to our allies and to the Arab world at large. But it is a tin ear that does not realize how this would be received by not only opponents and the media, but also by supporters and the public at large. This is the same political ear that nominated Harriet Myers for the supreme court and avoided going to New Orleans right after Hurricane Katrina.

This suggests that the kind of advice the president received during his first term is no longer reaching him in his second...

And the same tin ear prompted the President to commend the Palestinians for participating in the democratic process--a sign, he said, of a society's "health"--even if the result was that it put a jihadi terror regime in charge.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:50 | link | comments

UNderming women: Did you know that the UN's Commission on the Status of Women passes an annual resolution condemming the treatment of Palestinian women in Israel? Me neither. I read about it in this CBC story about the role the new Conservative government sees Canada playing at the UN. (It's more of less the same as the role it's always played, except for the fact that it will no longer go along with these specious resolutions; Canada voted against the Commission's anti-Israel resolution this year.)

When is the Commission going to pass a resolution condemming the way Muslim women have been persuaded to make a fashion statement by hiding dynamite in their scanties and blowing up infidels? I'd say that's abuse of the first order and pales in comparision to any treatment the UN insists is being meted out in Israel.

(No need to answer the question. The likelihood of the UN's sudry bodies laying off Israel is about the same as the likelihood of Hamas renouncing the jihad and reconciling itself to a two state solution.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:27 | link | comments

A brave woman speaks out: The New York Times has an article about Wafa Sultan. Dr. Sultan is the Syrian-born woman, now living with her husband and family in the U.S., who raged against the backwardness of Islam, the faith she was born into but no longer practices, on a debate on Al Jazeera television. The debate was translated by MEMRI, and has since ricocheted around the globe; the Times reports it “has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands.”

The most controversial aspect of the debate (which wasn’t really a debate, since the gentleman on the other side said he refused to argue with an apostate): her comments comparing Muslims unfavourably to Jews.

Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, "The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling."

She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."

She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."

Sultan also decried the ideology that prompts young people to become shahids, and religious leaders who persuade them that blowing yourself up for Allah is a blast. (Okay, she didn’t exactly put it that way, but the thought was the same):

"Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up? In our countries, religion is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched."

Not surprisingly, Dr. Sultan’s comments have elicited the expected response from those who don't take kindly to such criticism:

In response, clerics throughout the Muslim world have condemned her, and her telephone answering machine has filled with dark threats.

I don’t know about you, but I definitely smell a fatwa in the offing.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:52 | link | comments

Friday, 10 March 2006

Ignoring the threat: As the New York Times expends dozens of column inches on the saga of a "moderate" Egyptian-born imam and the beauty of his faith and its magazine devotes a lengthy cover story to the adventures of a former Taliban spokesman now enrolled at Yale, let's pause to reflect on the shameful way the paper ignored the plight of Europe's Jews as they were being wiped out by the Nazis. And let's remember that the Times was far from in behaving so shamefully at a critical moment in history. From Editor & Publisher:

CHICAGO In 1939, the American Newspaper Publishers Association would not give Harvard University Professor Carl Friedrich 10 minutes to speak about the plight of Jewish journalists trapped in Nazi Germany. At its annual convention next month, the renamed Newspaper Association of America (NAA) will discuss at length the industry's failure to help the journalists, President and CEO John Sturm pledged in a letter released Friday.

The NAA response was the latest fallout from research by Northeastern University Professor Laurel Leff showing that journalism schools and newspapers in the 1930s not only ignored the German Jewish journalists facing persecution--they sometimes reacted to requests for help with anti-Semitic responses. The research was first received widespread attention following an article in the February issue of Editor & Publisher.

Former New York Times reporter Laurence Zuckerman and the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies in Washington, D.C. organized a petition--ultimately signed by more than 80 journalists and journalism educators--that asked the NAA to acknowledge the industry's failures then, and to invite Leff to speak at its upcoming convention in Chicago.

In the letter dated March 3, Sturm acknowledged and expressed "regret" for ANPA's snub of Friedrich in 1939. The association had previously said an extensive search of its archives failed to find any mention of the incident.

An NAA spokesperson told E&P the association confirmed the incident through references in correspondence between Friedrich and an ANPA member publisher.

"We regret that the ANPA did not give Professor Friedrich the opportunity to speak to its 1939 convention, particularly since newspapers have played a crucial role in telling stories of the oppressed, and providing a voice to those whose stories would not be told otherwise," he wrote in the letter, and in a statement later released to E&P.

Sturm invited Leff and Friedrich's son, Paul Friedrich, to address the NAA board of directors meeting April 1 during the convention.

In addition, Sturm said that NAA chairman Jay R. Smith, president of Cox Newspapers, will speak about "the work of Prof. Friedrich, and the issues raised in Prof. Leff's paper," in his keynote address on April 3.

Sturm also said he had asked Leff to write an article on her research for the May issue of the association's magazine Presstime.

"We strongly commend John Sturm and the NAA for facing up to the failure of U.S. journalists and publishers to aid Jewish refugee journalists, just as other public figures, corporations, and governments have in recent years faced up to their own failures during the Holocaust," Rafael Medoff, director of the Wyman Institute, said:. "Acknowledging and regretting past mistakes is the first step in ensuring that they will never be repeated."

Leff said in a statement she was "pleased to have the opportunity to address the NAA board of directors, and write for the NAA's magazine, about this troubling but important chapter in the history of American journalism.”

In her research of Friedrich's papers, former Wall Street Journal reporter Leff discovered that he contacted journalism schools, newspapers and the ANPA urging them to help bring German Jewish journalists under special immigration waivers to work in the United States. Many other professions such as lawyers and doctors formed committees and networks to rescue Jewish colleagues from impending German persecution.

The newspaper industry, however, was not only indifferent to their plight, journalists and educators occasionally expressed hostility to the idea of bring German Jews into the industry, Leff writes in her research paper, ""Rebuffing Refugee Journalists: The Profession's Failure to Help Jews Persecuted By Nazi Germany."

For instance, Lawrence Murphy, then director of the University of Illinois School of Journalism is quoted as responding: "The minute that Jews show up in numbers they become a threat to the others as they reveal that they would occupy all the jobs there are, and that they are quite likely to work together in filling the jobs...It is simply the case that we must hurt them to help them. We must keep them from being too prominent and assertive, and from threatening to take over all the white collar jobs."

While other professions saved colleagues, it appears the newspapers and j-schools did not assist a single German Jewish journalist.

While I suppose this might be considered a case of "better late than never," the fact that it took so long for the association to right a grievous wrong is rather telling. I have a sense that journalists today--at least in the mainstream media, most of whom tend to downplay the jihad and play up stories sympathetic to Palestinians, Islam and Muslims (like the above-mentioned imam, so near and dear to the heart of the New York Times reporter), are no more inclined to report on the current existential peril facing the Jews than were their journalistic forebears during the time of the Shoah.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:21 | link | comments

The son also rises: Democracy in Egypt may have hit another snag. From the Washington Post:

CAIRO -- The son of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and a group of close associates have moved into key political positions that put the younger man in line to succeed his aging father at a time when the government has taken steps to block opposition rivals from challenging the heir apparent.

Last month, Gamal Mubarak rose in the hierarchy of the governing National Democratic Party, whose grass-roots organization underpins his father's rule. He was named one of three NDP deputy secretaries general, and 20 of his associates took other high-ranking posts in the party. Mubarak had served as head of the party's policies committee, which helped fashion economic reforms.

Mubarak and his backers displaced some, but not all, of the veteran NDP activists known collectively as the old guard. Political observers saw in the move a gradual shift toward putting the NDP at the service of the president's son.

"Who can deny this is anything but a vehicle for succession?" said Hala Mustafa, an analyst at the government-financed al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies.

With the opposition on the defensive, there seems to be nothing blocking Mubarak's path to the presidency. "I don't see anyone who can stop him," said Joshua Stracher, a researcher at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland who studies the Arab Middle East.

Egypt has been singled out by President Bush as ripe for democratic reform. On a recent visit, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed general criticism of the pace of change in the country, saying there had been "disappointments and setbacks" last year. She said she discussed these with Egyptian officials "as a friend, not as a judge."

A few days later, President Mubarak told an Egyptian newspaper that Rice was "convinced by the way political reform" was proceeding in Egypt and that during her visit, she "didn't bring up difficult issues or ask to change anything."

During a quarter-century in power, Mubarak, now 77, never named a vice president, unlike his two predecessors, Anwar Sadat and Gamal Abdel Nasser. In the event he dies in office or resigns, elections would take place within two months. Theoretically, under rules decreed by Mubarak last year, multiple candidates could run to succeed him. However, the chances are shrinking that anyone but Gamal Mubarak will be able to launch an effective campaign, observers say...

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:53 | link | comments

Another bizarre headline: Ecstasy causes depression in pigs.

So don't give them any.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:42 | link | comments

Being diplomatic: The President says the prospect of a nuclear Iran is of "grave" national concern, and the way to deal with it is through diplomacy.

Yeah, that'll work.

I'd like to think that while Bush is saying this for public consumption, he realizes that the mully-bullies are about as likely to holiday in Vegas as they are to abandon their nuclear schemes, and has planned accordingly. But given what's gone down with the Dubai ports deal (as well as his statement after the Palestinian election that casting a vote--even one for a jihadi terror outfit--is a sign of a nation's "health"), I'm not so sure.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:01 | link | comments

False figures: How many Palestinians live in the P.A.? It depends. How much money you got? From Arutz Sheva:

The findings of an exhaustive study on Palestinian Authority (PA) population statistics claims that the Palestinian Authority has deliberately misled U.S. and international humanitarian efforts by inflating their population figures to attract billions of dollars in relief funds.

Bennet Zimmerman, Project Leader of a recent study entitled "Arab Population in the West Bank and Gaza: The Million Person Gap," presented the findings to the Congress this week. Zimmerman addressed the House International Relations Subcommittee on the Middle East which has been investigating U.S. funding of the Palestinian Authority.

"American tax dollars and other international humanitarian aid have been based on inflated population numbers which have been accepted without question by governments and aid agencies," he said in an interview with the World Net Daily. "Our researchers pointed out that money has been spent to help Palestinians who were double-counted, never born or not present in the West Bank and Gaza." ...

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:37 | link | comments

Ports mortum: When the dust from the failed Dubai ports deal finally settles, those of us who support the war for freedom will do our darndest to figure out what the heck George W. Bush was thinking.

This might be a clue.

In the wake of the failure--which must also be counted as a huge failure for him personally--the President says he's pertubed by the message America might be sending. Were I to try to capture it in words, the "message" might go something like this: Americans would prefer to keep their vital infrastructure in domestic hands, even if the UAE is comprised of the most moderate, even-tempered, forward-looking, business-minded Muslims in the universe, and even if they are our allies in the war (although, were the jihad to suddenly intensify and they were asked to chose up sides, we're not entirely sure they'd pick us).

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:19 | link | comments

Epitaph for John: John Profumo, the discredited former Cabinet Minister who was embroiled in one of Britain's most famous sex scandales, has died at the age of 91.

I thought the following might be a suitable epitaph:

Shed a tear for John Profumo.
Lured by Christine K.’s perfumo.
Hanky-panky spelled his doomo.
Now he’s resting in his tombo.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:34 | link | comments

Today's bizarre story: The quadrapeds of Turkey.

It's like that line from Orwell's Animal Farm: "Four legs good; two legs bad."

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:27 | link | comments

Standing up for freedom: A piece on Aljazeera.net confirms what I've always said: it's not about the 'toons. But to those like moi who prefer not to be scolded by those who would foist the contraints of sharia law on us all, it's about the freedom to criticize and yes, to blaspheme. For those like the Aljazeera scribe it's about--what else?--Islamophobia, and the horrors the West, in its overweeing "cultural arrogance," has heaped upon Islam:

...Nothing happens in a vacuum. Since we are historical beings, we cannot be detached from our hermeneutical tradition and historical condition.

Only by reference to these contexts are our actions understandable. Any explanation of the cartoons crisis that does not take into account the explosive climates of the post-September 11th world and the rise of the right wing in Europe and the United States is bound to remain superficial.

Islam, which had lain forgotten during the cold war and the obsession with the communist threat, has now come to the fore, penetrating into the heart of the public domain.

"The US has become morally liberal, the Islam world morally extreme. Malaysia seems to have come to a happy compromise. Freedom without decadence."

It is no coincidence that the cartoons were published in Denmark in a right-wing paper under a right-wing government then reprinted in countries notorious for their hostility to their Muslim minorities and opposition to the cultural and racial diversity of today’s European societies.

That reactions to the cartoons have been so passionate should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following developments in the Muslim world closely. To Muslims, the caricatures vividly brought back the scenes of Israeli bulldozers demolishing Palestinian homes in Jenin, the invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of Baghdad, terrors of Abu Ghraib and humiliations of Guantanamo Bay.

Cultural arrogance was added to political aggressiveness. Muslims have grown used to the torrent of terrifying images that associate them and their faith with the most horrifying of practices, from violence and cruelty to fanaticism and oppression. When it comes to Islam, all boundaries and limits could be dispensed with. The unacceptable becomes perfectly acceptable, proper and respectable.

The truth is that today racism, intolerance, xenophobia, and hatred of the other hide behind the sublime façade of free speech, the defence of “our” values and protection of “our” society from “foreign” aggression.

Let us not be deceived about this rhetoric of liberalism and free speech. The Danish cartoons have nothing to do with freedom of expression and everything to do with hatred of the other in a Europe grappling with its growing Muslim minorities, still unable to accept them...

So reporting on the horrors being conducted in the name of Islam--the terrorism, the violence, the rampages, the decapitations, the ethnic cleansing in places like Darfur, the "honor" killings of Muslim women, the threats of genocial jihadis like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--that's considered racist. Taking steps to preserve our cherished freedoms--that's called xenophobic. Refising to countenance Islamic intolerance--that's labeled intolerant.

And the only way to evade these charges--which cut us hyper-tolerant Westerners to the quick (you may as well accuse us of pedophilia, or being mean to small, furry creatures)--is to sit back and allow the tides of Islam to flow over us without complaint.

Sorry. I prefer to weather a few false charges and to do whatever I can to keep from drowing.

If some, like the woman who wrote this article, would label me an Islamophobe for it, so be it. One must willing to withstand a few smears in the name of freedom.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:20 | link | comments (2)

The two faces of Vladimir Putin: He's loves "Muslim causes" outside Russia; he represses them like crazy at home. What gives? From The Weekly Standard:

...A week before the Hamas delegation's visit to the Russian capital, the Russian authorities closed two regional newspapers--Gorodskie Vesti in Volgograd and Nash Region in Vologda--for printing the Danish Mohammad cartoons. The local prosecutor's office consequently charged Anna Smirnova, the editor of the Nash Region, with "inciting ethnic tensions"--an offense punishable by up to five years in prison under Article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code. The Danish Refugee Council, a non-governmental charity that provides food, health care, education, and reconstruction in Chechnya, was likewise instructed by the authorities to suspend its work. The stated reason: "concerns of reprisals" from the predominantly Muslim population in the region.

Responding to this potential PR disaster that threatened to undermine Russia's aspiration to serve as the new global mediator between the West and the Islamic world, President Putin stated: "There are more than 15 million Muslims in Russia and I want to say on behalf of the Russian leadership that we denounce any manifestations leading to the fanning of interethnic strife." Putin found some harsh words for the beleaguered Danish government as well: "One should reflect 100 times before publishing or drawing something," he said. "If a state cannot prevent such publications, it should at least ask for forgiveness."

Putin's groveling in the face of Muslim riots is part of a broader push on the part of his government over the past several years to reaffirm Russia's "unyielding commitment" to Muslim causes. This strategy has included gaining observer status to controversial organizations such as the Organization of Islamic Conference and cooperating with authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes that promote terror, such as Iran.

Putin's strategy is also intended to provide cover for his government's actions in Chechnya where, just a few days before Hamas was feted in the Kremlin, Prime Minister Sergei Abramov resigned from his post. Moscow hastily promoted the 29-year-old first deputy prime minister Ramzan Kadyrov, son of the late President Akhmad Kadyrov, to lead the region that is Russia's chief source of Islamic terrorism...

Newsflash, Vlad: Domestically and internationally, it's all the same jihad.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:48 | link | comments

Demonizing the West: Martin Kramer writes that Islam has appropriated some of the language of the crusades for the current version of its holy war. From FrontPage Magazine:

The Crusades began with a rumor of defilement. In 1095, Pope Urban II denounced the Muslims as "a race utterly alienated from God." Among their many offenses, Muslims had seized the churches of Jerusalem: "They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcisions they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font." Such false rumors were already widespread in Christendom. Urban tapped them to launch th

About me

Recent comments

Links

Archives

Counter

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:40 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:09 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:46 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:31 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:01 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:44 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:31 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:02 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:42 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:32 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:41 | link | comments (1)

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:24 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:14 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:22 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:34 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:46 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:50 | link | comments (1)

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:04 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:34 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:40 | link | comments (2)

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:16 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:56 | link | comments (2)

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:17 | link | comments (2)

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:35 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:09 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:15 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:02 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:52 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:16 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:42 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:56 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:08 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:42 | link | comments (2)

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:17 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:10 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:54 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:17 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:31 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:22 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:38 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:47 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:57 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:16 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:22 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:03 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:39 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:55 | link | comments (1)

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:25 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:21 | link | comments (2)

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:16 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:50 | link | comments (2)

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:13 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:19 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:43 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:33 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:19 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:00 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:10 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:55 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:58 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:47 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:37 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:02 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:51 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:42 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:30 | link | comments (1)

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:13 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:04 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:21 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:42 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:10 | link | comments

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:42 | link | comments (1)