...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

 

Un-hole-y terror: An unintentionally hilarious story, from the Canadian Jewish News:

 

A teenager, Connor Raniera, 18, confessed to vandalizing a Judaica store in Boca Raton, Fla, on May 21. He drew four white swastikas and a misspelled message that read “BUN THE JEWS.” He faces up to a year in jail if convicted.

 

No, no, Connor. Not BUN, BAGEL.

 

If you’re going to slander the Jews, you should at least use the right carb.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:32 | link | comments

 

Mama mia: A German mater makes her (failed) bid for paradise. From BBC News:

 

German mother ‘planned bombing’

Berlin police say they have foiled a German woman's plans to travel abroad to become a suicide bomber.

She is one of three women who media reports say are being investigated after announcing plans on the internet to carry out missions in Iraq.

Berlin police said the woman may have been planning to take along her child, who has since been taken into care.

Last year, a Belgian woman who had converted to Islam blew herself up in Baghdad, killing six people.

Berlin police told the BBC they had discovered that a 40-year-old woman was "planning via an internet forum to commit suicide, kill or injure other people abroad".

"She herself is a convert to Islam and was thus hoping to get into paradise," the police said. "It could not be ruled out that, in doing so, she would also kill her small child, who lived with her."…

 

As the mother of a young child myself, I have only one thing to say: There are no words.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:28 | link | comments

 

Today’s “let’s talk” update: Let’s see. Israel is willing to talk to  Hamas, if and when the genocidal jihadis renounce terrorism and recognize Israel. And now there’s word that the U.S. is willing to talk to Iran, provided it renounces uranium enrichment.

 

That’s a lot of conversation contingent on crazed Islamists behaving like civilized human beings.

 

At this stage, I suggest no one hold his/her breath.

Update: What'd I tell you? The mully-bullies to Condi: take a hike.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:54 | link | comments

 

Little Israel on the Prairies: In the Globe and Mail’s Letter to the Editor today, Shirley Groves of Beaconsfield, Quebec, writes:

Contrary to your tiresome mantra about Hamas's "violent opposition to Israel," what the Palestinian government opposes is not Israel's existence per se, but its occupation of Palestinian lands (Abbas Sets The Bar -- editorial, May 30). All Palestinians -- including Hamas -- would gladly recognize a Jewish state if it had been carved out of Canada rather than Palestine. Surely Albertans would gladly give up half of their province for such a noble endeavour?

Well, Shirley (and I hope you won’t mind if I call you by your first name, but from the tone and tenor of your letter, I feel I know your type so well) for that to happen we Jews would have to completely amend our history, our holy books, our religion, and our eternal connection to the land of Israel. And why should we when, newsflash, we were there first. (For more on the unbreakable bond between Jews and Israel, see this article by Dennis Prager.)

 

Also, if we moved the Jewish state to Alberta we’d have to change the prayer to “Next year in Medicine Hat,” and, frankly, that’s a little too much to ask.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:18 | link | comments (1)

 

The hills are alive with the sound of Judenhass: In 1965, the New Yorker’s late, great film critic, Pauline Kael, was fired from her earlier job with McCalls magazine when she made the following deliciously malicious quip about that much-loved but unbearably saccharine musical, The Sound of Music:

 

Wasn't there perhaps one little von Trapp who didn't want to sing his head off, or who screamed that he wouldn't act out little glockenspiel routines for Papa's party guests, or who got nervous and threw up if he had to get on a stage?

 

I was thinking about this quote—one of my favourites—the other day when I read that 900—count ‘em, 900—CUPE Ontario members attending the Union’s annual meeting in Ottawa had voted unanimously to boycott Israel. Wasn’t there perhaps one little CUPE member who didn’t want to fall in line with the mob, or who screamed that a boycott against Israel was like doing little glockenspiel routines for Mahmoud Abbas and the other Israel-trashers, or who got nervous and threw up upon realizing the significance of singling out the Jewish state in this despicable way?

 

Guess not.

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:54 | link | comments

 

Les Incorigables: It’s almost summer in France, and you know what that means. No, I’m not referring to the beautiful and the disreputable co-mingling at the Cannes Film Festival. I’m speaking, cher amis, of those spirited “youths” from the 'burbs and their madcap hijinks.

 

No keggers or beach parties but lots and lots of convivial car-b-cues. From the BBC:

 

Youths clash with French police

 

Rioting youths have set fire to cars and thrown stones at police in a second night of violence in the Paris suburbs.

 

The trouble has flared up little more than six months after the area endured weeks of riots and clashes with police.

 

A number of officers were injured in the violence on Tuesday and at least 13 youths were arrested.

 

One was an 18-year-old involved in the electrocuting incident last October which left two friends dead and led to the riots in suburbs across France.

 

The violence on Tuesday took place in Montfermeil, 15 km (10 miles) east of the centre of Paris, and in the nearby suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois, the flashpoint of last year's rioting...

 

Update: As if the car-b-cues, now into their second night, aren’t bad enough, there’s a report on the The Times Online site that some “youths” have been taking their “grievances” to Paris’s Jewish district to take them up with les Juifs. From the Times Online:

 

POLICE sent reinforcements to the troubled suburbs of northern Paris yesterday after a night of rioting revived fear of a return to the violence that raged through France’s immigrant housing estates last year.

In another sign of continuing racial tension, the Government also ordered an inquiry into an anti-Semitic black group that staged an aggressive march through the Jewish quarter of the capital…

Politicians and Jewish organisations united yesterday in condemning the acts of the so-called Tribu KA black supremacy group that intimidated passers-by last Sunday in the Rue des Rosiers, the Jewish quarter in the Marais district.

Black supremacy; Muslim supremacy. If they’re so “supreme”, why don’t they have a "clash of the titans" and leave the Jews alone?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:35 | link | comments

 

Take two: Here are two versions of the same news story. The first, from the Toronto Star:

 

Israeli troops raid Gaza rocket zone

Four Palestinians killed in gunfight Hamas promises to pay some wages

May 31, 2006. 01:00 AM

SARAH EL DEEB

ASSOCIATED PRESS

 

GAZA CITY—Israel launched its first ground military operation inside the Gaza Strip since it pulled out of the region last year, killing three members of a Palestinian rocket squad and a policeman in a fierce battle yesterday, the Israeli army said.

 

The gunfight between Israeli commandos and Islamic Jihad militants took place about three kilometres inside northern Gaza. Militants based there have fired hundreds of homemade rockets at Israeli border communities in recent years.

 

The operation marked a change in army tactics since the September pullout and signalled a further escalation in cross-border fighting…

 

Now, here’s the same story, which originated in The Daily Telegraph, as it appears in the National Post (no link):

 

ISRAEL AMBUSHES TERRORISTS IN GAZA

Members of Islamic Jihad about to launch rocket

 

BY TIM BUTCHER

 

JERUSALEM Israeli special forces entered Gaza and ambushed a group of Palestinian terrorists about to fire a rocket into Israel yesterday in the army’s first ground raid into the territory since an Israeli pullout last year.

 

With a helicopter providing cover, the covert team opened fire, killing all three members of an Islamic Jihad unit that was preparing to fire a small, homemade rocket, known as a Qassam.

 

As the troops withdrew, an Apache helicopter fired a missile into the ground near an approaching Palestinian ambulance. There were reports that a Palestinian policeman unconnected to the rocket party was also killed…

 

The above demonstrates in Rashomon-like fashion that the identical story can be perceived in completely different ways, depending on one’s perspective.

 

On another note, is having an “el” in your name a prerequisite for employment as an AP scribe?

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

 

A war by any other name: Canadian soldiers are fighting and dying in Afghanistan, but Canada’s Defence Minister isn’t prepared to characterize it as a “war.”

 

Of course, he hasn’t yet been able to come up with exactly the right euphemism to describe it. (A non-peace? An interminable skirmish? Forceful peacekeeping?) From the CBC:

 

Canada isn't at war in Afghanistan, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said on Tuesday, but some in the opposition say the government is just playing semantics for political reasons.

 

O'Connor told a committee hearing that Canada has 2,300 soldiers in Afghanistan — many of them involved in reconstruction, peacekeeping and democracy building — even though they've also been involved in heavy and deadly fighting.

 

"I don't consider this war," O'Connor said, but he declined to explain.

 

"To me, war would be — well, I can start going into what war would be, I just don't consider this to be war."

 

The Liberals charge that Mr. O’Connor is having trouble untying his tongue—and his brain—because he doesn’t want to put the word “war” into public consciousness due to its unpleasant association with Bush’s “war on terror” and the war in Iraq.

 

But I’m sure Canadians will be pleased to know that, even though we’re not fighting a war

 

Nonetheless, O'Connor says, Canada is winning in Afghanistan.

 

"If you concentrate against our military, then, you know, we can defeat them. And lately they have been concentrating against our military in our area and they have been taking very large casualties," he said.

 

Memo to Mr. O’Connor: if it looks like a war and quacks like a war…

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:34 | link | comments

 

Hubbub at the UN: Iran and Syria, two terror states which would be pleased to see the Zionist entity eradicated, and sooner rather than later, reiterated their deep-seated desires in a most congenial setting—congenial to them, that is: the UN Security Council.  The Israeli involved, UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman, defended the right of his nation to be a fait accompli. And, of course, the AP scribe, who I’m sure is completely unbiased even though his name is Tarek El-Tablawy, wrote the whole thing up as another one of those tit-for-tat things, Israelis and Muslims, both equally intransigent, sniping at each other across the floor.

 

He also recorded some of the terror states’ loopier assertions about there being a clear line of demarcation between terrorism being perpetrated inside Israel and terror that occurs everywhere else.

 

Guess which one they say is permissible.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Syrian and Iranian diplomats traded barbs with Israel's UN ambassador on Tuesday, as a routine Security Council meeting on fighting terrorism degenerated into insults.

At a meeting aimed at assessing the progress and work of the Security Council's three anti-terror committees, Israel's UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman described Iran and Syria as part of an "Axis of Terror" and said Iran was the "greatest state sponsor of terrorism and the largest threat to international peace and security."

Gillerman also lashed out at the oft-repeated argument by Iran and many Arab states that a distinction must be made between terrorism and armed resistance movements - namely the Palestinians' fight against the Jewish state.

The Israeli ambassador said his country has "an intimate awareness of the need to fight international terrorism," and stressed that there can be no justification for terrorism, the fight against which he described as the "Third World War."

Syrian diplomat Ahmed Alhariri countered that Damascus has taken a front-line role in the fight against terror and called on the Security Council to "avoid double standards in combating terrorism." Such a battle must be "based on strict legal criteria, and not flimsy political considerations," he said.

"In this regard, I must stress that Israel is duty bound to cease this cheap blackmail against the United Nations," said Alhariri. "All are aware that the source of terrorism in the region is Israel's continuing occupation of Arab lands, and the ejection of Palestinians from their land . . . as well as continued aggression against Arabs and the denial of their fundamental rights."

Israel and the United States have routinely accused Syria and Iran of supporting terror, either by hosting and funding militant groups such as Hezbollah, or by doing little to halt the flow of weapons and foreign fighters into Iraq - a country grappling daily with sectarian killings, suicide bombings and other violence…

Yeah, Mr. Gillerman. Get with the program. All are aware that the source of terrorism is “the occupation”—of a sovereign Jewish land by, um, the Jews. And if those uppity dhimmis would only acknowledge their fundamentally lowly status in this world and thus restore that natural order of things as promised by Allah and recorded by Mo—everything would be copasetic.

However, Mr. Gillerman was able to “lash out” with what was probably the most accurate, and certainly the drollest, statement of the afternoon:

Gillerman was quick to fire back, expressing his "appreciation, which I hope is shared by members of the Security Council, for the opportunity afforded to all of us to hear lectures about terrorism by two of the world's greatest experts on that subject."

To echo the wry words of Sigmund Freud when he was released by the Gestapo, Gillerman can most highly recommend Syria and Iran to everyone.

Update: Hmm. Funny how the AP story left out this part. From the New York Sun:

 

UNITED NATIONS - A verbal brawl erupted at the Security Council yesterday as it debated the subject of terrorism. During the skirmish, Syria accused Israel of starting World Wars I and II, as well as "contemplating" a third world war.

 

The anti-Semitic outburst by the Syrian representative, Ahmad Alhariri, as well as allegations by his Iranian colleague, Ahmad Sadeghi, countered comments from Israel's U.N. ambassador, Dan Gillerman, who said both Syria and Iran are part of an "axis of terror" that would pit them against a group of anti-terrorism "allies" in a "World War III."…

 

In honour of the Syrian Jew-hater’s undiplomatic outburst, I have decided to re-post a song from my never-to-be-produced musical Elders!, the musical version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The song, “Ours”, is sung by several of the shadowy ones, and spoofs the age-old canards about “the Jews” being behind all the bad stuff.

 

Ours

 

Consider all historical calamity

The war, the pain, the fear and insanity,

We like to claim, with no trace of vanity—

It’s ours, ours, ours!

 

Seven Years, Hundred Years, ev’ry duration

Of warfare and strife throughout ev’ry nation,

Conduct a little investigation—

It’s ours, ours, ours.

 

Behind revolutions, both French and Russian,

Populations we’re fond of crushin’,

Wells that are poisoned and loos that ain't flushin'

It’s ours, ours, ours!

 

Wars between States and ‘tween Roses—ours!

The Cold War we suppose is—ours!

Some war we can’t disclose is—ours!

It’s ours, ours, ours.

 

Unrest in southern Albania—ours!

The onset of mania in Spain-ia—ours!

The sinking of the Lusitania—ours!

It’s ours, ours, ours!

 

Trouble that’s murky and vague—ours!

Civil unrest in The Hague—ours!

A little old thing like the plague—ours!

It’s ours, ours, ours!

 

Turkish synagogue bombings—we plotted for hours.

Silence and subterfuge—part of our powers.

And somehow we toppled those big ol’ Twin Towers.

It’s ours, ours, ours.

 

There’s nothing you can do to please us

Nothing that will e'er appease us

And don’t forget, we also killed Jesus.

He was ours, ours, ours!

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:01 | link | comments

 

Hit and myth: Moo and a Der Spiegel interviewer have a heated exchange about the veracity of the Holocaust. The Der Spiegel scribe insists the Shoa is a fact. Moo, not surprisingly, begs to differ. Here’s just a portion of the interview:

SPIEGEL: There was great indignation in Germany when it became known that you might be coming to the soccer world championship. Did that surprise you?

Ahmadinejad: No, that's not important. I didn't even understand how that came about. It also had no meaning for me. I don't know what all the excitement is about.

SPIEGEL: It concerned your remarks about the Holocaust. It was inevitable that the Iranian president's denial of the systematic murder of the Jews by the Germans would trigger outrage.

Ahmadinejad: I don't exactly understand the connection.

SPIEGEL: First you make your remarks about the Holocaust. Then comes the news that you may travel to Germany -- this causes an uproar. So you were surprised after all?

Ahmadinejad: No, not at all, because the network of Zionism is very active around the world, in Europe too. So I wasn't surprised. We were addressing the German people. We have nothing to do with Zionists.

SPIEGEL: Denying the Holocaust is punishable in Germany. Are you indifferent when confronted with so much outrage?

Ahmadinejad: I know that DER SPIEGEL is a respected magazine. But I don't know whether it is possible for you to publish the truth about the Holocaust. Are you permitted to write everything about it?

SPIEGEL: Of course we are entitled to write about the findings of the past 60 years' historical research. In our view there is no doubt that the Germans -- unfortunately -- bear the guilt for the murder of 6 million Jews.

Ahmadinejad: Well, then we have stirred up a very concrete discussion. We are posing two very clear questions. The first is: Did the Holocaust actually take place? You answer this question in the affirmative. So, the second question is: Whose fault was it? The answer to that has to be found in Europe and not in Palestine. It is perfectly clear: If the Holocaust took place in Europe, one also has to find the answer to it in Europe.

On the other hand, if the Holocaust didn't take place, why then did this regime of occupation ...

SPIEGEL: ... You mean the state of Israel...

Ahmadinejad: ... come about? Why do the European countries commit themselves to defending this regime? Permit me to make one more point. We are of the opinion that, if an historical occurrence conforms to the truth, this truth will be revealed all the more clearly if there is more research into it and more discussion about it.

SPIEGEL: That has long since happened in Germany.

Ahmadinejad: We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians. Why isn't research into a deed that occurred 60 years ago permitted? After all, other historical occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open to research, and even the governments support this.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, with all due respect, the Holocaust occurred, there were concentration camps, there are dossiers on the extermination of the Jews, there has been a great deal of research, and there is neither the slightest doubt about the Holocaust nor about the fact - we greatly regret this - that the Germans are responsible for it. If we may now add one remark: the fate of the Palestinians is an entirely different issue, and this brings us into the present.

Ahmadinejad: No, no, the roots of the Palestinian conflict must be sought in history. The Holocaust and Palestine are directly connected with one another. And if the Holocaust actually occurred, then you should permit impartial groups from the whole world to research this. Why do you restrict the research to a certain group? Of course, I don't mean you, but rather the European governments.

SPIEGEL: Are you still saying that the Holocaust is just "a myth?"

Ahmadinejad: I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it…

It’s good to know Moo’s a man of conviction. It helps us understand who we’re dealing with (i.e. an utter whackjob with a Messiah complex who wants to get rid of the world’s only sovereign Jewish state).

I hope everyone who wants us to negotiate with him--that means you, Jimminy Carter and Harpoon Siddiqui--is taking notes.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:18 | link | comments

 

Who’da thunk it?: A glowing profile of fearless, heroic truth-teller, Oriana Fallaci from, wonders never cease, The New Yorker: 

...Today, Fallaci believes, the Western world is in danger of being engulfed by radical Islam. Since September 11, 2001, she has written three short, angry books advancing this argument. Two of them, “The Rage and the Pride” and “The Force of Reason,” have been translated into idiosyncratic English by Fallaci herself. (She has had difficult relationships with translators in the past.) A third, “The Apocalypse,” was recently published in Europe, in a volume that also includes a lengthy self-interview. She writes that Muslim immigration is turning Europe into “a colony of Islam,” an abject place that she calls “Eurabia,” which will soon “end up with minarets in place of the bell-towers, with the burka in place of the mini-skirt.” Fallaci argues that Islam has always had designs on Europe, invoking the siege of Constantinople in the seventh century, and the brutal incursions of the Ottoman Empire in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. She contends that contemporary immigration from Muslim countries to Europe amounts to the same thing—invasion—only this time with “children and boats” instead of “troops and cannons.” And, as Fallaci sees it, the “art of invading and conquering and subjugating” is “the only art at which the sons of Allah have always excelled.” Italy, unlike America, has never been a melting pot, or a “mosaic of diversities glued together by a citizenship. Because our cultural identity has been well defined for thousands of years we cannot bear a migratory wave of people who have nothing to do with us . . . who, on the contrary, aim to absorb us.” Muslim immigrants—with their burkas, their chadors, their separate schools—have no desire to assimilate, she believes. And European leaders, in their muddleheaded multiculturalism, have made absurd accommodations to them: allowing Muslim women to be photographed for identity documents with their heads covered; looking the other way when Muslim men violate the law by taking multiple wives or defend the abuse of women on supposedly Islamic grounds. (European governments are, in fact, hardening on these matters: France recently deported a Muslim cleric in Lyons who advocated wife-beating and the stoning of adulterous women.)

According to Fallaci, Europeans, particularly those on the political left, subject people who criticize Muslim customs to a double standard. “If you speak your mind on the Vatican, on the Catholic Church, on the Pope, on the Virgin Mary or Jesus or the saints, nobody touches your ‘right of thought and expression.’ But if you do the same with Islam, the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad, some son of Allah, you are called a xenophobic blasphemer who has committed an act of racial discrimination. If you kick the ass of a Chinese or an Eskimo or a Norwegian who has hissed at you an obscenity, nothing happens. On the contrary, you get a ‘Well done, good for you.’ But if under the same circumstances you kick the ass of an Algerian or a Moroccan or a Nigerian or a Sudanese, you get lynched.” The rhetoric of Fallaci’s trilogy is intentionally intemperate and frequently offensive: in the first volume, she writes that Muslims “breed like rats”; in the second, she writes that this statement was “a little brutal” but “indisputably accurate.” She ascribes behavior to bloodlines—Spain, she writes, has been overly acquiescent to Muslim immigrants because “too many Spaniards still have the Koran in the blood”—and her political views are often expressed in the language of disgust. Images of soiling recur in the books: at one point in “The Rage and the Pride” she complains about Somali Muslims leaving “yellow streaks of urine that profaned the millenary marbles of the Baptistery” in Florence. “Good Heavens!” she writes. “They really take long shots, these sons of Allah! How could they succeed in hitting so well that target protected by a balcony and more than two yards distant from their urinary apparatus?” Six pages later, she describes urine streaks in the Piazza San Marco, in Venice, and wonders if Muslim men will one day “shit in the Sistine Chapel.”

These books have brought Fallaci, who will turn seventy-seven later this month, and who has had cancer for more than a decade, to a strange place in her life. Much of the Italian intelligentsia now shuns her. (The German press has been highly critical, too.) A 2003 article in the left-wing newspaper La Repubblica called her “ignorantissima,” an “exhibitionist posing as the Joan of Arc of the West.” A fashionable gallery in Milan recently showed a large portrait of her—beheaded. After the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera published the long article that became “The Rage and the Pride,” La Repubblica ran a reply from Umberto Eco, which did not mention Fallaci by name but denounced cultural chauvinism and called for tolerance. “We are a pluralistic society because we permit mosques to be built in our own home, and we cannot give this up just because in Kabul they put evangelical Christians in jail,” he wrote. “If we did, we would become Taliban ourselves.”...

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:01 | link | comments

 

The NYT shills for Moo: Sure, he’s a Mahdi-crazed, nuke-seeking, Jew-hating, full throttle Jihadist, but once you get past all that, he’s not such a bad guy. From The American Thinker:

…While the New York Times cannot quite bring itself to call Ahmadinejad a “reformer,” that is clearly the thrust of the article [that appeared in the Sunday paper].  For example, the article repeatedly trumpets that Ahmadinejad is “a proponent of women’s rights,” has “challenged high-ranking clerics on the treatment of women,” and has “defended women in a way that put him outside the mainstream of conservative Islamic discourse.”  Of course, the “mainstream of conservative Islamic discourse” takes a rather dim view of “women’s rights”—certainly as westerners have understood that term for the past several hundred years.  Moreover, the only specific example of Ahmadinejad’s alleged support for women was his proposal to allow women into sports stadiums—which was promptly rejected by the Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei.  So much for Ahmadinejad as Iran’s Susan B. Anthony.

Another aspect of Ahmadinejad’s leadership style that appeals to the New York Times is his economic populism.  The article quotes Ahmadinejad as saying that “parliament and government should fight against wealthy officials,” who “should not have influence over senior officials” and who “should not impose their demands on the needs of the poor people.”  As for the poor people, Ahmadinejad “promises to improve the lives of the poor” by forcing banks to lower interest rates, offering inexpensive housing loans, promoting “development projects” throughout the country, and trying to inject oil revenue into the economy.

Although the Times acknowledges that the Iranian economy is “almost entirely in the hands of the government” and that Ahmadinejad lacks “a strong grasp of economics,” nowhere does it suggest that greater freedom and deregulation might be the keys to a stronger economy.

Ah, freedom.  Something the New York Times interprets most expansively at home (e.g., the alleged First Amendment right to expose national security secrets), but cares rather little about abroad, at least in countries not allied with the United States.  Hence, the article on Ahmadinejad offers little disapprobation for his “political arrests,” which the Times brightly reports “are down”; or for his “pressure” on newspapers “to be silent on certain topics, like opposition to the nuclear program”; or for his “punishment” of officials running the nation’s cell phone system, which people were using to circulate jokes about Ahmadinejad’s poor personal hygiene.

This sounds like a joke itself, but totalitarianism is no laughing matter.  Plainly, the Times downplays the tyranny and brutality of Ahmadinejad’s regime because it does not fit into the “reformer” mold into which the article tries to squeeze him.  Apparently, Islamic tyrants are now going to be accorded the same white glove treatment that the Left has always shown Communist tyrants.

Lastly, the Times article paints Ahmadinejad as an “ideologically flexible” leader who seeks a “dialogue” with the United States.  Indeed, Ahmadinejad’s ridiculous, and chilling, letter to President Bush is presented as a “significant” act of “reaching out.”  The Times also describes Ahmadinejad’s “consistent theme” as “the concept of seeking justice.”  Again, a term that has very different meaning to westerners than to Ahmadinejad and his supporters.  The point of these word games, and blatant misrepresentations, is to suggest that Ahmadinejad is not the warmongering Islamic fanatic that he, in fact, has shown himself to be time and time again.  Quite obviously, this is part of the Times broader strategy of opposing U.S. military intervention in Iran.  The Times once again takes the side of America’s enemies…

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:50 | link | comments (2)

 

How to grow a  jihadi: All this week, CBC radio has been featuring stories about Islamic extremists and how there seem to be so many more of them around these days.. The Ceeb’s trenchant conclusion: the jihadis are being incited not so much by their own radical and incendiary ideology as by the measures we in the West have been taking to protect ourselves from the jihadis. It seems lots and lots of moderate Muslims, who would never dream of training with the mujahedeen or strapping on Semtex have found themselves at the receiving end of “racism”, “Islamphobia” and “profiling”—you know, because the Powers That Be in Western nations are apt to be more vigilant that they used to be about checking into the background and extra-curricular activities of Muslims. That vigilance—and yes, on occasion, hyper-vigilance—is pushing otherwise mild-mannered, contented young Muslims into the arms of the radical fringe.

 

At least, that’s the word according to the Ceeb.

 

But then, the Ceeb is a paid-up member of the self-loathing class. As such, it feels compelled to assume the mantle of blame for its “sinful” culture and proclaim the virtue and innocence of the “other”—that is, anyone “other” than us rich, decadent First Worlders (or that other “other”, the Jews). I, however, let my membership lapse some time ago, and am quite content to assign blame where it’s really due.

 

And so, it seems, is CSIS, Canada's security agency (although the Ceeb report prefers the cloak-and-daggerish locution "spy service") which warns that homegrown jihadis are among us, and there’s no doubt that at some point, probably sooner rather that later, Canadians will face an attack:

 

Canada's spy service is warning of an increasing threat from "home-grown terrorists" already living in communities across the country.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) deputy director of operations Jack Hooper made the comments Monday before a Senate defence committee.

He says young Canadians from immigrant backgrounds are becoming radicalized through the internet and are looking for targets at home, not abroad.

"They are virtually indistinguishable from other youth. They blend in very well to our society, they speak our language and they appear to be — to all intents and purposes — well-assimilated," he said.

"[They] look to Canada to execute their targeting."

The men responsible for the 2005 transit bombings in London were from immigrant families, said Hooper.

"I can tell you that all of the circumstances that led to the London transit bombings, to take one example, are resident here now in Canada," he said.

Training camps in Afghanistan produce terrorists, said Hooper, including a Canadian resident who played a key role in an earlier attack.

"The individual who trained the bombers in the August 1998 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi was a former resident of Vancouver who fought in Afghanistan," he said.

That is a good reason for Canadian troops to remain in Afghanistan, he said.

Hooper, who complained about cuts in funding, says it is difficult to properly screen immigrant applicants.

Of the roughly 20,000 from the Pakistani-Afghanistan region, Hooper said CSIS could only vet about "one-tenth."... 

One tenth of 20,000. Let’s see—that’s only around…yikes!

 

Looks like they're going to have to do a whole lot more "profiling" if they want to keep anyone safe.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:00 | link | comments

 

EU prognosis—poor to grim: In an earlier era, Turkey was described as “the sick man of Europe.” Today, of course, things are much different. Turkey, a secular Muslim nation (for now, at least), is still knock, knock, knockin’ on Europe’s door, but the sick man of Europe is…Europe. From the L.A. Times (link via RealClear Politics):

 

…Four main forces are undermining the EU's foundations.

First, Europe's paternalistic welfare states are struggling to survive the dual forces of European integration and globalization. Citizens are fighting back, insisting that the state reassert its sovereignty to block unwelcome change. When they voted down the EU constitution last May, many French citizens blamed the "ultra-liberal" EU for their economic woes. This spring, rioters took to France's streets to block labor reforms. Italians grumble that adopting the euro has depressed their economy.

Especially in France, Germany and Italy, governments are caught in the middle, squeezed from above by the pressures of competitive markets and from below by an electorate clinging to the comforts of the past and fearful of the future. The result is political stalemate and economic stagnation, which only intensify the public's discontent and its skepticism of the benefits of European integration.

Second, a combination of the EU's enlargement and the influx of Muslim immigrants has diluted traditional European identities and created new social cleavages. The EU now has 25 member-states at very different levels of development. Fifteen million Muslims reside within the EU, and Turkey, with 70 million Muslims, is knocking on the door. Too many of Europe's Muslims are achingly alienated, inviting radicalism. Unaccustomed to a multiethnic society and fearful of an Islamist threat from within, the EU's majority populations are retreating behind the illusory comfort of national boundaries and ethnic concepts of nationhood.

Third, European politics is growing increasingly populist. Voters see both European and national institutions as elitist and detached. In France, the far-right National Front is enjoying unprecedented popularity; in a recent survey, one-third called the anti-immigrant party in tune with "the concerns of the French people." Polish voters recently elected a president, Lech Kaczynski, who insists that "what interests the Poles is the future of Poland and not that of the EU."

Finally, Europe is lacking the strong leadership needed to breathe new life into the union. Governments in London, Paris, Berlin and Rome are fragile and preoccupied by their divided and angry electorates. Generational change is exacerbating matters. For Europeans who lived through World War II and its bitter aftermath, the EU is a sacred antidote to Europe's bloody past. But this generation is passing, and younger Europeans have no past from which they seek escape — and no passion for political union…

 

Oh, no. You mean we could see the return of that “ethno-nationalism” that Europes’ elites and the Leftist intelligentsia have been warning us about?

 

It Europeans are hoping to stem the tide of Islam, it can’t happen soon enough.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:28 | link | comments

"Hoser" Chavez: Betcha didn't know the Venezuelan dictator favoured the same kind of headgear as Bob and Doug Mackenzie. From the Jerusalem Post:

Venezuela's president Hugo Chavez (right) wears a Bolivian poncho as he speaks to a crowd while Bolivian president Evo Morales looks on.
Photo: AP

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:06 | link | comments

 

An open letter to Sid Ryan, President, CUPE Ontario:

 

Dear Sid,

 

First off, I want to commend you and your union for taking active steps to dismantle that pesky State of Israel. Way to go! As every fair-minded, human rights-oriented multicultist knows, Israel is the alpha and the omega of the world’s problems. In fact, were the Jewish state to be eliminated once and for all tomorrow, the Palestinians could look forward to living in peace and freedom for the rest of recorded history, or until Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blows us all to Kingdom Come, whichever comes first. Best of all, the Arabs would finally have a chance to use all those keys they’ve been holding onto for lo these many years.

 

Just pulling your leg there, Sid. Actually, I think your call for a boycott demonstrates a woeful and alarming inability to properly analyze current events, and to situate them within an historical context. It seems to me that once again, forces on the left have hitched their wagon to the totalitarians. A bit of a history lesson may be in order here. I’m sure the name V.I. Lenin must ring a bell. He’s the Soviet tyrant who was perhaps the first to figure out that people like you and your membership could be harnessed in the struggle. He even coined a term to describe you: useful idiots. And how useful these idiots proved to be, doing their utmost to propagandize in the West on behalf of the noble Soviet experiment. Today, of course, the experiment has long since failed, and the Soviet Union is no more. So what’s a useful idiot to do? Why, move on to support the next world-wide totalitarian effort, the one where the forces of darkness—call them Islamists or jihadists or just plain old jihadis—are doing their darndest to overwhelm Western civilization. And the presence of the Jewish state in the midst of a sea of Muslims being an impediment to their plans, they’re doing whatever it takes to enlist useful idiots like you to do their dirty work. And the utter brilliance of the thing is that they’ve managed to convince you all that you’re doing it in the name of “human rights.”

 

Genius. Sheer evil, lamentable genius.

 

Thus, it’s not unfair to say there’s not a whole lot of difference between CUPE’s useful idiots and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Truthfully, the difference is more one of style than of substance. You both aim to expunge the Jewish state, only Moo would do it in one feel swoop, with a judiciously aimed nuke. CUPE, on the other hand, would take a slower approach, by insisting that millions of Arabs, most of whom were not born in Israel, have a right—a right!—to enter the Jewish state and smother it to death through their sheer numbers.

                           

Ah, but as you’ve assured us, Sid, this has nothing whatsoever to do with any particular animus towards the Jewish people. Perish the thought. It’s all about how Israel—an “apartheid” state—has been trampling on the Palestinians' “human rights.” As such, Israel and Israel alone, of all other nations in the world—not Sudan, not Darfur, not China, not dozens of others—must be singled out for your opprobrium

 

Forgive me for pointing this out, Sid, but an undue and obsessive emphasis on Israel on the part of Canadian union members who should really be paying attention to what’s happening in their own back yard, IS anti-Semitic; and anti-Zionism, which singles out the Jewish state for demonization and calls for measures that would inevitably lead to its destruction IS the new Judenhass—and poses no less a threat to the long term survival of the Jewish people than did the Shoah.

 

Finally, Sid—and I hope you won’t take this personally—I’d like to take the opportunity to say this: shame on you. Shame on you for being a useful idiot. Shame on you for wrapping Jew-hatred in the cloak of self-righteousness. But most of all, shame on you for being so blind.

 

Yours,

 

scaramouche

 

Update: Here's one Sid and the gang might want to sing at the next CUPE convention. (To the tune of “Look for the Union Label,” the old ILGW song set to the tune of “Look for the Silver Lining”):

 

Look for the CUPE label

When you are aiming to punish the Jews.

You know that somewhere

The Jews are thriving,

So we’re conniving

To make them lose.

You know the Arabs

Have lost some rights now

Because the Jews are still sov’reign and free.

So always look for the CUPE label

And help jihadis push them into the sea.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:18 | link | comments (1)

 

Union blues: I’m feeling rather anti-union today. First, because the transit union of Canada’s largest city has decided to call a wildcat strike. That means in a city already whose roadways are already overburdened with traffic and whose air is currently replete with exhaust fumes and smog, people will have to find their way to work with no public transit. Swell. According to the Ceeb radio report at the top of the hour, the strike was called when about 50 maintenance workers were transferred from a day shift to a night shift. Yes, that’s right. We’re being held hostage by a few disgruntled workers and their power-crazed union leaders.

 

As if that weren’t bad enough, there's a report on the Ceeb website this morning that the Ontario wing of CUPE, Canada’s largest union, has decided TO BOYCOTT ISRAEL! It’s because Israel is so mean to those Palestinians and won’t let them come flooding back into Israel to reclaim their “ancestral” lands, stolen by those wicked Jews. Israel also constructed what those seeking to de-legitimize and dismantle it like to call like to call “an apartheid wall.” Welcome to 1938, folks, where Judenhass is alive and well in Ontario. It masquerades as concern for the “underdog” as is perpetrated by the jihad’s useful, hateful, clueless tools:

The Ontario division of Canada's largest union has voted to support an international campaign that is boycotting Israel over its treatment of Palestinians.

Delegates to the Canadian Union of Public Employees Ontario convention in Ottawa voted overwhelmingly Saturday to support the campaign until it sees Israel recognizing the Palestinians' right to self-determination. The Ontario group represents more than 200,000 workers.

The global campaign started last July and has been supported by many North American churches, 20 Quebec organizations, and others, Canadian Press said.

CUPE also condemned what they called Israel's "apartheid wall," saying it is illegal under international law.

"Boycott, divestment and sanction worked to end apartheid in South Africa," said Katherine Nastovski, chairwoman of the CUPE Ontario international solidarity committee.

"We believe the same strategy will work to enforce the rights of Palestinian people, including the right of refugees to return to their homes and properties."

Shame on CUPE.

It bears repeating: Shame on CUPE.

Memo to the Jews of Israel: If you want to placate the union tools and get with their eliminationist program, you know what to do. Tear down that "illegal" wall! Let the terrorists kill you! Allow the poor dears to use their beloved keys!  Embrace your Muslim future! Cease and desist to exist!

Now, is that so much to ask?

Update: It gets worse. The vote to boycott was held on Saturday, which meant there was no organized Jewish presence to oppose it. From the National Post:

The Ontario wing of Canada's largest union has voted to join an international boycott campaign against Israel "until that state recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination."

 

Sid Ryan, the Canadian Union of Public Employees Ontario president, said 896 members voted unanimously at its convention in Ottawa on Saturday to support the campaign.

"This is not an attack on Jewish people. It's [an objection to] the state of Israel's policies on Palestinians," Mr. Ryan said yesterday. "They say they are creating an independent state but they're not giving them the tools to do that."

 

Steven Schulman, Ontario regional director of the Canadian Jewish Congress, called the vote "outrageous."

 

"For a respected labour union to engage in such a vote, which is completely one-sided and based on mistruths, is shocking," he said.

 

He charged that CUPE Ontario's press release about the vote "reads like a piece of propaganda." He said Israel has recognized the Palestinian right to self-govern and has been engaged in a peace process.

 

Under the resolution approved by delegates, the union -- which represents more than 200,000 workers -- will also develop an education campaign about the issue, according to a press release. The statement condemned the West Bank barrier erected by Israel.

"The Israeli 'apartheid wall' has been condemned and determined illegal under international law," the release reads.

 

In a reference to boycotts, it also notes, "Canada has a free trade agreement with Israel, the only such agreement this country has outside of the Western hemisphere."

"In Ontario, the Liquor Control Board carried more than 30 Israeli wines, many produced in the occupied Golan Heights."...

 

Mr. Ryan said the global campaign started last July and has been supported by 170 organizations around the world. "It's a human rights issue," he said.

 

He said the union has also come out in the past against attacks by Palestinian extremists and suicide bombers.

 

CUPE Ontario's next step, he said, is to try to get other unions such as the Ontario Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress to join the campaign of "boycott, divestment and sanctions."

 

In recent years, CUPE Ontario has called for the end of Israeli military action and a withdrawal from the occupied territories. The executive of the Canadian Labour Congress crafted a resolution in 2002 comparing Palestinians in the occupied territories to blacks living under apartheid in South Africa.

 

Ed Morgan, national president of the CJC, said the organization will continue to engage in discussions with unions and added he does not think the vote was representative of CUPE and CUPE Ontario. The vote occurred on the Jewish Sabbath and there was no organized Jewish presence at the convention, he said.

 

"Boycotts are not the answer to political disputes. Dialogue is the answer to political disputes," Mr. Morgan said.

 

Update: And here are some more eliminationist tools: the British teacher’s union. From YNet News:

 

LONDON - Britain's National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education (NATFHE) Monday approved an academic boycott on Israeli higher education institutions that do not condemn Israel’s “apartheid policy.” NAFTHE, which with a membership of 67,000 educators

 

is one of the UK’s largest teachers' unions, voted 106 to 71, with 21 abstentions, in favor of the boycott during a Blackpool convention.

 

The move to boycott Israeli academics reopened a front which formerly involved a different British teachers’ association, the Association of University Teachers (AUT), which advanced a motion in April of last year to shun Haifa and Bar Ilan Universities. Responding to the urgings of Palestinian organizations, AUT declared the boycott and decided to exclude the two institutions from conventions and research projects.

 

A month later following a wide Israeli lobbyist campaign, the union voted to cancel the boycott. Soon after Monday’s Blackpool summit, the two teachers’ organizations are expected to unite into one association.

 

At the Blackpool summit, two motions were put to vote. The first called to help aid, protect and support Palestinian institutions and universities in light of the continuing attacks by the Israeli government, and to maintain ties with the Palestinian government to underscore this support. This motion also accuses Britain of scandalous incitement against Hamas.

 

The second motion called to renew last year’s boycott, and mentions “Israel’s persistent apartheid policy,” which includes the construction of the security fence and other discriminatory practices in the education system.

 

The motion invites members of the organization to consider their conduct to promise equality and non-discrimination in academic ties with Israeli academic institutions, and to way shunning those that don’t publicly distance themselves from such a country.

 

No mention, natch, of those other “discriminatory practices”—the ones calling for non-believers to be killed, “reverted” or forced to pay a dhimmi head tax. Why confuse the tools with the big picture when they’re so intent on focusing a magnifying glass on the little Jewish one?

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:31 | link | comments (2)

 

It started with Rushdie: The Guardian, of all places, has an excerpt of Melanie Phillips’s book Londonistan. In this “explosive excerpt” (the paper’s phrase) she recounts how our current travails with literal Islam and its fanatical proponents started with that fatwa against Salman Rushdie:

 

In 1988, the novelist and British citizen Salman Rushdie published his novel, The Satanic Verses. A bitter satire on Islam which understandably gave serious offence, its publication provoked uproar in the Islamic world with protests in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, that led to the deaths of five Muslims. Shortly afterwards, in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, sentencing Rushdie to death for writing the book, along with 'all involved in its publication who were aware of its content'. As a result, Rushdie was forced to go into hiding for many years and to live the life of a highly guarded fugitive, with a bounty on his head for anyone who succeeded in killing him.

This incitement to murder a British subject and his associates in the publishing world set the Muslim community in Britain alight. Literally so - they burned the book in the street, in scenes uncomfortably reminiscent of Nazi Germany. There was a positive feeding frenzy of incitement. Sayed Abdul Quddus, the secretary of the Bradford Council of Mosques, claimed that Rushdie had 'tortured Islam' and deserved to pay the penalty by 'hanging'.

 

Speaking in Bradford, where the first demonstrations against the book took place, he said: 'Muslims here would kill him and I would willingly sacrifice my own life and that of my children to carry out the ayatollah's wishes should the opportunity arise.' Dr Kalim Siddiqui, director of the Iranian-backed Muslim Institute, shouted at a meeting: 'I would like every Muslim to raise his hand in agreement with the death sentence on Salman Rushdie. Let the world see that every Muslim agrees that this man should be put away.'

The importance of this episode and the no less significant reaction to it by the British establishment can hardly be overestimated. Such scenes were unprecedented in Britain. The home of freedom of speech was playing host to the burning of books and an openly homicidal witch-hunt. Yet not one person who called for Rushdie to be killed was prosecuted for incitement to murder. The most the government could bring itself to say was that such comments were 'totally unacceptable'.

 

On the contrary, they seemed to be not only accepted but even endorsed by certain members of the British establishment. Far from universal condemnation of this murderous expression of religious fanaticism, various people used their public position to jump prematurely upon Rushdie's grave. Eminent historian Lord Dacre said he 'would not shed a tear if some British Muslims, deploring Mr Rushdie's manners, were to waylay him in a dark street and seek to improve them'. In Leicester, Labour MP Keith Vaz led a 3,000-strong demonstration intent on burning an effigy of Rushdie and carried a banner showing Rushdie's head, complete with horns and fangs, superimposed on a dog.

Here in microcosm were the key features of what would only much later be recognised as a major and systematic threat to the state and its values. There was the murderous incitement; the flagrant defiance of both the rule of law and free speech; the religious fanaticism; the emergence of British Muslims as a distinct and hostile political entity; and the supine response by the British establishment. What was also on conspicuous display was the mind-twisting, back-to-front reasoning that is routinely used by many Muslims to turn their own violent aggression into victimhood. Muslim leaders claimed that the refusal by the British government to ban The Satanic Verses showed that Muslims in Britain were under attack, with the political and literary establishment trying to destroy their most cherished values. 'They are rapidly coming to the conclusion that they will have to fight to defend Islam in Britain,' said Dr Kalim Siddiqui of his community…

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:13 | link | comments

 

Paradise how?: The leader of Islamic Jihad and his brother were killed when their car was bombed in Gaza. The Arabs, natch, are blaming the Jews for the bombing, but Israel says it had no part in it.

 

The story put out by SANA, Syria’s news agency, announces the “martyrdom” of the two jihadis.  But I’m confused. I thought in order to be considered a martyr and ascend to Paradise to canoodle with your harem of virgins (or your harem of white raisins, depending on the translation) you had to be a bomber not a bombee.

 

Or has Syria decided to ease the rules?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:49 | link | comments

 

The 51 per-cent solution: Mohamed Harkat is one in a long line of Mos—Mo Atta springs to mind--who seem bent on doing whatever it takes to subvert the infidel West. Mo H. is a suspected Algerian terrorist with ties to al Qaeda who’s been stuck in a Toronto jail for the past few years. Authorities want to send him back to Algeria, but he says it he goes back he’s likely to be tortured and killed. And you know what that means. Hearings, hearings and more hearings, as Mo exhausts all his refugee claim options.

 

The other day, a Judge decided he had no other recourse but to release Mo, under certain stringent conditions. The lead editorial in the Globe and Mail recounts Harkat’s adventure and the ridiculous situation Canada finds itself in vis a vis suspected terrorists:

Mohamed Harkat, suspected of being an Algerian terrorist, has been released from an Ottawa jail after a Canadian judge concluded that, with stringent conditions on his release, there is at least a 51-per-cent chance he won't blow anyone up.

Feel safe now?

Yet it must be acknowledged, with a sigh, that perhaps Madam Justice Eleanor Dawson of the Federal Court has hit on a reasonable answer in the circumstances. No perfect answers exist to the Mohamed Harkats of the world after 9/11. Canada has little choice but to lean heavily on the wisdom of its designated judges -- the members of the Federal Court who hear national-security cases.

Like all other countries, Canada reserves the right to deport non-citizens if it believes them to be criminals or terrorists. But once foreigners set foot on Canadian soil, they have constitutional rights -- essentially the right to due process before being deported. They cannot simply be put on the next flight home.

So Canada is in a box. If a suspected terrorist makes the case that he will be tortured if sent home -- Mr. Harkat's case -- it may be impossible to deport him. The claim gives rise to an exhaustive set of hearings. Mr. Harkat has been in jail since Dec. 10, 2002, without being charged criminally. There is a certain discomfort in a free society in detaining a man indefinitely -- or until his appeals are exhausted, which in Canada amounts to the same thing -- without charge. But it is neither practical nor desirable to charge Mr. Harkat as a criminal or terrorist for his affiliations in the Middle East. His case is properly an immigration matter.

That is why Judge Dawson asked herself whether there were conditions that, on a balance of probabilities (that is, at least a 51-per-cent chance), would "neutralize or contain the danger posed by his release." Her answer: "In that circumstance, his continued incarceration cannot be justified because of Canada's respect for human and civil rights, and the values protected by our Charter."

That answer demands that Canadians accept a measure of risk as the price of liberty. Canada is not the first country, Judge Dawson points out, to say that some risk is necessary. Britain has released several terror suspects on strict conditions, including the requirement to wear an electronic monitoring tag, remain at home at all times, and telephone a security company five times a day at specified times. "It is hard to see why" this would be ineffective, a British judge said.

Judge Dawson's conditions were not quite so far-reaching. For instance, Mr. Harkat will be allowed out of the house three times a week for four hours at a time, with approval from the Canadian Border Services Agency on 48 hours notice, as long as he is accompanied by certain individuals accepted by the court. He will have to wear an electronic monitoring device at all times. He is barred from using cellphones, pagers and the Internet. He must give officers of the border agency access to his home at any time.

Judge Dawson takes a hardheaded view of Mr. Harkat. "Unchecked, Mr. Harkat would be in a position to recommence contact with members of the Islamic extremist network." She points out that he lied to the court on several important points. He falsely denied knowingly assisting Islamic extremists who have come to Canada; he falsely denied having been associated with Abu Zubaida, a close associate of Osama bin Laden's.

It's a paradox, to say the least, that Mr. Harkat has been declared a danger to the security of Canada and yet safe to release into the community. It is also not clear how closely he will be monitored by the state...

Thus do the jihadis play us—like a virtuoso violinist with a Stradivarius.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:00 | link | comments (1)

 

Too hot to handle: I haven’t read Harper’s Magazine in years, finding its political orientation, shall we say, uncongenial with my own. (I used to read it in a previous life, when I lived in a bubble and thought the CBC was remarkably perceptive. You know, before 9/11.) But I’d love to get my hands on the latest issue because it has an article by Maus cartoonist Art Spiegelman in which he analyses and rates the Danish Mo ‘toons, awarding them between one and four “fatwa bombs.” Unfortunately, I won’t be able to find it at my local Indigo book store—Canada’s largest retail chain—because once again its boss, Heather Reisman, has taken it upon herself to decide what does and does not constitute appropriate reading matter for the Canadian public, and has refused to stock the offending magazine in her 260 stores. From the Globe and Mail:

...Indigo Books and Music took the action this week when its executives noticed that the 10-page Harper's article, titled Drawing Blood, reproduced all 12 cartoons first published last September by Jyllands-Posten (The Morning Newspaper).

The article also contains five cartoons, including one by Mr. Spiegelman and two by Israelis, "inspired" by an Iranian newspaper's call in February for an international Holocaust cartoon contest "to test the limits of Western tolerance of free speech."

It's unclear what part, if any, the five cartoons played in the Indigo ban; phone calls to its Toronto headquarters were not returned yesterday. In 2001, Indigo founder and CEO Heather Reisman ordered all copies of Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf pulled from stores, describing the book as "hate literature." Two years later, she helped found the powerful lobby group the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy.

In a memo obtained by The Globe and Mail that was e-mailed to Indigo managers yesterday about "what to do if customers question Indigo's censorship" of Harper's, employees are told to say that "the decision was made based on the fact that the content about to be published has been known to ignite demonstrations around the world. Indigo [and its subsidiaries] Chapters and Coles will not carry this particular issue of the magazine but will continue to carry other issues of this publication in the future."

Indigo normally carries as many as 3,000 copies each month of Harper's, about 11 per cent of the New York magazine's total retail distribution in Canada, according to a Harper's circulations manager.

Harper's publisher John MacArthur said he was "genuinely shocked" by Indigo's action, in part because two large U.S. chains, Borders and Waldenbooks, are selling the issue.

(Three months ago, both chains yanked a small U.S. publication, Free Inquiry, when it reproduced four of the Danish cartoons. That Free Inquiry issue with the cartoons is currently on sale at Indigo.)

"I'd expect an American company to do this, not a Canadian," Mr. MacArthur said yesterday. "Even though you have tougher libel laws than us and your own versions of political correctness, to my mind [Canada] has always been a freer place for political discourse."…

Oh, Mr. MacArthur. How little you know of us. It’s only a freer place for political discourse if you’re prepared to trash Americans, bash their President, pat yourself vigorously on the back for having the wisdom to live in the Great White North, bow to the gods of multiculturalism and genuflect furiously to the sainted memory of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Any other kind of discourse and you’ll likely be dismissed as a right wing crank and find you have all the appeal of a red-neck Republican at a Tinsel Town fundraiser for Al Gore.

 

There is one minor consolation here.  At least we know that the timorous Ms. Reisman, who took it upon herself to remove right wing Alberta-based periodical The Western Standard when it published the ‘toons last fall, is an equal-opportunity censor.

At the same time, it's grimly ironic that a women who was instumental in setting up an advocacy group to champion Israel would cave in to precisely the same kind of primitive religious imperatives that are trying to destroy the Jewish state.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:29 | link | comments (2)

Getting up close and personal: IranMania headline: Iran FM felicitates new Italian counterpart.

"Felicitates," huh? I didn't know they were that intimate.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:21 | link | comments

The importance of being Ignatius: Washington Post columnist David Ignatius thinks the U.S. should take Iran up on its offer, such as it is, to engage in talks. And to butress his belief, he cites a famous quotation by British novelist E.M. Forster: "Only connect."

"Only connect"? With the mullahs? What is he, nuts?

The only way to only connect with those lunatics is to only give them and only them exactly what they want.

Oh, and if you could "revert" to Islam or agree to throw a whack of jizya their way, that would make them even happier.

Another WaPo columnist, Charles Krauthammer, begs to differ with the earnest Mr. I.

Update: It seems the mullahs aren’t looking to “only connect”—at least for now. From  IranMania:

LONDON, May 26 (IranMania) - Iran has decided not to take up an offer from Washington of direct talks over the future of Iraq for the time being, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on a visit to Baghdad on Friday, Reuters reporterd.

Iran's initial acceptance of talks had been exploited for propaganda by the United States, and Tehran had therefore decided to suspend its decision to take part, he said.

"We have decided to have direct talks on the issue of Iraq with Americans," Mottaki said at a joint news conference with his Iraqi counterpart, Hoshiyar Zebari.

"Unfortunately, the American side tried to use this decision as propaganda and they raised some other issues. They tried to create a negative atmosphere and that's why the decision which was taken for the time being is suspended," he added.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:00 | link | comments

 

Dispelling stereotypes: Saudi Arabia, the Magic Kingdom that sends its Wahabist poison out into the world and has one of the most repressive regimes on the planet, is actually a very modern, forward-looking place. And if you don’t believe me, read this piece on the Arab News site. It recounts a writer’s recent experience with a German journalist who, until he had a chance to visit, had harboured all sorts of unfair and ridiculous stereotypes--a function, writes the wise Saudi, not of Saudi repression but of its "closed society":

The past couple of weeks witnessed a flurry of activity with various delegations arriving from different parts of the world. At an official dinner, I found myself sitting next to a German journalist who showed a genuine enthusiasm in getting to know more about the Kingdom. As is always the case with first-timers, I asked him about what his initial impressions were.

“It’s surprisingly modern,” he commented.

“Why is that a surprise?” I asked.

“Well, I suppose I just didn’t expect it. It’s my first trip here and I wasn’t prepared to see a slice of America in the middle of the Arabian Peninsula,” he continued.

“It is a bit Los Angeles, I guess,” I concurred.

“Not really L.A., but something more of Texas. You know sand and skyscrapers,” he grinned.

“Yes, that’s probably more apt,” I volunteered. “But what about the Saudis themselves. What did you think of them?”

“Now that was shocking,” he confessed. “They are such nice people. Many of them are very smart and the welcome we got was exceptional.”

“So why the shock?” I probed.

“It’s just that I thought that most people in your country would be extremists. I never expected to find, what’s that word? Moderation. That was my overriding perception before I came that the majority of guys I would meet here would have fundamentalist views.”

For some reason, unbeknownst to me at the time, I felt quite humiliated by his statement and suddenly found myself becoming quite defensive.

“But I thought you said you were a journalist, right?” I questioned, building up for the attack.

“Yes, that’s right,” he confirmed.

“And you told me that you have traveled all over the Middle East, so it’s not like you are unfamiliar with the region,” I reiterated.

“Yes,” he said, slowly raising his eyebrows.

“Then how on earth can someone like you with all your education, training and experience come up with such a ridiculous stereotype! Isn’t that a tad similar to what your own countrymen faced after World War II? That all Germans were Nazis. And haven’t you spent much of recent history apologizing for the crimes of your forefathers?”

“Yes, you’re right,” he retorted. “Apologies are important especially for what was definitely the darkest episode in the last century. I think that we are now at the stage where we can move on from there. Perhaps you’re not quite there yet,” he concluded...

See? The Saudis are just like you and me. And Saudi Arabia is a kind of like, what’s that word, Los Angeles.

 

Except, of course, that the L.A. government isn’t engaged in a wide-ranging effort to spew hatred against the Jews—shades of the German regime mentioned above. Also, in L.A., women are allowed to drive and can show a bit more skin in public.  

 

Otherwise, they’re spitting images.

 

One has the sense that the German reporter was expecting a scene out of the Arabian Nights--desert vistas dotted by camels and tents.

 

Silly German. Everyone knows where to find the biggest, most impressive Saudi Arabian tent: in Londonistan.

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:43 | link | comments

 

A New York state of mind: The New York Times had an epiphany the other day. It looked at a map of the Middle East, apparently for the first time, and noticed--holy Bantuland, Batman!--that Gaza and the West Bank were what you might call “non-contiguous.” This shocking discovery occasioned an impassioned editorial calling for a “viable” Palestinian state—you know, one that would be able to claw back some of the Jewish part:

It's long been clear that getting a workable, feasible Palestinian state out of two geographically separate masses of land in the desert will be an uphill battle. Now, because of two culprits and one enabler — Hamas, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and President Bush — that hill is becoming a mountain.

Mr. Bush handed Mr. Olmert the perfect welcome-to-Washington gift on Tuesday: conditional support for Israel's plans. Mr. Olmert wants to go ahead with Ariel Sharon's misbegotten plan to unilaterally redraw the borders of what could eventually be Palestine. The key word here is unilaterally, because the Israelis are prepared to do this without any input from the Palestinians. They would be left to try to cobble together a country out of whatever remained behind.

To a significant degree, the Palestinians put themselves in this spot by electing Hamas to run their government, and the Bush administration is right to refuse to legitimize a government dedicated to the destruction of Israel. But Mr. Bush should not punish the Palestinian people by endorsing any unilateral proposal — doing that would punish them for exercising their democratic right to vote.

Mr. Olmert's proposal has two parts, and the first one is fine: to withdraw Israeli settlers and troops from vast areas of the occupied West Bank. That's a worthy goal, and one that has been way too long in coming.

The problem is with the second part of the proposal: to retain several large settlement blocs in the Palestinian West Bank. That's a recipe for disaster.

Anyone who has ever really looked at a map of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza can see how hard it will be to form a Palestinian state. Even a future Palestine that includes all of the West Bank and Gaza is still going to be in two pieces with Israel in the middle, separating Gaza from the West Bank.

To get an idea of this, imagine a map of Manhattan. The West Bank would be, very roughly, East Harlem and the Upper East Side. Gaza would be Battery Park City, far to the southwest. Now imagine trying to create a fully functioning city with its own economy out of those pieces while an entirely independent, antagonistic city remained in between…

Got that? The Bronx is up and the Battery’s down—and the Jews are in between.

 

Oh, well. If the Jews of Israel were really considerate of their neighbours’ need for viability (as the NYT seems to be), they would pack up their bags and move to their real homeland--NYC.

 

(Just kidding. Everyone knows the real Jewish homeland is in Florida.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:08 | link | comments

 

Little old Hitlers: The Globe and Mail is positively giddy this morning about Abbas’s “ultimatum” to Hamas. “Recognize the entity, or face a referendum (or words to that effect),” said the canny, unhappy-at-being-sidelined President to his terrorist rivals.

 

While Hamas is mulling over the idea, the Globe and other mainstreamers are shifting into high gear, seeing The Silver Fox’s latest ploy as a sign that peace—or at least, peace in our time talks—could once again be looming.

 

But before everyone gets the vapours, I suggest they chill and maybe take the time to read this piece in today’s FrontPage Magazine. No, it’s not an exhaustive account of the situation as it stands, but it does provide a window into the Palestinian mindset, and its admiration of and adoration for the man who arranged for more Jews to be slaughtered that anyone else in history: Adolf Hitler. Indeed, the architect of the Holocaust is held in such high esteem that there are a whole slew of elderly Arabs who proudly bear “Hitler” as their first name:

…It may be surprising to Western observers to see Palestinians taking pride in having been praised by Hitler. But it is important to understand that the utter revulsion of Hitler expected in the West is not true in Palestinian society. Palestinians can be found who are named "Hitler" as a first name: Hitler Salah [Al Hayat Al Jadida, Sept. 28, 2005], Hitler Abu-Alrab [Al Hayat Al Jadida, Jan. 27, 2005], Hitler Mahmud Abu-Libda [Al Hayat Al Jadida, Dec.18, 2000].

This phenomenon of Palestinians being named after Hitler was explained in an article in the official PA daily praising the rewriting of history and the doing of "justice" to Hitler:

"Even Adolf Hitler, who after the fall of Nazi Germany turned into a political horror for most of the writers and artists, during the last decades has started to return himself to his part of the picture. There are some in Britain who defended Hitler and tried to do justice for him. There are elderly people, among them Arabs, who still carry the name Hitler since their fathers, who were charmed by him, linked them [their children] with his name."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 13, 2000]…

I don’t know why they like him so much. According to Hamas’s patron, Moo Jihad, Hitler’s Holocaust (the one that never happened) is what brought the remnants of Europe’s Jewry, those alien colonizers, onto Arab turf. In that sense, isn’t Hitler the man most single-handedly responsible for the naqba?

 

Update: Quel surprise! It looks like Hamas won’t take the bait. From Reuters:

DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Hamas will not be "blackmailed" into accepting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's proposal for Palestinian statehood that implicitly recognises Israel, a member of the movement's exiled leadership said on Friday.

Mohammad Nazzal did not reject the proposal outright, but he criticised Abbas for threatening to put it to a referendum if it was not agreed by Palestinian factions within 10 days.

"We see this referendum as a tool of pressure on Hamas," Nazzal told Reuters, adding the proposal "cannot be used as a way to blackmail Hamas".

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:07 | link | comments

Peekaboo Moo: Here's a shot of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas playing another round of that old Palestinian game "see no evil." After that, he had a go at outfoxing his Hamas rivals by calling for a referendum on negotiating a peace treaty with Israel.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:45 | link | comments

The Chosen beer for the Chosen People: And it's brewed by Shmaltz! (link via lileks)

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

 

Sounding the alarm: Boston Globe columninst Jeff Jacoby makes note of a disturbing new trend: supporters of Israel who are so exasperated and alarmed by Ehud Olmert’s disengagement scheme, seeing it as a calamitous and potentially suicidal policy, that they are speaking out in a very vocal way. From JWR:

EHUD OLMERT'S first visit to Washington as Israel's prime minister has been eventful. What with meeting President Bush at the White House, addressing a joint session of Congress, and taking part in all the other social and substantive activities that get packed into a Washington summit, Olmert probably hasn't had much time to hang out and watch TV. So he may not have seen a new television ad that takes aim directly at Israel's ongoing campaign of territorial surrender.

The ad pulls no punches. Israeli withdrawals from south Lebanon and Gaza, it says, have played into Al Qaeda's hands and increased the terror threat "for Israel and for us." Olmert's proposed "convergence" program in the West Bank — a follow-up to last year's unilateral retreat from the Gaza Strip, when 21 communities were destroyed and 9,000 Israelis were expelled — will only intensify that threat. "Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results," the ad bitingly observes. "We cannot afford any more of this insanity."

Condemnation of the Jewish state by its detractors is nothing new, but this TV spot isn't the work of an Israel-basher. It is part of a campaign launched by the Center for Security Policy, a Washington think tank committed to pursuing international peace through American strength. For years, the center has staunchly supported Israel's right to defend itself against its enemies. Why is such a longtime ally so publicly opposing the new prime minister and his signature policy?...

In a democracy, it is said, people get the leaders they deserve. Israeli voters chose Olmert in a free and fair election, knowing full well that he intended to "disengage" from the enemy by giving more land. If that enemy threatened only the people of Israel, perhaps a case could be made for letting them lie in the bed they themselves have made.

But Israel's enemy — a murderous Palestinian regime and the international terror network of which it is a part — is our enemy, too. "By Allah," proclaimed Sheik Ibrahim Mudayris in a sermon broadcast on Palestinian TV, "the day will come and we shall rule America. . . . We shall rule the entire world." When Florida teenager Daniel Wultz was horribly wounded in a recent suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, terrorist leaders rejoiced that an American was among the casualties. After Daniel died of his injuries last week, Abu Nasser of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades cheered the news as "a gift from Allah" and promised Americans "more Daniel Wultzes and more pain and sorrow."

Israel cannot afford to succumb once again to the delusion that retreating in the face of terror will bring safety and peace of mind. Wars are not won by evacuations, as Winston Churchill told his British countrymen in 1940. Israelis, weary after so many years under siege, wish to pretend otherwise? Then it is up to their friends to tell them the truth.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:15 | link | comments

 

Not nuts: To Western ears, he may sound like an utter loon, but as this piece on The American Thinker site assures us, not only is Moo Jihad not unhinged, all his hinges are in perfect working order. They’re just in keeping with his fantatical religious beliefs, mostly involving the occluded imam.

The world is captivated by the sudden rise of a relatively unknown to the presidency of the Islamic Republic of Iran, for his torrent of outrageous statements and claims. He has, thus, in a short time acquired great many appellations. He is viewed as zealot, fascist, fanatic, anti-Semitic, lunatic and more.

One prominent Western journalist called him “unhinged.” All these labels aim, in part, to dismiss the man as an aberration. As someone who is in urgent need of psychological help, a person out of touch with reality who represents nothing of substance.

Once again the West is misreading and misjudging the people and the events in the Middle East, due to the fact that it views things through its own culturally-filtered spectacles. Looking at the man through Western lenses, he indeed appears to be all of the above and more. Yet Ahmadinejad is far from unhinged.

As a matter of fact he is firmly hinged to a set of beliefs that dictate his view of the world and how he should deal with it from his position of power. An unhinged mind has the potential of being hinged. But, there is very little that can be done to a person who is irreparably hinged. A prominent feature of a mentally disturbed person is the display of contradictory thoughts and behavior. Ahmadinejad’s words, deeds and beliefs show a person fastened to a dangerously consistent and faulty hinge.

Ahmadinejad’s views are firmly rooted in the most orthodox philosophy of Shiism. To understand his mind set and behavior requires a close scrutiny of the elaborate and intricate theology of Hujetieh Shiism – perhaps the most fundamentalist of numerous Shiite sects. There is a full internal consistency in Ahmadinejad. Below are a few examples of his sayings, beliefs and actions. Whether one agrees or disagrees with them, they all fit perfectly into a consistent pattern.

* He literally believes in the imminent emergence of the Mahdi – the Shiites’ promised one who is expected to appear to set aright a decadent and wretched world.

* He views himself as the vassal of Mahdi, working for him and being accountable to him.

* His main task is to prepare the world so to hasten the Mahdi’s coming. If this preparation requires much destruction and bloodshed, so be it.

* As a former mayor of Tehran, he developed elaborate detailed plans preparing the city for the arrival of the Mahdi.

* He allocated generous sums for extensive road improvement to a mosque at Jamkaaraan near the city of Qum where it is believed the promised Mahdi is hiding in a well since the age of nine some 1100 years ago.

* He reportedly visits the well frequently and drops his written supplications into the well for the hidden Mahdi to act upon them.

* He reportedly has said in private that it was him who asked the Mahdi to inflict the massive stroke on Ariel Sharon.

* He sees the Jews as the sworn enemies of Islam. The hostility dates back to the time of Muhammad’s own treatment of the Jews in Medina. At first, expediently, Muhammad called the Jews “people of the book,” and accorded them a measure of tolerance until he gained enough power to unleash his devastating wrath on them.

* He says that the Holocaust is a myth. He is, in this respect, in good company with a number of other claimants.

* He wants Israel to be wiped out of the map or transferred to Europe.

* In his speech at the UN general assembly, he implored the Mahdi to come and save the world. He claimed that during his speech of some twenty odd minutes, a powerful light enveloped him and all participants were held transfixed unable to move their eyes.

* He believes that the earth is Allah’s and all people must either become believers of his brand of Islam or must perish as infidels who by their very own presence defile Allah’s earth.

* He believes that this earthly life is passing and worthless in comparison to the afterlife awaiting a devoted and faithful believer. Hence, he holds to the old belief that if a faithful kills and infidel, he goes to Allah’s paradise; and, if the faithful gets killed in the process of serving the faith, again he goes to Allah’s paradise. Hence, it is a win-win proposition for the faithful.

There is nothing “unhinged” about Ahamadinejad’s thinking, statements and actions within the cultural and religious framework from which he comes. They are internally consistent. He is simply a fanatic who is wedded to an extremely dangerous exclusionary system of belief.

Humanity must remember, or tragically re-learn, that dismissing a fanatic as lunatic or unhinged rather than squarely facing the likes of Ahmadinejad and Hitler will result in great suffering. But in the age of Weapons of Mass Destruction a man with huge sums of petrodollars potentially can serve as the catalyst of total annihilation...

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:57 | link | comments (2)

Jee had!: Saddle up, cowpokes. Here’s today’s RoP round-up.

From the Guardian:

SRINAGAR, India (AP) - India's prime minister was upbeat Thursday after talks in troubled Kashmir, making a rare acknowledgment of human rights violations and announcing measures aimed at ending 16 years of violence in the Himalayan region.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said his country was ``committed'' to living in harmony with neighboring rival Pakistan and to resolving the issue of Kashmir with a lasting peace treaty. He also said the number of troops in the state - estimated at more than 500,000 - could be reduced if violence abated, and promised to hold talks with rebels if they ended terror attacks.

``This conference certainly gives hope ... and confidence. I see light at the end of the tunnel, a ray of hope,'' he told a news conference after two days of discussions with pro-India groups.

But suspected militants delivered a grim reminder of his challenges barely an hour after he flew out of the region, killing four people - a man, two women and a child in an explosion that blew up a bus carrying Indian tourists. The explosive was apparently planted by militants inside the bus, said Senior Superintendent of Police Munir Khan. Six people were injured.

From News 24:

 

Khartoum - Sudan on Wednesday said it would not accept the deployment of United Nations peacekeepers in Darfur as a security council deadline for a UN team to be allowed into the strife-torn region expired.

 

Presidential adviser Majzoub al-Khalifa Ahmed said: "The government does not accept the deployment of foreign forces under UN security council chapter seven."

The declaration came after talks with UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and deputy under-secretary general for peacekeeping operations Hedi Annabi, who flew into Khartoum on Tuesday to arrange access for the team.

 

Their arrival followed a UN security council resolution passed under chapter seven on May 16 urging speedy implementation of a peace accord reached in Nigeria early this month between Khartoum and the main Darfur rebel group…

 

Ahmed suggested that the planning mission for a force of about double the current 7 000-strong AU [African Union] mission was unnecessary as an earlier AU technical mission "studied the situation in Darfur and there is sufficient information on what is now going on there"

 

UN chief Kofi Annan on Tuesday called Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir to urge him to let the UN military planners in, telling him he "hoped to see the UN assessment mission dispatched as soon as possible".

 

Khartoum had blown hot and cold over whether it would accept a UN deployment in Darfur, initially flatly refusing such a move, but more recently suggesting it was willing to be flexible on the issue.

 

Brahimi, a former Algerian foreign minister who had been dispatched to several hotspots in recent years, was due to meet Beshir on Thursday to put his case for the UN technical mission to be allowed in.

 

Three years of war in Darfur between rebels and Khartoum's forces backed by proxy Arab militias had claimed at least 300 000 lives and displaced 2.4 million people.

 

From Canada.Com:

 

MOGADISHU, Somalia -- Renewed fighting between Islamic militias and secular warlords killed at least 39 people in the Somali capital Thursday and sent thousands of frightened civilians running from their homes, medical officials and a militia commander said.

According to reports collected from the Somalian capital's main hospitals, at least 30 people were killed when Islamic militias and their secular rivals intensified fighting in Mogadishu after a day's lull.

 

Ali Mohamed Siyad, a leader of an Islamic militia said his group had lost eight combatants. In addition, Medina Hospital received 60 injured people and Keysaney Hospital 30.

 

Later Thursday, Dr. Sheikhdon Salad Elmi, director of Medina Hospital, said that a mortar landed in the hospital's first aid section, killing a patient and wounding two others.

Witnesses say the fighting has spread across Mogadishu, from its northern end, which had been the scene of fierce battles in recent weeks, to the southern and eastern parts of the capital.

 

The latest fighting comes despite a May 14 ceasefire between Islamic militias and a rival alliance of secular warlords.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:43 | link | comments

 

Reading between the lines: I was going to write about how the Washington Post and other clueless dhimmis (like Jimminy “Cricket” Carter, who was blithering away on CNN last evening when everyone was watching American Idol) are promoting the idea that hidden within Moo’s loopy hand-penned screed to Bush was actually an invitation to hash things out at the bargaining table. Luckily, Roger L. Simon has saved me the trouble:

Mainstream media journalism is more mysterious than blogs - and consequently more opaque. And by feigning objectivity, the mainstream is often more potent at propaganda - or at least tries to be. An interesting example is Wednesday's Washington Post article Iran Requests Direct Talks on Nuclear Program. It doesn't take a great deconstructionist to understand that the authors - Karl Vick and Dafna Linzer - are writing with a specific intent: to promote US direct negotiation with Iran. Numerous quotes, anonymous (como siempre) and attributed, are sprinkled throughout the article to create that effect while delicately preserving the illusion of objectivity. Unfortunately, they give the game away by ending the article thusly: "We have not had any relations for so many years, and Iran was always accused of being unwilling to talk," Masood Mohammadi, 23, said as he left Friday prayers last week. "Now Iran has taken the first step, and I hope the U.S. president replies in kind."

Now who is Masood Mohammadi and why should he stand in for all Iranian public opinion? No reason is given other than, perhaps, the number 23 - the implication being that he is (or stands for) Iranian youth. Of course that's not possible for any single person (in a country of 70 million!). The Washington Post writers are fiddling in the nether regions of propaganda here. But no matter. It is not exceptional. This is how journalism is practiced on a daily basis and, to a great extent, taught. Most readers of this blog know to beware of it, but I will go a bit further (following my earlier reference to deconstruction).

The writers of this article, although they may think they are subtly supporting an argument, are also sabotaging those beliefs. Today's more sophisticated reader is increasingly educated in and put off by this style of writing. Using myself as an example, I do not have a fixed opinion on whether we should negotiate with Iran. I simply do not know enough. But when I read an article like this, I become immediately suspicious. Who is writing this and why, I want to know. What clandestine operative is whispering in what reporter's ear? Cui bono? My back is up... I am being manipulated. My stance toward negotiating with Iran shifts to the negative...

Maybe I’ve done a bit more reading on the topic than Roger, because I’m pretty sure that bargaining with the mullahs is the deadest of dead ends. Get rid of the mad mullahs, and maybe there’ll be a reason to talk. Of course, get rid of the mullahs and you probably obviate any need to talk.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:06 | link | comments

 

Judenhass uber alles: Sure, they’ve had their difference over the years, ones which most recently have resulted in their aiming guns and bombs at each other. But there’s so much more that unites Hamas and Fatah than divides them. For instance, there’s their Jew-hatred. And their annual commemoration of the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state as a naqba—a “catastrophe.” And their Jew-hatred. And their mutual loathing of “the occuptation.” And their Jew-hatred. And their desire to see the Jews get out of the West Bank. And their Jew-hatred. And their belief in Islamic supremacism. And their Jew-hatred.

 

With bonds like that, I’m sure they’ll be able to iron out their differences. From Reuters:

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Rival Palestinian factions began a two-day 'national dialogue' on Thursday with a pledge to set aside the acute differences that have pushed the Hamas-led government and its opponents into open conflict.

Speaking via video-link from his Gaza stronghold, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, a leader of Hamas, told delegates in the West Bank city of Ramallah that he was committed to unity and determined to prevent Palestinians fighting one another.

"Our meeting today aims to cement our national unity," Haniyeh, who is prevented from going to the West Bank because of Israeli travel restrictions, told a packed audience.

"I assure our hero prisoners that we will not bring pain into your hearts by having a Palestinian-on-Palestinian struggle ... Our difference is with the Israeli occupation and not with any of our brothers," he said.

The urgent convening of the meeting follows weeks of tension between Hamas and the rival Fatah movement since Hamas, a militant Islamic group, took office in March. Before Hamas's rise, Fatah was the dominant Palestinian political force.

A power struggle between Haniyeh and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who heads Fatah, has led to gunfights between their factions in the streets of Gaza in the past week.

Haniyeh tried to play down tensions between himself and Abbas, saying their differences could be bridged, even as the video link underscored the physical distance between them.

"We do not deny that there are differences but we have always stressed that these differences will only be resolved through continued dialogue and in accordance to the law."… 

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:48 | link | comments

 

Dead ringers?: I’ve heard about casting against type, but this is ridiculous. From AFP:

Australian beauty Cate Blanchett is one of six actors recruited to play Bob Dylan in a film biography of the legendary singer-songwriter.

The film, I'm Not There will cast the actors as Dylan, to show various sides of the composer of "Blowin' in the Wind" and "The Times They Are A-Changin'," who celebrated his 65th birthday Wednesday, according to the Hollywood Reporter.

Blanchett will play a young Dylan. Another Australian, Heath Ledger - star of the Oscar-winning Brokeback Mountain will incarnate an older Dylan.

Ledger's girlfriend and fellow "Brokeback" star Michelle Williams has also signed up for the movie, as have Christian Bale, Julianne Moore and Richard Gere.

The movie is to be directed by Todd Haynes, who directed the 2002 movie Far from Heaven, but was criticized for taking liberties in the 1998 Velvet Goldmine - a biopic on rock star David Bowie.

Looks like he hasn’t learned from past mistakes. Bob must be pleased, though.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:31 | link | comments (1)

Apt header: My favourite headline about critically-panned but packin'-em-in flick The Da Vinci Code comes from The New York Observer: Opie does Opus.

Much better than "Richie ravages Rome."

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:22 | link | comments

Self-smearing mullahs: Iran was so upset about a false report in the National Post that the mullahs were getting set to compel their dhimmis to wear identifying colour-coded tags that it summoned the Canadian ambassador for a severe finger-waggling.

The Post has since apologized for the story, which raised the specter of Nazi-style yellow badges (even though the measure pertained to sharia law, not Nazi law). But some, like Tom Poteous in today’s Globe and Mail, aren’t prepared to let it rest. Porteous sees all sorts of portends in the smear, and rushes to defend the Islamist dystopia against the nefarious slanderers and war-mongers who seek to give it a black eye.

“When does misinformation work?” he thunders in a veritable hissy fit of righteous indigination. “It works when it plays to existing prejudices and assumptions and when it is broadcast loudly and widely enough. Then it will do its pernicious work however strenuously the lies and distortions are subsequently denied and exposed.” (You’ll have to pay to read the whole article but, trust me, it’s not worth the money.)

 

Riiiight. Heaven forefend we do anything to besmirch the good name of the meshuganeh mullahs and their wonderland. In fact, no need to resort to such efforts when, as this article from IranFocus demonstrates, the mullahs are perfectly capable of doing the job themselves (link via jihad watch):

 

Tehran, Iran, May 24 – Iran will launch a new suicide-bombers garrison on Thursday, according to the head of a group affiliated to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

Mohammad-Ali Samadi, spokesman for the Headquarters to Commemorate the Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement, a government-orchestrated campaign to recruit suicide bombers, told the state-run news agency Mehr on Tuesday that the group planned to officially announce the existence of the new garrison in a ceremony in Tehran’s largest cemetery on Thursday afternoon.

The new garrison will be named after Nader Mahdavi, an IRGC naval commander who died in a suicide attack on an American naval vessel in 1987, Samadi said.

The report said that more that 55,000 “volunteers for martyrdom-seeking operations” had been registered so far by the organisation, which also calls itself “Estesh’hadioun”, or martyrdom-seekers.

In February, the group launched a new recruitment drive for suicide bombers in Tehran to fight against “Global Blasphemy”.

The group was set up by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards in 2004. Those who join have three choices: To carry out suicide attacks against “the infidels occupying Iraq”, against Israel, or against Salman Rushdie.

 

Salman Rushdie? How’d he sneak in there?

 

Incidentally, Tom Porteous’s spell-check suggested name is Tom Piteous.

 

Works for me.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:44 | link | comments

 

Optimistic Prospect: An article in British periodical Prospect paints a rosy picture of the Hamas regime and its “true” intentions. According to scribe Alastair Crooke, Hamas is devoted to good government, believes in a bottom-up instead of a top-down adherence to rigid sharia law (whatever that means), and has no intention of carrying out its Charter goals of eliminating the Jews.

 

Phew. What a relief:

 

…According to Hamdan, Hamas’s other priorities are to reform the security services, to create effective judicial oversight over the security agencies and, above all, to make parliament accountable for and the instrument of control of all Palestinian institutions and ministries. Hamas has not perpetrated any direct attack in Israel since late 2003; its military wing has focused instead on targets within the occupied territories. For over a year, Hamas has observed a unilateral de-escalation, or tadiya. The suicide attack in Tel Aviv in April that led to the death of 11 Israelis was mounted by Islamic Jihad in response to an earlier killing of several of its leaders. In a response that was widely criticised, Hamas spokesmen refused to condemn Islamic Jihad, repelling any tentative European feelers towards engagement. But Hamas wanted to signal clearly that it would not be Israel’s policeman in the territories. It had learned from Fatah’s experience that to publicly condemn such attacks was to invite US and Israeli pressure to arrest members of Islamic Jihad, something it was not ready to do given the risk of being outflanked by more militant groups. Hamas also knows that if it begins to arrest Palestinians, Israel will send lists of further Palestinians to be arrested. These lists, which were sent to Arafat as soon as he took office in 1993, proved deeply corrosive to Fatah’s credibility and legitimacy. The language used by Hamas, however, was not well chosen. Israel may have understood the signal, but externally it was damaging.

Hamas and Fatah represent two very different traditions of Muslim thinking. Fatah has looked to the international community to help balance the asymmetrical relationship with Israel, whereas Hamas’s Islamist approach relies on the inner resources of its constituency for the fortitude to persevere. But contrary to the popular view, Hamas does not believe in imposing Sharia law on Palestinians, or anyone else. This has been said publicly. It does not seek a “top-down” Islamic state that imposes norms of Islamic behaviour but has no real Muslims living in it. It prefers the goal of a state peopled by believing Muslims whose freely chosen priorities colour society from below.

If Muslims judge Hamas to have been successful, this approach will change the face of Islamism. It will do more than any other initiative to swing the pendulum away from the revolutionary groups that aim to radicalise and to impose strict Islamic structures. And the commitment to reform will appeal to public opinion throughout the region. It is this that represents the revolutionary nature of the Hamas electoral victory and explains the antagonism of leaders like Mubarak of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan, who can see the implications only too clearly.

It seems likely that Hamas will continue to refuse to recognise Israel, at least until the final shape of an agreement is clear, but it will be pragmatic in signalling that it seeks a state on land occupied in 1967 and is not pursuing any destruction of Israel. Marwan Barghouti, a Fatah leader, and Sheik Natche of Hamas, both in jail in Israel, have signed a joint statement indicating that a future Palestinian state would be based on the lands occupied in 1967 only…

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:46 | link | comments

Moo on the Net: I'm sure you have a few choice words you'd like to share with Iran's avidly communicative President, Moo Jihad. You can reach him at: dr-ahmadinejad@president.ir --and, no, I'm not making that up; apparently, it's his real email address.

There's no guarantee he'll get back to you, of course. He's very busy at the moment writing detailed invitations to join Islam to other Western leaders.

If you're so inclined, you can also peruse Moo's Website (link via discarded lies).

I especially enjoyed the speech entitled "Zionist regime, unending threat." I'm sure you will, too.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:59 | link | comments

Dense diplomats: At the beginning of the year, I bookmarked this article that appeared in The Guardian. It seems appropriate to bring it out again as we shake our heads in wonderment at the EU's modus operendi re Iran:

A confidential intelligence report says that Iran's government has combed Europe for parts to build both nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles, a British newspaper said Wednesday.

The 55-page assessment, which draws on material from Western intelligence agencies, offers names and locations of suspected players in the global trade in components needed to build weapons of mass destruction, the Guardian newspaper said in a front-page report.

"In addition to sensitive goods, Iran continues intensively to seek the technology and know-how for military applications of all kinds," the Guardian quoted the report as saying.

The report - based on data obtained by British, French, German and Belgian agencies - also concluded that Syria and Pakistan have been scouring the marketplace for technology and chemicals needed to enrich uranium and develop rocket programs. Russia's role in the escalating arms build up in the Middle East also is outlined, as is the role of Chinese companies supplying North Korea's program.

The assessment - dated July 1, 2005 - is seen as a warning to European Union governments, which have been struggling to curtail the spread of nuclear weapons.

It also will add fuel to critics who believe Iran wants to develop a nuclear arsenal and are skeptical of Iran's claims that its nuclear programs are aimed only at power generation...

It's going on five months later and the question must still be asked: What part of "WE WANT TO NUKE THE JEWS" don't they understand?

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:13 | link | comments

It's a scared world, after all: It's remarkable how easily the EUnuchs have slipped back into their historic role of sycophantic appeasers. "Like buttah," as Mike Meyers imitating his now ex-mother-in-law used to say on Saturday Night Live.

In "honour" of the Euro-weasels, who are attempting to do with Moo what they previously attempted--and failed--to do with Hitler, I've revised that Disney theme song, "It's a Small World After All":

It's a world of 'peasers
A world of fools.
It's a world that follows
Some silly rules
As they placate jihad
It can make you so mad.
It's a scared world, after all.

It's a scared world, after all.
It's a scared world, after all.
It's a scared world , after all.
It's a scared world, after all.

It's a world of EUnuchs
And mullahs, too.
They've a common bond
That involves "the Jew."
And if Moo cleans the map
It could cause quite a flap.
It's a scared world, after all.

It's a scared world, after all.
It's a scared world, after all.
It's a scared world , after all.
It's a scared world, after all.

Kofi Annan and Mo ElBaradei--
If we heed them there will be hell to pay.
So lets all say our prayers
As the agita flares.
It's a scared world, after all…

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:48 | link | comments

 

Coming soon to a Continent near you: A recent essay on my favourite Wahabi site, Islam Online, elucidates how the West, and more specifically, Europe, has been trying to emasculate the Muslim family. It has something to do with Europe being “feminine” and Islam being “masculine” and the girly-men of Europe trying to foist their wimpish ways on their Muslim population.

 

And here the EUnuchs thought they were being all sensitive and multicultural. Just goes to show how, in the words of that old expression, no “good” deed goes unpunished:

 

From the beginning of time, the family has served as the fundamental unit around which life evolved. The family was universal, receiving support from the extended family, which consisted of blood relations of one sort or another and was called a tribe. The patriarchal polygamous societal structure existed for millennia among humans.

As humankind began to evolve, spiritually enlightened men known as prophets gave oral direction to the people, which always included the proper relationship between men and women so as to enable them to propagate and perpetuate the species — a function so important that the instructions were written down and recorded in many books. In the Judaic, Christian, and Islamic religions, all their texts clearly show the relationship of men to women and the importance of the patriarchal-polygamous structure. These texts also abound in stories of how society crumbled when the patriarchal- polygamous structure was abandoned. It was not until the advent of European society that a different form of societal structure would take root.

European society represents the feminine principle without the balance of the masculine principle. It espouses gross materialism and is opposite in all respects to the universal patriarchal structure. Not having a patriarchal structure, the Europeans soon learned that the nuclear family could not sustain itself and that it required external support. A government would have to be created to supply this external support and to become the motivating force for the development of the Greek city-states. The Europeans came up with different forms of government because none of them properly provided for the well-being of the people. Each form of government expanded its influence into the activities of what the patriarchal system normally and naturally provided. The final form of government would be democratic socialism. The democracy part is fading rapidly and an all-encompassing tyranny will soon prevail…

 

No need to fret. Soon enough it’ll all be superceded by that “universal patriarchal structure.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:35 | link | comments

 

Wake up and smell the jihad, Ehud: This is the definition of jihad that appears on Robert Spencer’s website, Jihad Watch:

 

Jihad (in Arabic, "struggle") is a central duty of every Muslim. Modern Muslim theologians have spoken of many things as jihads: the struggle within the soul, defending the faith from critics, supporting its growth and defense financially, even migrating to non-Muslim lands for the purpose of spreading Islam. But violent jihad is a constant of Islamic history. Many passages of the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad are used by jihad warriors today to justify their actions and gain new recruits. No major Muslim group has ever repudiated the doctrines of armed jihad. The theology of jihad, which denies unbelievers equality of human rights and dignity, is available today for anyone with the will and means to bring it to life.

Would someone do me a favour and send it to Ehud Olmert?  He seems to think Hamas, the genocidal jihadis now in charge of the P.A., can somehow be prevailed upon to not, as he puts in, “veto peace.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:21 | link | comments

 

Sing a song of genocide: The mully-bullies’ front man, Moo Jihad, has dusted off one of my favourite mouldy oldies—“Sixteen Tons” (‘cause he owes his soul to the Messanger Mo):

 

Some people say Jews have stolen our land.

“Ship ‘em back to Europe,” is what I command.

And if they won’t vamoose, we’ll do as we please.

So all those sad folks can use their old keys.

 

You load sixteen nukes and what have you done?

Another day closer to Armageddon.

The Mahdi is returning if we’re on the right track.

Gotta kill the Jews off before he gets back.

 

Well, some people say Mo made ‘em all pigs and apes,

And if we wanna kill ‘em off it ain’t sour grapes.

Their entity’s unsightly, a blot on our map.

Don’t have to put up with their Zionist crap.

 

You load sixteen nukes and what have you done?

Another day closer to Armageddon.

The Mahdi is returning if we’re on the right track.

Gotta kill the Jews off before he gets back.

 

Well, I’ve taken some blows and I’ve taken some knocks.

And though I seem loopy I’m crazy like a fox.

Invited George Bush to join Islam.

It ain’t no ploy and it ain’t no scam.

 

You load sixteen nukes and what have you done?

Another day closer to Armageddon.

The Mahdi is returning, he’ll be here in a mo.

Gotta get ready for the really big show…

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:00 | link | comments

 

The enemy within: Melanie Phillips links to this New York Sun editorial about the new “Battle of Britain”—and this time, a stiff upper lip and the RAF won’t be enough to defeat the totalitarians who seek to destroy them:

…The thing to keep in mind this week is that Britain is under attack not only from without but from within. The British author and journalist Melanie Phillips, in a new book, offers a startling account of the transformation of London into "Londonistan," the hub of the global Islamist terror network, notorious among intelligence agencies as a place where terrorists and those who inspire them could find refuge and disappear. According to Ms. Phillips, the London bombings in July disclosed the extent of Islamist penetration of British society, with extremist preachers in British mosques indoctrinating young Muslims, training them for jihad, and despatching them to attacks America, Israel and other targets. Several of the most infamous terrorists, including Zacarias Moussaoui, were recruited in London by such figures as Abu Qatada, Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohammad.

What has made the unthinkable possible is the radicalization of Britain's Muslim minority since the Rushdie affair in the late 1980s. Their increasingly aggressive demands have been accompanied by the emergence of multiculturalism, which leads to official appeasement of fundamentalism, an interpretation of human rights doctrine that can be exploited by the Islamists to undermine Western values, and a rise of anti-Semitism, which has regained respectability even within such institutions as the Church of England under the guise of "replacement theology." As a result of this hollowing out of British identity, as it has been called, the victims rather than the perpetrators of Islamist terrorism are made into scapegoats: Israel and the U.S.

Why should this new battle of Britain matter to Americans? Partly because Britain is a land that nurtured many of the basic ideas that have made Western civilization possible: the rule of law, constitutional government, parliamentary democracy, religious toleration, freedom of speech and the press. Partly because moral and cultural relativism and victim culture are eating away at American society, too, and there are lessons to be learned from Londonistan. But most of all because the loss of America's closest and most important ally would be a serious setback for the war on terror... 

To update Churchill: We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender—until, of course, our brains have become so befogged by multiculturalism, Jew-hatred and political correctness that we can't see our way clear to do anything else.

Or, as Noel Coward put it during Britain’s last go-round with fascism:

There are bad times just around the corner,
There are dark clouds hurtling through the sky
And it's no good whining
About a silver lining
For we know from experience that they won't roll by,
With a scowl and a frown
We'll keep our peckers down
And prepare for depression and doom and dread,
We're going to unpack our troubles from our old kit bag
And wait until we drop down dead.

Such a card, was that Sir Noel.

Update: There’s a large operation now underway which aims to scoop up some of Britain’s more aggrieved and volatile seethers. From the CBC:

Nine people were arrested Wednesday in a series of anti-terrorism raids by 500 police in several parts of England.

The raids involved five police forces and were aimed at people suspected of being involved in planning attacks outside of the United Kingdom, police said.

They have so far not given any further details except to say that the raids are expected to continue for most of the day.

Properties were searched with warrants that had been issued under U.K.'s terrorism act.

Eight people were arrested in Manchester and one in Merseyside, police said. There were also raids in Birmingham and Middlesbrough.

The police forces involved included  London's Metropolitan Police, Birmingham's West Midlands Police and Cleveland Police in northeast England.

The raids were jointly organized with tMI5, he British security service, and were the result of an investigation that has been going on for months, the BBC reported.

500 infidels to arrest 9 jihadis? I think the jihadis should be pretty proud about those numbers, realizing at the same time that it's a mere drop in the ocean. 

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:54 | link | comments

 

Anti-dhimmitude in da House: The House “gets it," even if the President doesn’t always. From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly backed legislation on Tuesday to impose broad restrictions on U.S. aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, defying President George W. Bush in the midst of high-profile Mideast talks.

The House voted 361-37 for the bill that backers said was needed to keep any U.S. funds from supporting Hamas, a militant group pledged to the destruction of Israel and deemed a terrorist organization by Washington.

The vote came during Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's first trip to Washington, where a topic was expected to be how to ease the Palestinians' humanitarian crisis while isolating the Hamas Islamists controlling the Palestinian government.

The Bush administration contends this bill would tie its hands in that effort. The administration has cut off direct aid to the Hamas-led government, but the bill would put into law more sweeping bans.

The House bill would cut off direct and indirect U.S. assistance to the Palestinian Authority, other than aid to meet "the basic human health needs" of the Palestinian people and for measures Congress approves on a case by case basis. It would limit aid through nongovernmental organizations and restrict diplomatic contacts with representatives of Hamas.

The bill calls for the Palestinian Authority to be designated a "terrorist sanctuary," and bans visas for entry into the United States of any official or member of the PA or any component of the PA. It also recommends withholding U.S. contributions to the United Nations proportional to the amount the world body provides the PA.

Facing insurmountable bipartisan momentum in the House for the sanctions bill, congressional aides said the administration likely will try to block companion legislation in the Senate to keep the measure from going to a House-Senate conference and reaching Bush's desk.

The House bill is more restrictive than a Senate version that has not yet moved through committees. Under it, aid would be restored if Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist, renounces terrorism and disarms…

All I can say is thank heaven for America—and God bless it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:02 | link | comments

 

Welcome to the nightmare: FrontPage Magazine has a “don’t miss” interview with Bruce Bawer, author of While Europe Slept. Bawer, who’s gay, left the U.S. because of fears that those scary fundamentalists—you know which ones—were taking over. He decamped to Europe, where he found a whole bunch of scarier and far more alarming fundamentalists—the Islamic ones, who were transforming the continent into Eurabia, and the not-yet-Muslim Powers That Be, the government  elites (fundamentalists of another stripe), who were endlessly helpful in effecting the transformation:

 

Bawer: In 1998 I moved from New York, where I’m from, to Amsterdam. I loved the Netherlands – its tolerance, its secularism, its heritage of freedom and learning and culture. But in early 1999, living in a largely Muslim area called the Oud West, I saw another side of the Netherlands, and of Europe, that I hadn’t seen before, or even been particularly aware of. The Oud West seemed less a neighborhood than an enclave – a piece of another society that had been dropped down into the city and that lived apart from it and its values. Just to walk from downtown Amsterdam into the Oud West was to experience a staggering contrast.

I soon came to realize that Amsterdam wasn’t unique – virtually every major city in Europe had Muslim enclaves like this one. The people outside of them were living in a democracy, but the people in them were living in a theocracy, ruled by imams and elders who preached contempt for the host society and its values. They were against secular law, against pluralism, against freedom of speech and religion, against sexual equality. Husbands believed it was their sacred right to beat and rape their wives. Parents practiced honor killings and female genital mutilation. Unemployment and crime rates were through the roof.

Most remarkable of all, nobody was saying or doing anything about any of this. European politicians took a hands-off attitude. Journalists sang the praises of multicultural society. With very few exceptions, nobody in a position of authority seemed willing to stand up for basic democratic values.

FP: You were at one time, I think it would be safe to say, a man of the Left. But you grew quite critical of leftwing European attitudes toward the US, Israel and capitalism. Could you give us an insight into your intellectual journey in this context?

Bawer: I’ve always thought of myself as a more or less classic Cold War liberal. But never New Left. The New Left always appalled me, and I’ve always been strongly anti-Communist. Yes, I’ve changed political alliances more than once over the years – not because I’ve changed positions, but because the labels started meaning different things.

This business of labels is maddening. In Stealing Jesus I criticized Christian fundamentalism and liberals loved it; in While Europe Slept, I criticize Islamic fundamentalism, which is by any measure a lot worse than Christian fundamentalism, and some of the same people who loved Stealing Jesus are appalled and think I’ve totally changed my politics, when in fact I’m being totally consistent. Anyway, as I explain in While Europe Slept, I moved to Europe in 1998, not long after Stealing Jesus came out, I looked forward to living in what I thought was a secular society. What I found, however, was a society governed according to what I gradually came to recognize as another kind of fundamentalism – namely, big-government, welfare-state social democracy.

European social democracy was rigid, doctrinaire, controlling. Social democrats ran politics, the media, and the academy, and they worked together to propagandize against their system’s #1 competition in the world – namely, American-style liberal democracy. The anti-Americanism I encountered every single day in the European media floored me. The American media had given me a very flattering picture of today’s Western Europe. But reading European papers and watching European TV news and talking to individual Europeans, I got a picture of America I hardly recognized. They depicted a capitalistic nightmare straight out of Upton Sinclair, a country where education and health care were only for the rich and where there was no such thing as unemployment insurance or retirement benefits.

The hostility to America was ubiquitous, and reflexive. Ditto the hostility to Israel, which Europeans have been taught by their elite to see almost exclusively as America’s 51st state, an oppressor of Palestinians and an illegal occupier of Arab and Muslim lands. I had been in many ways a critic of America, but in Europe I increasingly came to appreciate its virtues – and repeatedly found myself in social situations where I was obliged to defend it against people who regurgitated inane anti-American clichés that they’d been fed since infancy...

Update: At the height of the Danish cartoon controversy, the Canadian Jewish Congress issued a news release condemning the violence that had ensued, but also condemning the Danish newspaper, calling its decision to publish the cartoons "inexcusably provocative, insensitive and disrespectful of Muslim believers." In a heated email exchange with CJC’s Bernie Farber, I expressed my outrage that the CJC has taken a position so at odds not only with Jewish interests, but the interests of a free society; a position that weakened our free society by caving in to people who seek to curtail all criticism of their doctrines, and who aim to make us heed them.

Mr. Farber defended the CJC’s position by citing a “do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-them-do-unto-you”-type saying, as if the situation were a matter of being sensitive to the feelings of our “neighbours” and not about true believers wanting to dominate and shut us up.

In his interview with FrontPage, Bruce Bawer articulates why Bernie was dead wrong, and what he should have learned from the example of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Danish Prime Minister:

FP: What do you think the cartoon controversy signified? What does it portend? What does the case of Denmark teach us?

Bawer: What happened in the cartoon controversy was that Danish Muslim leaders thought they could get lots of Muslims out into the streets making noise and making threats, and thereby force the Danish government to punish Jyllands-Posten editors and cartoonists in order to quiet things down. This would have put a chill on freedom of speech and advanced Islamist goals in Europe by a giant step. What they didn’t count on was Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The case of Denmark teaches us that there are people in Europe who see what’s going on and are deeply disturbed and angry about it – who love their countries and want to preserve their democracies. The people in Denmark who feel this way are lucky because they have a leader who agrees with them and who’s not afraid to say so and to act accordingly. It was very cheering during the cartoon controversy to see in the polls that Fogh Rasmussen’s posture on all this enjoyed the support of a huge majority of the Danish people. Even in the face of a boycott of Danish companies in the Muslim world, most Danes felt: “Okay, let’s take an economic hit, it’s worth it. We’re standing up for principle.” The lesson of this is that Europe needs principled leaders who believe fiercely in secular pluralistic democracy and who aren’t afraid to offend democracy’s enemies.

What’s dismaying is that Denmark has taken a lot of heat from journalists and politicians elsewhere in Europe. Denmark stood up for democracy, and it’s being attacked for being culturally insensitive, anti-Muslim, racist. Some Danes are very upset about this. They worry that their country’s image has been tarnished. They don’t seem to grasp that the people criticizing their prime minister are dhimmis, and they’re criticizing him for not being a dhimmi.

It’s also dismaying that as time goes by, the fortitude of some Danes seems to be ebbing. Apparently, they’re increasingly willing to make compromises for “peace.” Something similar also appears to be going on in the Netherlands, where recent polls revealed a surprising hostility toward Ayaan Hirsi Ali – whose only crime has been standing up for the freedom of the people who despise her. Europe needs a few Churchills to keep the people from back down – to remind them on a regular basis how much they have to be grateful for and how much they have to lose if they don’t stand up for it.

Canada could use a few Churchills, too, but it seems we’re unlikely to find any at the CJC.

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

 

Romantic outlaws: Mitch Potter, the Toronto Star’s man on the scene in Gaza, has been having lots of Tom Cruise action flick-style adventures lately. In today’s episode, a masked Palestinian gunman, a member of an outfit called the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC), takes Mitch on a thrilling ride through some Gaza back alleys. And since Potter writes for the Star, Harpoon Siddiqui’s mothership, you can be sure he’ll give it the appropriate spin. Think PRC gunmen as the canny (sort of) and romantic Arab Robin Hoods; they’re the good guys. Think Israel as the despised Sheriff of Nottingham, trying but failing to apprehend the dashing, daring outlaws. In this classic scenario, the Jews, quite clearly, are the villains:

 

KHAN YOUNIS, Gaza Strip—A Palestinian intermediary steps furtively into the car at a pre-arranged street corner, shakes our hands in silence and makes a brief cellphone call. "Yela," he tells the driver. "Let's go."

 

A few minutes later, winding through the back alleys of the southern Gaza Strip, a mosque comes into view, where our guide receives further directions in Arabic from a second intermediary waiting outside.

We pull finally to a stop in a laneway so narrow the car barely fits within its graffiti-strewn walls. A third liaison is waiting. "Come. This way."

 

A steel door opens, revealing a mixed grove of olive, orange and lemon trees. And beneath its protective canopy stands a local cell of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) in full battle regalia, each hooded gunman armed to the teeth.

 

Such are the training camps of Gaza today, where a moveable feast of militants find themselves always in hiding and always on the prowl for new clandestine locations, lest they be exposed to the crosshairs of Israeli eyes in the sky.

 

This particular PRC cell hasn't been in this hideout long, and it won't be here much longer. Earlier this month, a pinpoint Israeli air strike on a similar encampment in Gaza City's Al Sabra neighbourhood killed five PRC operatives, including four family members of the group's top commander, Mumtaz Dourghmush.

And last week, a similar Israeli air force missile intercepted a carload of Islamic Jihad militants near Khan Younis, injuring four, one critically. The group was on its way to launch rocket attacks on Israel, the air force said in a statement.

 

Staying in one place for long is a deadly game of chance for Palestinian militias, whose greatest worry remains the fleet of unmanned Israeli aerial drones that buzz constantly over Gaza, retrieving high-resolution video crisp enough to identify the guns in their hands.

 

Forced into hiding by the flying cameras above, the Palestinian gunmen live a life that contradicts a rash of recent media accounts describing how the armies of Hamas, Fatah and Islamic Jihad have brazenly built training camps on the lands of former Jewish settlements that Israel evacuated last summer…

 

A similar theme is raised during our visit to the elusive Popular Resistance Committees camp, where Muhammad Abu Mujahid, spokesman of the group's militant wing, the Nasser Saladin Brigades, describes PRC attempts to play peacemaker between the warring Palestinian factions.

 

"We cry blood when we see the problems between Hamas and Fatah," says Abu Mujahid. "We have made every effort to find a solution and so far we have failed. But we must continue to work toward unity. Our enemy is Israel."

 

Founded during the most recent Palestinian intifada as a kind of unified front representing all factions, the PRC may ring few bells to occasional followers of the Middle East, fewer at least than the better-known militants of Hamas, Fatah and Islamic Jihad.

 

Yet the PRC has scored a number of direct hits against Israeli interests, including the unlikely feat three years ago of blowing up a Merkava III tank, at the time the most impregnable weapon in the Israeli arsenal. The aftermath saw the walls of Gaza illustrated with thousands of graffiti pictorials celebrating what Palestinians saw as a David-vs.-Goliath triumph…

 

On this visit, we find the Khan Younis cell of PRC gunmen kitted with immaculate materiel of war, from rocket-propelled grenades seemingly fresh out of the crate to glistening M16 rifles slung upon shoulders clad in unworn battle vests.

 

On the ground are two somewhat less impressive Nasser I rockets, nestled in tripod metal launchers. The rudimentary, metre-long missiles are made in Gaza. And like the thousands of similar Palestinian projectiles that have flown already, they will soon be lobbed into Israel, where the impact will be almost entirely psychological.

Nerve-rattling but rarely on the mark, these homemade rockets routinely land harmlessly in Israeli farm fields. Or, alternately, explode in the faces of their Palestinian launchers.

 

The PRC's Abu Mujahid is nevertheless proud that thus far in this deadly game of cat and mouse, his rockets stand intact and ready to fire. This is one cell that has yet to appear on the scanners of the Israeli drones overhead.

 

"This simple technology is not very much," he says, pointing to his rockets. "But Israel, even with the greatest technology that exists, still can't catch it."

 

 

They seek ‘em here, they seek ‘em there. Those Zionists seek ‘em everywhere. Be they enslaved or be they free. That demmed elusive PRC.

 

Update: Israel nabs an outlaw. From the CBC:

 

Israeli forces captured the head of Hamas's military wing in the West Bank during a raid in the town of Ramallah early Tuesday.

 

Ibrahim Hamed, 41, has been Israel's most wanted man in the West Bank since 1998.

 

He took over the leadership of the Izzedine al Qassam brigades in the region in 2003.

 

Israel has accused Hamed of masterminding a series of suicide bombings that killed as many as 78 people, including two bombings in one day in 2003 – the first outside an army base near Tel Aviv, the second at a popular café in one of Jerusalem's wealthiest neighborhoods.

 

Early Tuesday morning, units from the army, police and intelligence service surrounded Hamed's Ramallah home, a pair of apartments located above street-level shops.

 

He refused to come out until the Israelis opened fire and, using a loudspeaker, threatened to use a bulldozer to destroy the two-storey building.

 

Hamed obeyed orders to remove his shirt and pants and come out of the building in his underwear to prove he wasn't wearing hidden explosives.

 

Hamed was alone and armed at the time of the arrest, an Associated Press report said.

 

After the capture, an Israeli army official said that what made Hamed invaluable to Hamas was his "creativity in finding very complex ways to attack Israelis."

 

The officer suggested Hamas's militant wing will have a hard time replacing Hamed.

 

Count on Mitch Potter to romanticize the “creative" underdog in coming reports.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:27 | link | comments

 

“I went to the animal fair/The birds and the beasts were there/The big baboon by the light of the moon was combing his auburn hair/The monkey he got drunk/And sat on the elephants trunk/The elephant sneezed and fell on his knees and that was the end of the monk…” And you thought that was only a silly kiddy song. From CNN:

 

BUDAPEST, Hungary (Reuters) -- Monkeys and apes at the Budapest Zoo drink their way through 55 liters of red wine each year, albeit in small quantities each day, to help boost their red blood cells, the zoo said Monday.

Budapest Zoo spokesman Zoltan Hanga said it was the 11 anthropoid apes who drank most of the wine in 2005.

"Obviously, they do not have it all at once and get drunk, but they get it in small amounts mixed in their tea," Hanga said.

"And it's not Eger Bull's Blood or some expensive wine that they are getting but simple table wine, as it's mainly good for their blood cells."

Bull's Blood from the town of Eger in northeast Hungary became one of Eastern Europe's best-known wines under communism…

…but since communism fell, they’re more partial to Goats do Roam and Cats Pee on a Gooseberry Bush.

Posted by: scaramouche at 23:41 | link | comments

 

An offer I can’t help but refuse: British lefty periodical The New Statesman has a “can’t miss” offer. If I sign up for a subscription, I’ll pay significantly less than the newsstand price (if the magazine happened to be available at my local newsstand, which it isn’t). Along with that, I’ll get a free copy of Noam Chomsky’s new book.

 

Thanks, but I think I’d rather have all my teeth pulled without anaesthesia.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:37 | link | comments

 

“It was a dark and stormy night, and the Jews, the ones the Prophet (pbuh) had just turned into apes and pigs, were causing all sorts of problems again…”: He’s no Dan Brown, but Saddam Hussein and his novel, Get Out, Damned One (catchy, no?) are making inroads in the lucrative Asian market. From the CBC:

A novel supposedly finished by Saddam Hussein the day before the U.S. invasion of Iraq went on sale Friday in Japanese bookstores.

Devil’s Dance tells the story of a Euphrates River tribe that ousts an invading force 1,500 years ago.

Saddam's eldest daughter, Raghad, said she brought the novel out of Iraq when she fled to Jordan just before the U.S.-led invasion. She claimed her father had finished it the day before the invasion.

Tokuma Shoten says it is the first publisher in the world to put out the novel, which is Saddam's fourth.

Although versions of the book were circulating in the Middle East, Jordan banned the book on the grounds it could damage ties with Iraq.

An excerpt of the book, called Get Out, Damned One at that point, was published in several Arab newspapers. Pirated copies of the tale became a bestseller in Amman.

Japanese journalist and translator Itsuko Hirata wrote the Japanese translation. Hirata has written several books on Middle Eastern leaders…

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:48 | link | comments

 

Almost nuclear: Speaking of different kind of numbers game (see post below about surging demographics), many experts have been assuring us that the countdown to an Iranian nuke is at least two, perhaps five and maybe even ten years away.

 

Israel’s Ehud Olmert thinks otherwise. From AP via israelinsider:

 

Iran is just a few months from acquiring the technological know-how that will allow it to build a nuclear bomb, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was quoted as saying Sunday in the transcript of an interview he gave to CNN.

Olmert was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer from CNN's Late Edition on Thursday, days before heading to Washington for his first meeting as prime minister with U.S. President George W. Bush.

In addition to discussing his plan to draw Israel's final borders by 2010, Olmert is also expected to raise the issue of Iran's nuclear ambitions during his meeting Tuesday with Bush.

Olmert said the key issue regarding Iran was not when it builds a nuclear bomb, but rather when it acquires the knowledge they need to manufacture such arms.

"This technological threshold is nearer than we anticipated before. This is because they are already engaged very seriously in enrichment," Olmert said.

"The technological threshold is very close. It can be measured in months rather than years," Olmert added, repeating statements previously made by other senior Israeli officials.

Noting that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction, Olmert said the world could not take his nuclear ambitions lightly. However, he said it was unlikely Israel would act on its own, diplomatically or militarily, to deal with the problem.

 

In that case, you may as well say your prayers now, Ehud, because it could very well be game over for the Jews. (Unless, of course, Ehud is borrowing a tactic from the Shia playbook, and spreading a little taqiyah himself about Israel’s plans.)

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

 

Not like a virgin: When a Danish Newspaper dared to publish some “blasphemous” ‘toons showing the Prophet, some of the faithuful went ape-shiite and burnt down a few embassies. When The Da Vinci Code, a movie based on a novel which basically disembowels Christian doctrine, premiered this past Friday, amazingly enough, the theatres remained intact.

 

That said, if the Christian faithful were inclined to respond to real or perceived slights to their religion in the same way as some of the Muslim faithful (which, obviously, they aren’t), I can think of a certain aging-but-still-hogging-the-limelight singer with a faux English accent who’d be in biiiiiig trouble. From BBC News:

 

Madonna has kicked off her Confessions world tour with a high-energy performance involving a crucifix and a giant disco ball.

Stagehands involved in an industrial dispute picketed the venue in the Los Angeles suburb of Inglewood, but the protest failed to disrupt the concert.

Despite some of the highest ticket prices ever for a pop concert, the gig was a sell-out.

At 47, Madonna performed with the agility and vigour of someone half her age.

The singer emerged from a huge mirror ball that descended from the ceiling at the end of a catwalk section of the stage.

Disco diva

Dressed in S&M style riding gear, complete with whip, Madonna started the show with the song Future Lovers.

In the background, video footage of people falling off horses served as a self-deprecating reminder of the singer's much-publicised riding accident.

It was not long before she belted out the biggest crowd-pleaser of the night, Like a Virgin.

Madonna later suspended herself from a giant mirrored cross while performing the ballad, Live to Tell.

Wow. How edgy, in a been-there-done-that-back-in-the-80s kind of way.

 

I guess Madonna is off the Kabbalah and has returned to her Catholic roots.

 

But only for the purpose of making a buck and pretending she isn’t a has-been, of course.

 

Update: Found this photo on Drudge of Madonna posing Christ-like on her Vegas-style cross.

I'm waiting to see what she can do with a bomb and a turban.

 

Update: Madonna sings:

 

They went and published that bad ‘toon.

It was so blasphemous that soon,

Lots of angry believers

Couldn’t help but swoon.

It showed the Prophet with a hat,

And it made fun of him like that.

Left them no other recourse

But torch buildings in no time flat.

 

Like a turban,

One with a honkin’ big bomb.

Like a tur-ur-ur-ur-ban.

That believers

Think makes fun of Islam…

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:04 | link | comments

 

International justice: To protect itself against a genocidal maniac with delusions of religious grandeur, Israel is turning to the International Court of Justice in the Hague--the same one that came down with that “enlightened” ruling about Israel’s security barrier. From Ynet News:

 

A group of Israeli diplomats plans to turn to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague and demand that it launch legal proceedings against Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for conspiring to commit crimes against humanity.

 

Following the scathing remarks made by Ahmadinejad in the past few months against Israel's right to exist and his Holocaust denial, while the Iranians are exerting increasing efforts to obtain nuclear weapons, Israeli diplomats decided to form a group aimed at looking into the possibility of launching a legal procedure.

 

On Sunday, the group members announced that a legal examination of the issue, in which international legal experts took part, ended with the conclusion that the Iranian president could be sued. The legal file against Ahmadinejad is almost ready for submission.

 

Among the forum members are former Israeli Ambassador to the United States and France Dr. Meir Rosen, former Foreign Ministry Director-General Eytan Bentsur, and former Minister Dan Naveh. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA), headed by former Israeli Ambassador to the UN Dore Gold, is providing the forum with logistic assistance in preparing the lawsuit…

 

Good luck with that one, Dore. But I have the sense that looking for justice in The Hague is a lot like looking for chastity in a whorehouse.

 

In a related Ynet story, one the Court might want to take into account in considering Israel’s case, students in Iran have set up a special “Kill the Jews” charitable fund. For the sake of their poor, oppressed--and now starving--Palestinian brothers, of course:

 

Iranian students set up fund dedicated to Israel's destruction. Encouraged by regime, students call fund 'symbolic move' in support of Palestinians
Associated Press

 

A group of Iranian students announced Sunday at an event attended by a high-ranking member of the elite Revolutionary Guard that they were setting up a fund to destroy Israel.

 

Although the initiative's name - "The Student Fund for Demolishing Israel" - brings to mind President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call last year to destroy the Jewish state, an organizer said its goal was to support the cash-strapped Palestinian government.

 

Some 300 students attended the event hosted by a group calling itself the Movement of Justice-seeking Students at the University of Tehran.

 

"This is a symbolic move to attract public attention to the Palestinian cause at a time when Western countries have halted financial support to the Hamas-led government," Javad Miri, the group's spokesman, told The Associated Press.

 

Miri said the group was collecting money that it will send it to the Hamas-led Palestinian government. "When an elected government is in power in Palestine and Israel is pressuring it, everybody should help the Palestinians”

 

The United States and the European Union halted most of their aid to the Palestinian Authority following Hamas' victory in Palestinian legislative elections in January, requiring that the group renounce violence and recognize Israel.

 

Popular campaigns to collect money for the Palestinians have been launched in several Arab countries.

 

'We are ready to support Palestinians by any means'

 

A general in the elite Revolutionary Guards, Saeed Ghassemi, struck a militaristic note in his address to the crowd. "Resistance is the only solution for Palestinians," He said. "If you abandon the sword, that will be the beginning of your end," he advised Hamas.

 

But the response to the call for donations was hardly overwhelming. About 10 students dropped money into a box labeled with the fund's name. They also put stones in the box in a symbolic gesture of solidarity that alluded to the first Palestinian intefadeh, or uprising, when youths pelted Israeli soldiers with rocks.

 

"I hope it's the start of popular financial support for the Hamas government," Einollah Zarrinjoo, 21, a male student of philosophy said.

 

Mahin Rezai, 20, a female Persian literature student said, "We are ready to support Palestinians by any means. Silence could make the situation worse."...

 

Obviously, like lots of other Muslims who shed copious crocodile tears for the Palestinians, the Iranian students aren’t ready to fork over any actual moolah to save them from starvation. (Thanks for the symbolic stones, guys, but how ‘bout some real bread?) Why should they, when, as history has shown, it’s far more effective to keep the Palestinians pathetic and abject?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:59 | link | comments

 

Constitutionally undemocratic: I’m certainly no legal expert, but I’ve been trying to make sense of some constitutions, those national framing devices which set out how and under which set of laws a nation is to operate. More specifically, I’ve been thinking about constitution of Afghanistan, the one Canadian soldiers have been fighting and dying for. As mentioned in a previous post, Afghanistan defines itself as an Islamic republic, and, while it hits all the right notes about equality and human rights, the fact is that Islamic law, and not secular, democratic law, is supreme. The point being that, bottom line, Canadians and other NATO members are in Afghanistan not to set the country on the path to democracy—because that’s clearly impossible with sharia law in the driver’s seat—but to enable it to function as a “moderate” Islamic nation with some of the trappings of democracy, like democratic elections, instead of a freaky, radical, terror-fomenting Talibanized one.

 

Maybe that should be enough for us. But since, four years after being chased out, and despite our best efforts, the Islamists seem bound and determined to stick around for the long haul, I’m not so sure.

 

Then again, even if Afghanistan was democratic and secular, there’s no assurance it would stay that way. Look at what’s been happening in Turkey, which has been secular since 1922, when Attaturk chased out the last Ottoman caliph. The appeal of secularism seems to be eroding as Islamists—who don’t even enjoy the same kind of rights they do in many secular Western nations, like the right to wear a head scarf in public, and who can be thrown into jail, or worse, for such efforts—become stronger and more brazen, aligned, as they are, with a global movement to ensure Islam’s dominance.

 

Then there’s a case of Iran, which, as an essay in The Sunday Star explains, has a wonderful constitution. Problem is, when Khomeini and the mullahs took over, so did sharia, and the official document became as worthless as fish-wrap--and not nearly as useful. The essay’s writer, an Iranian, tries to shed light what he calls “Iran’s baffling, bipolar government” which he asserts is not a “theocracy” by virtue of said fish-wrap:

 

But Iran is actually not a theocracy. A theocracy suggests rule by God, and as any Iranian will tell you, God is noticeably absent in Iran.

 

In a theocracy, particularly an Islamic theocracy like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban, the Qur'an is the only constitution. Yet the Islamic Republic is constructed upon a remarkably modern and surprisingly enlightened constitutional framework in which are enshrined fundamental freedoms of speech, religion, education, and peaceful assembly.

 

Iran's constitution calls for equality under the law with regard to race, ethnicity, language, and even gender. It provides for a comprehensive amendment process as well as the opportunity to launch national referendums to decide the course of the country.

 

Most importantly, Iran's constitution stipulates that all domestic affairs must be administered "on the basis of public opinion expressed by means of elections," thus establishing an empowered legislature and a strong, independent executive. All of this exists under the moral guidance of a single clerical authority — the faqih — who is appointed by an "assembly of experts" based in Qom, which, in turn, is directly elected by the people (if no single religious authority is qualified for the post, then the assembly chooses a "Supreme Court" of three to five clerics).

 

In theory, the faqih was intended to be a papal figure who would ensure the "Islamic character" of the state. However, in the chaotic aftermath of the revolution, the parameters of the office were dramatically altered as Iran's powerful clerical establishment — helmed by the overwhelming charisma of Iran's first faqih, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (who invented the post) — put into effect a series of constitutional amendments and judicial rulings that spectacularly extended the scope of their power.

 

They relied on their command of personal militias and extensive numbers of Orwellian subcommittees to wrest control of the provisional government from the hands of the capable, if rather dour, technocrats who had been appointed to lead Iran after the fall of the shah.

 

By the time Saddam Hussein invaded in 1980, the time for debate and dissent over the nature of the republic was over. What had begun as a vibrant experiment in Islamic democracy quickly deteriorated into an authoritarian quagmire — a state ruled by an inept clerical oligarchy with absolute religious and political power…

 

In other words, you can have the most enlightened, humanitarian, democratic constitution in the world, but if totalitarians take control, it’s not going to do the average Joe (or Reza, or Nikolai, or Juan) much good.

 

As an insightful scholar of Constitutional law might say, “Duh!” (Although another highly-regarded pundit would probably say, "Doh!")

 

It’s comforting to know, however, that if Iranians ever muster the gumption to topple the despicable mullahs, whom they profess to despise, there will at least be a constitution on which they can base their new and democratic republic. As long as they do away with that faqih guy, of course.

 

There’s probably no other place on the planet where sharia law and secular law collide with more ferocity than in Pakistan. Rather than attempting some feeble and probably unworkable  accommodation between sharia and secular law, it operates with two sets of laws on the books. That means that an individual can be acquitted in a secular court, but be tried and convicted on the basis of sharia law in a religious court.

 

That’s the sad predicament of Tahir Mizra Hussain, a British-Pakistani who is sentenced to hang for a crime that a secular court cleared him of a decade ago. During a visit to Pakistan in 1988, the then 18-year-old Hussain was riding in a taxi when the driver stopped the car, drew a gun, and physically and sexually assaulted him. During the struggle, the gun went off and the driver was killed.

 

A clear case of self-defence, right? Well, eventually, that’s how the secular court saw it. But after his acquittal—hello, double jeopardy—a sharia court tried and convicted him on different charges based on a different set of laws, and he’s been languishing in a particularly nasty jail in Rawalpindi ever since. From the Toronto Star:

 

Hussain voluntarily reported the incident to police and was arrested. In September 1989, a sessions court sentenced him to death. The high court revoked the death penalty in November 1992 due to serious discrepancies in the prosecution's case and ordered a retrial. In April 1994, his sentence was reduced to life in prison; in May 1996, the high court acquitted Hussain of all charges.

 

But a week later, while he was waiting for release, his case was referred to the Islamic or sharia court on the basis that the crime he was charged of — armed robbery — came under its jurisdiction.

In August 1998, in a split 2-1 verdict, the Islamic court's judges sentenced him to death again, although the legal provision he was tried under required a confession or witness to the crime. The prosecution had neither.

 

The dissenting judge, Abdul Waheed Siddiqui, gave a scathing assessment of the prosecution in a 59-page judgment. He described Hussain as "an innocent, raw youth not knowing the mischief and filth in which the police of this country is engrossed."

 

He said police introduced false witnesses and "fabricated evidence in a shameless manner" against Hussain, who had no criminal record.

 

Amnesty and other rights groups have condemned the trial as unfair, but Pakistan's government maintains Hussain has been treated with due process. Last year, Musharraf, an advocate of moderate Islam, rejected his mercy petition.

 

Legal experts say having both secular and sharia law at work in Pakistan only allows for abuse.

 

"It's a basic and fundamental flaw with our criminal justice system," said Hina Jilani, vice-chair of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. "There should be just one set of laws."

 

Indeed. But if that one set of laws is sharia law, people like Hussain and Abdul Rahman, the Afghani convert to Christianity who had to flee the country when a court in the Islamic republic convicted him of apostasy, an offense punishable by death, aren’t going to be any better off.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:32 | link | comments

 

Losing the numbers game: There are only around 13 million Jews in the world. There is said to be 100 times as many Muslims. But, as historian Niall Ferguson points out, Jews aren’t the only ones who should be feeling outnumbered. As the irrepressible Mark Steyn has put it, describing the birth rates in Europe and what it means for the continents’ future, “It’s the demographics, stupid.” From The Telegraph (link via Martin Kramer):

 

Nuclear power is not the only weapon Iran has at its disposal – its population is growing seven times faster than Britain’s. In this exclusive extract from his new book, Niall Ferguson reveals how Islam is winning the numbers game

 

For many people the end of the 20th Century was 'the triumph of the West'. Writing in 1989, Francis Fukuyama argued that the crumbling of Soviet Communism marked 'the end of history'. Capitalism, liberalism and democracy had emerged as the victors of the century's protracted ideological conflicts.

 

Yet the extreme violence of the 20th century had been caused by much more than clashes of ideology. Ethnic conflict, economic volatility and empires in decline: these were the factors that had generated so much conflict and cost so many millions of lives. And events dating back 10 years before the fall of Communism pointed to a recurrence of what I have called 'The War of the World'.

 

The year 1979 brought a woman to power in England, a woman wholly committed to the idea that salvation lay in the free market. (Mrs Thatcher, it might be said, was one of the root causes of the subsequent Soviet crisis.) But 1979 also brought the Ayatollah Khomeini to power in Iran, a man just as committed to the idea that salvation lay in the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed.

 

One leader read Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, the other the Koran. One revolution pointed to a world based on free trade, the other to a world based on holy writ.

 

There were many reasons why Iranians rallied to a leader who routinely denounced the United States as 'the Great Satan'. In 1953 it had been the CIA (along with MI6) that had overthrown the popular Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and installed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi as a dictator. The Shah's regime was by no means the most vicious the United States bankrolled during the 1960s and 1970s; nevertheless, his combination of private hedonism and public repression sufficed to put a powder keg under the Peacock Throne.

The Iranian revolution of 1979 was partly a matter of settling scores against the Shah's military and secret police. But under Khomeini's leadership its main goal became to turn back the clock; to purify Iranian society of every trace of Western corruption. It also aimed to challenge American pretensions throughout the Islamic world.

 

As a religion, Islam is of course far from monolithic. There are deep divisions, not least between the Shiites who predominate in Iran (and Iraq) and the Sunnis who predominate in the Arab countries. But 'Islamism' was a militantly political movement with an anti-Western political ideology that had the potential to spread throughout the Islamic world, and even beyond it...

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:47 | link | comments

 

Empathy for the enemy: As strong and resolute as Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard, has been in standing up to Islamic terrorism, according to this piece on the FrontPage Magazine site, his countrymen (and women) have been dangerously weakened by their own misplaced compassion. This bizarre empathy for those who despise them and mean them harm—is it stupidity? is it masochism?—has enabled Islamism to move right in and feel right at home:

 

…In Australia, where 300, 000 Muslims live within a melting pot of 20 million citizens, the warning bells ought to be waking the cultural gatekeepers from their slumber. But, here too, they are weeping for the Muslims.

 

In 2000, gangs of Lebanese Muslims in Sydney hunted down young Australian girls on the basis of their ethnicity and raped and tortured them while calling them “sluts” and “Aussie pigs”. One of the convicted rapists, Bilal Skaf, sent a text message on his mobile phone, “When you are feeling down ... bash a Christian or Catholic and lift up.” Despite this, the mainstream media painted the crimes as run-of-the-mill rapes and deleted ethnicity from the crime scene. When the Premier of NSW publicly acknowledged the ethnic background of the rapists, the politically correct thundered its disdain.

 

For years the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal has been granting asylum to Islamic refugees who claim to be members of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Australian (April 08, 2006) reported that Ahmad al-Hamwi  – better known to the RRT by his alias, Abu Omar – had “alleged links to terrorist organisations spanning a good part of the globe.” The newspaper further asserted that al-Hamwi was connected to Osama bin Laden and was a “senior al-Qa’ida bagman linked to the 1993 World Trade Centre bomber, Ramzi Yousef.”

 

There is little doubt about al-Hamwi’s terrorist connections. He freely admitted before the RefugeeTribunal to playing a key role in the International Research and Information Centre (IRIC). According to terrorism expert Zachary Abuza, the IRIC was an Islamic terrorist front that provided funding to “the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, al- Qa’ida and Abu Sayyaf, a group that conducted military training with Jemaah Islamiah.” Despite this, granted al-Hamwi asylum in 1996.Australia

 

Australian Federal authorities recently decided that books inciting suicide bombing, racism and violence currently being sold in Islamic bookshops throughout the country, were not in breach of the country’s anti-terror laws, the Commonwealth Criminal Code or the NSW Crimes Act 1900.

 

The Daily Telegraph reported that one of the books carried an endorsement by “Osama bin Laden on its back cover and promoted ‘wiring up one’s body’ with explosives for ‘martyrdom or self-sacrifice operations.’” Another book claimed Australian police were “rapists” who bashed young Muslim boys, and that politicians were conspiring to turn Muslims into drug addicts. These books are now sold in Muslim bookstores with permission from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police.

 

Late in 2005, ten Muslim men were arrested by authorities on alleged terrorism offences. Despite the nature of the crimes the men were allegedly planning to commit against Australian civilians, two of the country’s largest newspapers reported sympathetically. The men, they claimed, were in “solitary confinement, dressed in ‘ BayGuantanamo orange’ and banned from touching loved ones.”

 

The Sydney Morning Herald was weeping so hard for the alleged terrorists that in a story entitled “Terror Suspects: Christmas in Solitary” it reported the men were near breaking point because the conditions were hard, and the Muslim prisoners were not permitted to spend Christmas with their families. The Australian media machine stretched Islam all the way to a nativity scene in order to appease it.

 

There’s an old saying that “Democracy, like love, can survive almost anything except neglect and indifference. And the West, it appears, is determined to sleep through the invasion. Just as in Europe, Australia is appeasing and ignoring. It is censoring its own freedoms and democratic principles to assuage Islamic cultural sensitivities. It is turning a blind eye to Islamic racism against Australian citizens and succumbing to the bullying tactics of those who attempt to frighten anyone who dares to name it.

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

 

Kofi’s cure for terrorism: It’s almost as good an idea as Oil-For-Food. From Editor & Publisher:

 

Bad ideas never truly die at the United Nations. Like a B movie monster, authoritarian notions dressed in high-flowing rhetoric -- such as mandates for "developmental journalism" or a "New World Information Order -- lurch to life repeatedly, the wooden stakes of free-press watchdogs past still plunged deeply in their chests.

What's most annoying about the U.N. is that it's not always the usual suspects selling the snake oil, but the usually sensible as well.

And so it is that this week U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has loosed before the General Assembly of nations governed by the good and the genocidal, the democratic and the demonic, 32 pages of recommendations on how the international community can combat terrorism.

Censorship of the press -- voluntarily, of course -- turns out to be a key method.

As journalist Betsy Pisik pointed out in The Washington Times last Friday, Annan's report "breaks ground in emphasizing the role that the 'media' can play in curtailing terrorism by 'countering the hypernationalistic and xenophobic messages that glorify mass murder and martyrdom.'"

It turns out that we in the media can counter "hypernationalistic and xenophobic messages" by just shutting up, OK?

Here's what U.N. General Assembly document A/60/825 says in its 25th paragraph: "Mass media may also wish to study the experiences of those countries that have adopted voluntary codes of conduct for journalists covering terrorism, including, for example, bans on interviewing terrorists. The United Nations stands ready to work with journalists' associations and press freedom organizations on this issue, including by convening an international conference to facilitate consideration of this topic, if so desired. In turn, Member States must give due attention to the need for measures to promote the safety and security of journalists."

As the World Press Freedom Committee (WPFC) points out, one of the countries pushing this "voluntary" code of conduct is Russia, wherein its attempts to keep its own conduct in pursuing its war against Chechen separatists by keeping journalists from reporting anything from the rebel's side.

WPFC noted Monday that Annan's recommendations are similar to a code the Russian delegation has been distributing to major U.N. delegations. This code, adopted last year by the pro-Putin group of newspaper publishers known as the Mass Media Industrial Committee, bans interviews with terrorists, unless approved by police, and it calls on journalists to give the police "without delay" any information "that may be used for the purpose of saving human lives," WPFC reported.

Expect this nonsense -- in which the police and government effectively deputize the press as enforcement agents - - to get a respectful hearing at the General Assembly. After all, only last week, the U.N. re-launched its discredited Human Rights Commission as the Human Rights Council -- and promptly elected as members such well-known lovers of press freedom as Cuba, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia...

 

Yikes. That Kofi is one dangerous dude.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:43 | link | comments

 

Blue and white meanies: Aren’t those Zionists awful, keeping bread out of the mouths of starving Palestinian women and their malnourished babes?

 

Oops. Looks like that spin won't work.

 

From the CBC:

 

Israel approves medical supplies for Palestinians

 

Last Updated Sun, 21 May 2006 08:44:32 EDT

CBC News

 

The Israeli Cabinet approved Sunday the transfer of $11 million worth of medicine and health supplies to Palestinians who have seen their foreign aid reduced.

 

The money will come from customs duties that Israel normally collects to help the Palestinian government pay civil servants in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

 

The payments were frozen a couple of months after the Islamist group Hamas were elected in January.

 

Israel will bypass Hamas

 

Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told a weekly cabinet meeting that the medical funds would not be transferred in a cash payment. The decision to release the money does "not imply that we recognize the Hamas government," he said.

 

Olmert said the supplies were to be transferred directly to Palestinian hospitals.

Western countries have adopted Israel's demand that Hamas not receive aid until it meets three conditions: recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by previously signed international agreements.

 

The Israeli cabinet approved the decision to release funds to hospitals was made ahead of Olmert's departure Sunday for Washington for a meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush…

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:22 | link | comments

 

 

Harpooning the messenger: The Toronto Star’s odious Haroon Siddiqui, who regularly condones and misrepresents the excesses of Islamism from his twice-weekly bully pulpit, reaches a new low today.

 

Kudos to you, Harpoon.

 

In an incredibly loathsome piece of verbiage, he excoriates Ayaan Ali Hirsi, the woman who has done more to warn Eurabians about the ins and out of submission than probably anyone else, with the possible exception of Oriana Fallaci. Hirsi Ali was chased out of the Netherlands, her adopted home, this week, because the Dutch would prefer to shoot the messenger than deal with problems in their midst arising from adherents of the Messanger.

 

Harpoon, quel surprise, applauds the Dutch for acting like dhimmi-mice:

 

Why the jig is up for Hirsi Ali in Holland

She catered to the worst prejudices about Muslims, Islam says Haroon Siddiqui 

T he sudden fall from grace of Dutch Muslim MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali offers a cautionary tale about Western gullibility in these Islamophobic times.

 

She has been exposed as the equivalent of such Iraqi exiles as Ahmad Chalabi and Iyad Allawi. They told the tall tales the Bush administration wanted to hear to wage war. She told the stories the Dutch, and many Europeans, craved, to confirm their anti-Muslim prejudices.

 

Like the Iraqi exiles, she knew exactly which buttons to push.

 

She was an abused wife who had fled a forced marriage and also her vengeful family and clan. An "ex-Muslim," she was out to liberate Muslim women and tame Islam to her liking and those of her benefactors.

 

She wrote and narrated the Theo Van Gogh documentary Submission about the subjugation of Muslim women that led to his murder and to death threats against her, placing her under 24-hour guard.

 

Along the way she let it be known she had lied about her name, age and how she had entered Holland in 1992, not directly from her homeland of Somalia but via Saudi Arabia, Kenya and Germany, a fact that would have undermined her claim, rather than expedited it.

 

The Dutch didn't mind. Many refugee claimants embellish their stories. Besides, she was a heroine they had embraced, a "moderate" Muslim waging war against "fanatical" believers.

 

To her detractors, hers was a case, at best, of bitter personal experience passed off as the norm for all Muslims, and, at worst, relentless self-promotion that had won her fame and invitations from such places as Toronto during the so-called sharia debate and to the U.S. to bask in the company of Dick Cheney and Bernard Lewis.

 

Her well-ordered world came crashing down recently when a TV documentary suggested her entire claim to stardom was a fraud; not only had there been no forced marriage and no family vendetta but that she enjoyed good relations with her family and husband, both before and after settling in Holland...

 

The ruling right-wing VVD party was already running out of patience with her, not because it had discovered multicultural tolerance or political correctness but because "it was just tired of her jumping up like a jack-in-a-box" anytime anyone poked holes in her neatly knitted tale or differed with her.

 

For example, when a government think-tank issued a report last month puncturing the prevailing anti-Islamic orthodoxy, she accused its authors of "sticking their heads in the sand."

 

The Scientific Council for Government Policy had simply stated the obvious: Islam, like any religion, has many strands, conservative to liberal, with varying attitudes toward gender parity, and that Muslim nations "do not satisfy contemporary international standards on democracy and human rights, (but) in this, they do not differ from many other developing countries."

 

The council also condemned "the climate of confrontation and stereotypical thinking," the turf Hirsi Ali plays on.

 

The jig is up for Hirsi Ali in Holland. She may move to the U.S., as a fellow at the neo-con American Enterprise Institute.

 

She would be welcomed in certain circles, which, Klausen warned, "want to see in American politics the development of a kind of Islam-bashing we've seen in Europe for a while."

 

The American ambassador to The Hague has already met her to pave the way.

 

She and the Bush administration may deserve each other.

 

Also, it goes without saying that she is fully entitled to her views, however provocative.

 

The problem lies elsewhere — in the readiness of the paranoiac post-9/11 world to hear and believe the worst about Muslims and Islam. Hirsi Ali is just one of many to cater to that demand.

 

Harpoon would have you believe that Hirsi Ali’s “lies” discredit everything she had to say about Islam, and that the real problem is that some people are determined to dish the dirt about a tolerant, peaceful, harmonious faith. As an apologist for Islamism, it’s in his interest to spin it like that. But the real cautionary tale here isn’t about Hirsi Ali’s “Islamophobia”. It’s about those like Harpoon who seek to shut down all criticism of an ideology that is antithetical to Western civilization by using our own hypersensitivity to and horror of racism to do so.

 

It’s the Harpoons, not the Hirsi Alis, who imperil us all.

 

Update: Wikipedia lists some of the awards the "provocative" Hirsi Ali has won during her career playing Cassandra in Eurabia:

·        In January 2004, Hirsi Ali was awarded the Prize of Liberty by Nova Civitas, a classical liberal think tank in the Low Countries.

·        On November 20, 2004 Ayaan Hirsi Ali was awarded the Freedom Prize of Denmark's Liberal Party, which was the largest party and part of the government at the time, "for her work to further freedom of speech and the rights of women". Due to threats from Islamic fundamentalists she was not at the time able to receive it personally; however a year later, November 17, 2005, she travelled to Denmark to thank Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the then-prime minister and leader of Denmark's Liberal Party, for the prize.

·        On February 25, 2005 she was given the Harriet Freezerring by Cisca Dresselhuys, editor of the feminist magazine Opzij, "for her work for the emancipation of Islamic women".

·        According to the American Time Magazine of April 18, 2005 she was amongst the 100 Most Influential Persons of the World. The Time 100 She was put in the category "Leaders & Revolutionaries" ^[28].

·        In June 2005, Hirsi Ali was awarded by the Norwegian Political Think Tank, Human Rights Service (HRS) [2], with the annual Prize, This Year's European Bellwether. According to HRS, Hirsi Ali is “beyond a doubt, the leading European politician in the field of integration. (She is) a master at the art of mediating the most difficult issues with insurmountable courage, wisdom, reflectiveness, and clarity [3] * On August 29, 2005, Hirsi Ali was awarded the annual Democracy Prize of the Liberal Party of Sweden "for her courageous work for democracy, human rights and women's rights." ^[29]

·        Hirsi Ali was voted European of the Year for 2006 by the European editors of Reader's Digest magazine. At a ceremony in The Hague on January 23, Hirsi Ali accepted the Reader's Digest award from EU Competition Commissioner, Neelie Kroes. ^[30]

·        On May 4, 2006, Hirsi Ali accepted the Moral Courage Award from the American Jewish Committee. ^[31]

·        The Norwegian member of parliament Christian Tybring-Gjedde has nominated Hirsi Ali as candidate for Nobel Peace Prize of 2006.

Stick that where the sun don’t shine, Harpoon.

Update: I sent the following email to the Toronto Star:

Haroon Siddiqui would have us believe that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a rank opportunist who coasted to fame on lies and Islamophobia.

Some opportunist.

At great personal risk to herself, necessitating around-the-clock protection, Hirsi Ali has been speaking out against a dangerous ideology that is the antithesis of everything that people in her adopted country, the Netherlands, hold dear. In the short term, this brought her some acclaim, and a seat in the Dutch parliament. But eventually, her message became too unpleasant for people to bear, and it became clear she would have to seek refuge somewhere else.

There are a number of effective ways to silence individuals like Hirsi Ali, who have an unpleasant message to impart. One way is to kill the messenger. That’s the method used by the religious fanatic who murdered Hirsi Ali’s colleague, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Another way is to label the messenger an “Islamophobe”, and thus a racist—one of the worst things you can call someone in our society. In an effort to discredit and silence a very brave woman, Haroon Siddiqui has adopted the second approach.

Update: The Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy that Harpoon cites in his column are what you might call a bunch of mega-dhimmis.

No wonder Harpoon is so found of it.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:55 | link | comments (1)

 

Check mates: The Sharks (Hamas) and the Jets (Fatah) continue to rumble with each other in Gaza, with bullets, bombs and recriminations flying fast and furiously, but to Toronto Star’s man on the scene, all that is secondary. What really counts is that, for the first time, Palestinians have been “spared the indignity” of having to pass through an Israeli-controlled checkpoint at Rafah:

 

Something that works

THE RAFAH CROSSING | Palestinians pass freely through a secure, efficient border post they can call their own, spared the indignity of Israeli security checks en route to and from Egypt, writes Mitch Potter

May 21, 2006. 01:00 AM

RAFAH BORDER TERMINAL

 

For a territory choked almost to death by sheer dysfunction, something that works is an impressive sight to behold in the Gaza Strip.

 

Even as all else in the Palestinian realm appears to be coming undone, the Rafah Border Terminal has come together with the same routine efficiency one encounters at, say, the airports of Heathrow, Pearson or LaGuardia.

 

In most parts of the world, a normal international border is nothing to write home about. In today's Gaza, the fact that so sensitive a security zone is actually functioning as it should under Palestinian control is altogether remarkable.

 

Day in and day out, busload by busload, Palestinians with the means to travel are processed through its security filters with a rigor that is satisfying everyone but the smugglers, who no longer are able to make out like bandits.

 

None other than Sami Abu Zuhri, chief spokesman for the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority government, got a visceral lesson in the rule of law that prevails at Rafah as recently as Friday, when he was relieved of a body-belt containing more than 600,000 euros (about $862,000) as he entered the terminal on his way back to Gaza.

Enraged by the seizure, Abu Zuhri called for backup from Hamas gunmen. But it soon became apparent the militants were no match for the crack Palestinian Presidential Guardsmen who control the border zone. The gunmen stood down, as did Abu Zuhri, who left the building empty-handed.

 

Such a stable scenario seemed wildly improbable last September, when only a day after the final Israeli withdrawal from Gaza the suddenly unoccupied local population overran the border. Holes were arc-welded through the solid-steel barrier, holes through which thousands passed unchecked into Egypt, making a mockery of the first-ever Palestinian attempt at operating a border without Israeli supervision.

 

Israel's worst fears — a Wild West scenario in which every conceivable weapon would make its way into Gaza the moment its soldiers withdrew — seemed to be coming true. The subsequent election in January of the first-ever Hamas government only compounded those worries.

 

The border took a turn for the better with the arrival of the European Border Assistance Mission, which arrived last November as part of a signed agreement promising third-party supervision. The 65 Europeans stationed at Rafah remain today, working in teams of 10 as the eyes on the ground…

"We have a special situation," Sameer Abu Nahla, who oversees a border staff of 550, told the Toronto Star.

"Everywhere else in the world governments control their borders. But in Gaza, our government is under siege (from international donors demanding that Hamas soften its rejectionist stance on Israel).

 

"So, the border is under the direct control of the president alone. And the Palestinian people understand. They know this is the only lung they can breathe through. So, we will guard this border with everything we have. We will not hesitate to raise our hand at anyone who goes outside the law because that is an attack on our national interests."

Palestinians are pleased with the stabilization of Rafah, if only because they are passing freely through a border they can call their own, spared the indignity of Israeli security checks en route to and from Egypt.

 

"I'm happy to see this crossing under proper security control," said Haithem Shakreet, a Palestinian soccer coach, as he passed through Rafah on a return trip from Egypt.

 

"Even with things as bad as they are, this is something new for us. When the Israelis controlled Rafah, you could spend three or four days sitting on one side, waiting for the border to open. Now, even though the security checks are very tight, you can be confident you will get through in a single day."

 

Even as Shakreet spoke, he found himself subjected to confiscation — some 40 packs of cheap Egyptian cigarettes were pulled from his bags by a Palestinian customs official. Smokes in such numbers are a no-no. He laughed at the turn of events, shrugging: "They are for my brother. I mean they were for my brother."…

 

Such a jovial smuggler. And isn’t it nice that, with the Palestinians in charge, his wait-time for sneaking in contraband has been so drastically reduced?

 

Just think how “dignified” he’ll feel once Hamas has its way and eliminates the humiliating Jewish presence in the rest of the occupied land.

 

That is, if the Sharks and Jets don’t all kill each other first.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:19 | link | comments

 Kofi’s confession: You remember Kofi Annan, don’t you? He’s the ardent internationalist who was so against the U.S. and its coalition of the willing going into Iraq to oust Oil-For-Food’s primo beneficiary, Saddam Hussein. In his Village Voice column, Nat Hentoff has a startling revelation: Kofi believes that in certain circumstances—say when Arab militias are slice and dicing their way through the entire Black population of Darfur and the UN is dragging its heels—a coalition of the willing should be willing to bypass the UN and spring into action:

…All in all, I have grave doubts that the genocide will actually stop before or after October of this year. However, there may be a crucial result of this holocaust that could prevent future genocides and ethnic cleansing. There is a growing realization of the need to bypass the United Nations when one of its members tries to annihilate groups of its own people.

Ignored during all the coverage of the May peace agreement between Khartoum and some of the Darfur rebels was a stunning statement by U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan to Jim Lehrer on his May 4 PBS program.

Annan's guilt at his silence when he could have stopped the genocide in Rwanda appears to have intensified as he watched the U.N. Security Council do nothing meaningful to stop the genocide in Darfur for these three years and instead engage in crafting empty proposals that amounted to a minuet of death.

This genocide in Darfur, Jim Lehrer said to Annan, "has been well known and reported all over the world. Why has it taken so long to stop this?"

Annan answered: "You can imagine my anguish as a human being and as an African—an African secretary-general—to see us going through this after what we went through in Rwanda. It's very painful and difficult to take."

He then described the way they "operate and run this peacekeeping operation," saying, "It would be a bit like telling the fire department in Washington, D.C., that 'We know you need a fire department, but we'll build you one when the fire breaks.' Because it is when the fire breaks that we [at the U.N.] start putting together the army, we start collecting the money, to create an army that will go in."

Annan did not mention, though he knows it well, that in the U.N. Security Council, if one or more of the members with veto power has ideological or other reasons to refuse to start the fire engines, the fire keeps on spreading destruction.

But then came the light in the international darkness. Annan went on to declare what may well be his most vital legacy—if his successor agrees and will at least create worldwide opinion against members of the U.N. Security Council who keep feeding the flames of genocide by not allowing the U.N. to act.

"This is the built-in delay in the way we operate," said Annan. "And this is why when member states deem that it is extremely urgent to move quickly, they've tended to put together a coalition of the willing, a multinational force, outside the U.N. so that they can move quickly."...

In that case, I guess Kofi will understand if a coalition of the willing decides to do something about Iran.

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

Alternate monikers: I was so pleased with Haroon Siddiqui’s spellcheck-suggested name (Harpoon Sodium) that I decided to see what it could come up with for a few other notables:

Noam Chomsky=Nomad Chomsky (the wandering Jew?)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad=Manhood Ahmadinejad (hence the obsession with the ultimate phallic symbol, nuclear missiles?)

Mahmoud Abbas=Mamboed Abess (don’t know about the Mambo, but he’s been known to do a deft tap dance or two)

Kofi Annan=Coffin Annan (no explanation required)

Hanan Ashrawi=Henna Shrew (ditto)

Muammar Khadaffy=Mammary Khadaffy (a reference to his fondness for his fembot body guards?)

Yasser Arafat=Gasser Arafat; Nasser Arafat; Passer Arafat; Laser Arafat; Baser Arafat; and last but not least, Yester Arafat (self-evident)

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:49 | link | comments (2)

 

Denzel made them do it: Dr. Salah Sultan,  a Muslim scholar with an impressive C.V. who runs a non-profit outfit called the American Center for Islamic Research (ACIR) out of Columbus, Ohio, has some interesting thoughts about what motivated the 9/11 attacks. According to the good Dr., whomever is responsible—Sultan seems unwilling to concede that Mo Atta and his deranged band of jihadis were behind it—they were likely inspired by a 1999 movie starring Denzel Washington. MEMRI lists the Dr.’s outstanding credentials, and offers a translation of his recent thoughts on the 9/11 “scenario”:

Salah Sultan: "The film 'The Siege,' starring Denzel Washington, portrayed the Muslims in a very bad light. They are shown calling for prayer, performing the ablution, praying, and then planning multiple bombings - a government building, a security agency, the FBI, a bus carrying young men and women, adults and children. They bombed shops.

"The film came out in April 1999. It paved the way for 9/11, since it was filmed in Brooklyn, New York. The truth is that immediately after 9/11, I said people should view these events in the context of 'The Siege,' because these events were identical.

"This scenario... I still believe to this day... This scenario still baffles me. I share the view of many Americans, French, and Europeans, who say that 9/11 could not have been carried out entirely from outside [the U.S.] - by Muslims or others. The confessions by some people could have been edited. But even if they were not edited, I believe that these people were used in a marginal role. The entire thing was of a large scale and was planned within the U.S., in order to enable the U.S. to control and terrorize the entire world, and to get American society to agree to the war declared on terrorism - the definition of which has not yet been determined.

"The U.S. remains the only country to determine who is a terrorist, and what is the definition for terrorism, and it can pin it on anyone. The most recent instance is the case of Dr. Al-Zindani, who has been accused of terrorism, even though he is known worldwide for his refinement, virtue, and broad horizons."

Now, it could be that Mo and the boys, and maybe even Osama, happened to catch the flick, and perhaps it even put ideas in their head. But it’s clear that U.S. authorities were unable to suspend disbelief –even after the first terror attack on the WTC. It was precisely this failure of imagination that prevented officials from connecting the dots, allowing Mo’s marauders to comandeer those airplanes.

In any case, Dr. Sultan seriously undermines his credibility when he refers to Yemeni “spiritual leader” and proponent of jihad, Dr. Al-Zindani, in such glowing terms. Here’s what an NRO article from 2003 has to say about the refined, virtuous and broad Dr.:

Zindani, a veteran of the Soviet-Afghan war, is no different than the Blind Sheikh [Oman Abdul Rahman, the man responsible for the first WTC attack]. He leads the Iman University in Sanaa, a powder keg of radical ideology and activity. There, he sermonizes to malleable youths, convinces them to hate the West, and justifies terrorist attacks. Zindani has released cassette tapes of his rhetoric, in which he maintains that President Bush and Jews conspired together to create September 11. As a result of Zindani's leadership, the university has trained several religious extremists to the point of militantism; the terrorists involved in Yemen's recent attacks attended the school. Perhaps Iman University's most famous alumnus is John Walker Lindh, who studied there extensively and arduously before heading to Afghanistan and joining the Taliban.

While Zindani has taught thousands of students at Iman University, his most infamous pupil never attended the school. Zindani has known Osama bin Laden since the 1970s. They were in Afghanistan together fighting the Soviets, though Zindani took more of a spiritual role for the mujahedeen, rather than serving on the front lines. Zindani was wanted by the FBI for questioning related to the al Qaeda attack against the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, hinting that Zindani's ties to bin Laden remain as strong as ever.

Yup. He sounds like a most genteel jihadi.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:14 | link | comments

 

Islam makes you fat: From aljazeera.net:

 

Attempts to stop a rise in obesity among Saudi Arabian women are being hampered by wealth and conservative values, health officials say.

 

Up to two-thirds of Saudi women are too fat and need to exercise, but many are influenced by the country's religious leaders and Islamic scholars who argue against it.

 

In the Saudi capital, Riyadh, hotel gyms and pools are off limits to women.

 

Along the city's walking trails, where the women walk covered in their mandatory black cloaks, they are sometimes harassed by the religious police, known as muttawa.

 

One woman walker, Rana al-Abdullah, said the muttawa ordered her to go back to her car when she was out walking and would not leave her alone until she complied.

 

She now walks in shopping centres.

 

Changing attitudes

 

Many Saudis say they are baffled by the religious arguments.

 

At a clinic treating obesity-related diseases, a booklet left by a writer named Muhammad al-Habdan said that if girls' schools began physical education the pupils would have to change into workout gear - and good girls should not disrobe outside their homes.

 

"There is no faster way to corrupt nations than the emancipation of women - that is getting her out on the street to entice men and ruin their morals," he writes.

 

Absolutely. Far better for the nation’s morals to keep ‘em fat and pregnant and encased head-to-toe in a black pup tent.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:36 | link | comments

 

Of fences and friendship: As the U.S. prepares to erect a barrier on its Mexican border designed to keep illegal immigrants out, it is looking to Israel, and the security fence/occasional wall that has been very effective in keeping terrorists out. Of course, noted Palestinian flak, Saeb Erekat, thinks there’s not much basis of comparison between the two. Furthermore, he thinks fences impede the “friendship” between two countries. From AP (via israelinsider):

 

As America contemplates construction of a massive fence along the Mexican border, it can look to Israel as a valuable test case.

Israel is largely achieving its goal of keeping out Palestinian suicide bombers through a sprawling complex of fences, electric sensors and concrete slabs that snake in and out of the West Bank. But building the barrier has been a gutwrenching process, fraught with political and diplomatic hurdles, that has worsened Israel's relations with its neighbors.

To be sure, there are key differences between the cases. Most important, the Israeli structure frequently juts into occupied territory claimed by the Palestinians. The American fence would run along a recognized border.

Yet Mexican reaction to the American plan sounded conspicuously similar to long-standing Palestinian complaints that the solution is cruel, humiliating and fails to address deeper problems straining relations.

"I don't think there is any parallel here because the U.S. does not occupy Mexican territory," said Palestinian lawmaker Saeb Erekat, who has led past peace negotiations. "That said, concrete walls and fences will not make good neighbors. Trust, mutual cooperation and understanding are the fences that make good neighbors."

 

Wrong again, Saeb. Everyone knows that good fences do indeed make good neighbours. Especially in the absence of a jihad, which makes “trust, mutual cooperation and understanding” more or less impossible.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:22 | link | comments (2)

Misreading Moo: Hillel Fradkin says the Bush administration has failed to appreciate the “theological” nature of Moo’s rambling tirade. At the same time, Muslims probably understand exactly what he’s getting at. From The Weekly Standard:

WILL THE UNITED STATES declare war on the Islamic Republic of Iran? For months, this question has been the theme of diplomatic and public discourse--with horror usually expressed at the idea. But it now seems that we have this backwards. For the import of the letter that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran, sent to President Bush in the first week of May is that Ahmadinejad and Iran have declared war on the United States. Many reasons are given, but the most fundamental is that the United States is a liberal democracy, the most powerful in the world and the leader of all the others. Liberal democracy, the letter says, is an affront to God, and as such its days are numbered. It would be best if President Bush and others realized this and abandoned it. But at all events, Iran will help where possible to hasten its end. (The full text of the letter, translated into English from the original Persian, can be found at www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Ahmadinejad%20letter.pdf.)

Neither the Bush administration nor its many critics appear to appreciate the significance, ideological and practical, of the letter. Nor do they appear to appreciate the remarkable boldness of Ahmadinejad personally. For the formal characteristics of the letter as well as its substance have ancient and modern analogs--letters of Muhammad to the Byzantine, Persian, and Ethiopian emperors of his day warning them to accept Islam and his rule or suffer the consequences, and a letter from Khomeini to Mikhail Gorbachev along similar lines.Thus, Ahmadinejad presents himself as the true heir of Muhammad and Khomeini and may even be suggesting that he is a founder himself. At the least, he presents himself as the spokesman and leader of Islam and the Muslim world in its entirety, transcending the Shiite/Sunni divide. Both this boldness and this claim are consistent with the whole series of pronouncements and actions Ahmadinejad has taken in the brief period since he was elected last summer. But the letter, in its form and substance, raises this to a new and much higher level of clarity and power as well as menace.

The Bush administration and its critics have ignored all this. They have chosen to view the letter within a narrower prism--the question of negotiations or rather non-negotiations over Iran's enrichment of uranium. For the administration, the letter contained "nothing new" in this regard. For Bush's critics, it was an "opening," one that could best be exploited if the United States were to drop its resistance to direct participation in negotiations with Tehran…

Yet Ahmadinejad did decide to approach the world, Muslim and non-Muslim, theologically--to insist that nuclear proliferation is not only an issue of policy but also of theology, indeed of the most fundamental and important issues of theology. He defends the right not only of Iran to nuclear technology but also of all Muslim countries as Muslim. Indeed they have not only a right but a duty to pursue such technology. The issue must be understood in the light of the most fundamental and important conflict in the world today as Ahmadinejad sees it--a fundamental conflict between Islam and its rivals, most immediately liberal democracy as embodied in the United States, but also Christianity.

All of this can be seen partially but still somewhat dimly in Ahmadinejad's emphasis on Christian hypocrisy, which may in this context mean two things: violations by self-professed Christians of the standards and teachings of historic Christianity, or the violation by historic Christianity of the true teachings of the Prophet Jesus. The latter is a traditional Islamic view of the defect and even crime of historic Christians. In calling upon Bush, as Ahmadinejad does emphatically, to embrace the "teachings of the prophets," he is calling upon him not only to abandon liberal democracy but Christianity as well--to embrace Islam, to which all the world must ultimately submit, and which is gathering momentum in our time.

THIS IS THE WAY THE LETTER will be understood and received by many Muslims, both inside and outside Iran…

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:00 | link | comments

Iran’s denial: Yesterday, the lead story on the front page of the National Post described Iran’s plan to pass a law requiring its dhimma to wear identifying emblems on their clothing. The story raised the specter of Nazi Germany, where Jews had to wear yellow Stars of David, a way to humiliate them and clearly mark them as the detested, undesirable “other.”

Well, that seems to come as big news to Iran, which took immediate steps to squelch the story. From the Toronto Star:

Iranian legislators condemned as an insult yesterday a suggestion in the National Post that they would require Jews to wear a yellow patch on their clothes.

 

"Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed," Iranian legislator Morris Motamed, one of 25,000 Jews living in Iran, told The Associated Press.

 

"Such news, which appeared abroad, is an insult to religious minorities here."

 

Legislator Emad Afroogh said the Post story distorts a bill he presented to parliament calling for Muslims to dress conservatively. It seeks to have women avoid Western fashions, he said.

 

"It's a sheer lie," Afroogh said of any suggestion of minority tags. "There is no mention of religious minorities and their clothing in the bill."

 

In a front-page story, the National Post reported yesterday that the Iranian parliament, or Majlis, passed a law Monday requiring Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges.

 

The story drew worldwide reaction. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has previously labelled the Holocaust a myth and called for the destruction of Israel.

 

Iran’s denial seems to be enough for the Star:

 

"Unfortunately, we've seen enough already from the Iranian regime to suggest that it is very capable of this kind of action," Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters at Meech Lake, Que., where he was meeting Australian Prime Minister John Howard, before it became clear the Post story was wrong. "It boggles the mind that any regime ... would want to do anything that could remind people of Nazi Germany."

 

But Rabbi Marvin Hier, of the Simon Wiesenthal Center isn’t taking any chances, and has asked Kofi Annan to investigate:

 

The head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, which champions Jewish interests worldwide, immediately wrote UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. in

 

"Now is the time for the United Nations and the international community to launch an immediate investigation," Rabbi Marvin Hier wrote Thursday after the Post showed him an advance copy of the story. Hier told the Toronto yesterday he had not been able to verify the information. Star

 

"We're looking into it," Annan's spokesperson in New York also said, "and we haven't got anything solid."

 

 No surprise there. These are folks who, thousands of death-by-machete later are still “looking into” the Darfur genocide.

 

Now, it could be that the entire dhimmi badge story is, as the Star insists, “wrong.” Then again, as Robert Spencer points out this morning on dhimmiwatch,

Untrue, or too hot for public consumption at this time? That remains to be seen. While Nazi analogies dominate analyses of this, as I pointed out yesterday it is actually a revival of traditional elements of Islamic law for dhimmis. That makes it entirely reasonable that an aggressive Islamic state like Iran would reinstitute such laws; but now that international attention has focused upon them for contemplating doing so, it is likely not that they will abandon the project, but simply implement it when the world media has turned to other matters.

I have to say that the Star, which features the twice-weekly musings of its resident Islamist, Haroon Siddiqui (spellcheck-suggested name: Harpoon Sodium) seems awfully quick to accept the denial (having apparently never come across the concept of taqiya). And wasn’t it clever of the Iranians to get a Jew to issue it? The Star also seems mighty chuffed to be able to describe a Post story as "wrong'.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:55 | link | comments

Blame Israel: Apparently, South Africa has something called “a minister of intelligence.” Problem is, the current one seems to be somewhat deficient in that area. From my favourite Wahabist website, Islam Online:

CAIRO, May 19, 2006 (IslamOnline.net) – It is Israel that should be facing United Nations sanctions for stifling a viable Palestinian state through its illegal West Bank separation wall and denying the Palestinians much-needed customs duties worth $50 million a month as part of "collective punishment" of the new Palestinian government, South Africa's Minister of Intelligence Ronnie Kasrils wrote in a Guardian piece Friday, May 19.

"The Palestinians are having sanctions imposed on them for their political choice. But it is Israel, creating new facts on the ground to prevent the emergence of a viable Palestinian state, that should be facing UN sanctions," he wrote in a personal capacity.

"The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, should use his last months in office to call for sanctions to bring about the implementation of the ICJ (International Court of Justice) ruling on the Israeli wall, the closure of West Bank settlements and the release of Palestinian political prisoners," he noted.

Kasrils said the root problem is the "intensifying" Israeli occupation of Palestinian land.

"Despite the international court of justice ruling it illegal, Israel's 390-mile wall snakes on through the West Bank, taking another 10% of the land and providing for the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements," he added…

Update: The minister of “intelligence” sings:

 

Times haven’t changed

The hatred’s getting worse.

Let’s blame it all on Zionists

And lob an awful curse.

Should we fault the Arabs,

And their ideology?

Or maybe say it's due to Hamas’s tyranny?

No, blame Israel!

Blame Israel!

With its hoards of yucky Jews

Who make Arabs suffer such abuse.

Blame Israel.

Blame Israel.

We need to form a full assault.

It’s Israel’s fault!

Don’t blame Osama,

As some are inclined to do.

Don’t blame Hezbollah,

And don’t blame Moo.

It’s better to apportion blame

Where blame is really due.

So, blame Israel!

Blame Israel.

It seems that everything’s gone wrong

Since Israel came along.

Blame Israel!

Blame Israel!

It’s just a shitty little country, anyway…

 

And I bet you thought it was all Canada’s fault.

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

Jewish leadership “stunned” by dhimma laws: The National Post has an alarming story on its front page about how the mullahs are getting ready to enact the dhimma laws requiring their “people of the book”—Jews and Christians—to wear identifying insignias on their clothing. What will all the rest of Iran’s nonsense lately—its World Without Zionism  conferences, its Mahdi-besotted President who vows to wipe Israel off the map, its yellowcake-comporting folks dancers engaged in frenzied celebration of the glorious Islamic republic's newfound nuclear status—one might get the impression that the dress code is something the mullahs (who, granted, probably see Adolf Hitler as a kindred soul) swiped from the Nazis. And that impression is furthered by the Post’s article, which features a large photo of a Jewish couple, circa the 1944 Budapest ghetto, wearing a yellow Star of David on their coats. Also by the two Jewish leaders quoted in the article—Rabbi Marvin Hier, of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Bernie Farber, of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

“This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," says Rabbi Hier; “We had thought this had gone the way of the dodo bird, but clearly in Iran everything old and bad is new again.” says Farber, who admits he’s “stunned” by what he calls “state-sponsored religious discrimination.”

Stunning it is, and old as well. But far older than the above statements would suggest. In fact, as stunning and old as Islam itself, whose dhimma laws, including the one pertaining to acceptable garb for the conquered book people (all the other conquered non-Muslims having been given the option of being killed or "reverting" to Isalm, and thus in no need of distinctive clothing) came into effect early on in its history.

This much is clear: If Jewish leaders, who I’m sure have some glancing acquaintance with Islamic history, especially as it pertains to the Jews, want to provide some insight into what’s happening today, they’re going to have to go a lot farther back in history than the Nazis.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:13 | link | comments

Embracing blasphemy: When Christians are upset with depictions of their faith in popular culture--as some currently are with the film The Da Vinci Code, set for release today--they don't issue fatwas, rampage through the streets and burn down embassies. No, they call for boycotts.

And so do Muslims. From the Globe and Mail:

One of the most antagonistic reactions to the movie has come from Canadian Muslim groups, ranging from larger associations such as the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada to the Islamic Education Foundation of Manitoba.

In a statement calling on Muslims to boycott the movie, the ISCC and the Islamic Association of Canadian Women call The Da Vinci Code "a blasphemous movie [that] should not be watched by Muslims. This movie is against Islam and Qur'an."


While I have no desire to see the movie, having suffered through the purported page-turner, a melange of dreadful prose, wooden characters and implausible plot only because it was a selection of my book club, the fact that the Islamic Supreme Council considers it "blasphemous" and wants people to boycott it might be enough to propel me into the theatre

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:47 | link | comments

 

Fidel’s finances: The other day, Forbes Magazine (which proudly bills itself as the “capitalist tool”) came out with its list of  the world’s richest rulers. Lo and behold, there in between Monaco’s Prince Albert, number six, and Britain’s Queen Elizabeth, number eight, was none other than Cuba's dictator-for-life, Fidel Castro. The magazine rounded off the Communist leader’s holdings to the nearest hundred million, putting it at a cool $900 mill.

 

“Rubbish,” ranted the outraged dictator on Cuban TV. And to prove he’s no Arafatian kleptocrat with money stashed away in secret Swiss accounts, he commandeered the airwaves over four hours, restating his Communist credentials. From the Washington Post:

"All this makes me sick," Castro responded Monday on the communist government's daily public affairs program Mesa Redonda, or "Round Table." "Why should I defend myself against this rubbish?"

Later on the program, Castro pounded the table, saying, "If they can prove I have an account abroad ... containing even one dollar I will resign my post."

Castro also gave the floor to several top officials, including Central Bank President Francisco Soberon, to deny the claims and defend his integrity.

"It is absolutely impossible that someone in the upper levels of government—and especially not a leader (like Castro) ... who is recognized by the Cuban people as an example of humility and self-discipline—could maintain personal accounts abroad," Soberon said.

And wouldn’t you know it, Soberon knew exactly who to blame:

Soberon called the Forbes article "grotesque slander," and blamed the CIA and a U.S. press controlled by "the empire" for the magazine's "vulgar and ridiculous" claims.

Along with protesting a wee bit too much, it sounds like Fidel’s been hitting the Star Wars DVDs again. (Or maybe, being a modest Communist who eschews the crass accoutrements of capitalism, he only has the videos.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:02 | link | comments

 

Odd couple: Here are two names you probably thought you’d never read in the same news item: hunka hunka burnin’ love Rock icon, Elvis Presley, and friend of Jacko and self-proclaimed telekinetic cutlery-bender, Uri Geller. From israelinsider:

 

Celebrity psychic Uri Geller said he got a sign from Elvis Presley, and the message was loud and clear: "Don't worry, you'll have my house."

Geller, who had the winning bid of $905,100 for a house Presley lived in as his career was taking off, said he was traveling to London in the closing moments of the eBay auction Sunday when the radio began playing, "Love Me Tender."

He said he knew then that it was a done deal.

Presley bought the four-bedroom, 3,000-square-foot (270-square-meter) house in 1956 with his early song royalties. The singer, his parents and grandmother lived there for 13 months before moving to a two-story colonial house already known as Graceland, the house that Elvis would make famous.

Geller, an Israeli who lives outside London, is buying the house with two partners: Peter Gleason, a New York attorney and retired firefighter, and Lisbeth Silvandersson, a jewelry maker who lives in England.

They plan to restore the four-bedroom home it to its original splendor and bring sick children from Palestine, Israel and America to see it. He hopes for permission to make it into a museum.

Geller said he met Presley in the 1970s and "freaked him out" with his spoon bending. Geller became a celebrity in the '70s for his alleged power to bend spoons and other objects with his mind.

 

On a personal note, Elvis has never sent me a sign, but one time Jimi Hendrix heard me trying to imitate one of his riffs, and got so upset he purposely broke a sting on my guitar.

 

How much do you think I could get for it on eBay?  

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:20 | link | comments

 

Progress in Saudi Arabia: It’s slow. Really, really slow. Barely perceptible, even.  On a positive note, though, at some point in the next decade or two (or three) women may actually be allowed to drive cars and sell lingerie to other women in lingerie shops.

 

Until then, of course, we’ll be forced to listen to women like Princess Lolwah Al Faisal natter on about Saudi Arabia’s “enlightented” Islamism. From Arab News:

 

JEDDAH, 18 May 2006 — A Saudi princess said reforms would continue in the context of Islamic culture and that the Saudi government had been gently pushing an expanded women’s role for decades.

 

Princess Lolwah Al Faisal made the comments before the World Economic Forum on the Middle East being held May 20-22 at Sharm El-Sheikh. The princess, who is co-chair of the forum, is vice-chair of the board of trustees and general supervisor of Jeddah’s Effat College.

 

“The Promise of a New Generation” is the theme of the forum, which includes more than 1,200 government, business and civic leaders from 46 countries with the hope of paving the way for a prosperous, peaceful future in the Middle East. Participants will examine the role of business as an engine of job creation and the need for leaders to work together for peace and economic stability.

 

“The forum is actually a method to form alliances between key decision-makers, government officials, business leaders, activists, scholars, economists, researchers and thinkers to stimulate new ideas, joint activity and regional efforts in response to a shared concern,” the princess said, noting that reforms can take place with respect for Shariah law.

 

“It is important to understand the history and culture of Saudi Arabia before you question or blame everything on Shariah law,” the princess said. “Saudi Arabia has long existed as a religious nation. Islam is embedded in all aspects of life and among the people. It is woven throughout our society. Islam is a social religion that demands knowledge and progress for all members of the society. It is the reason for women’s progress and achievements in Saudi Arabia.”

 

Well, she’s right about that one.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:56 | link | comments

 

Do as we say, not as we do: Those wonderful folks who fund and spread Wahabism, a particularly nasty form of Islam, around the world, have some interesting ideas about the best way to encourage Hamas to talk peace: Keep sending ‘em those Western shekels. From the Jerusalem Post:

 

Saudi Arabia has unsuccessfully argued to the Bush administration that shutting off aid to the Palestinian government and isolating its new Hamas leaders will radicalize a destitute population and set back the cause of peace with Israel.

 

"We are arguing the point, needless to say, with them strenuously," Prince Saud al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's longtime foreign minister, told reporters Wednesday. "It is only through inclusion that you may change the position of Hamas."

 

Prince Saud is in Washington for meetings with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other US officials. He said he argued against cutting US and European aid to the Palestinian government at a meeting at the United Nations last week with Rice and other potential Middle East peacemakers.

 

"We thought that was the wrong policy," Prince Saud said…

 

"The Palestinians are living on such a subsistence level now, if you keep help away from them, where do they go?" Saud said.

 

Um, how about cap in hand to you?

 

Do you get the idea that the oily shieks who spend an unspeakable amount of moolah each year indoctrinating believers in an extreme version of the faith, and who are delighted to sob lachrymosely over their poor, starving Palestinian brethren, are more interested in brain-washing than in bread?

 

Well, they do have their priorities.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:32 | link | comments

 

Suing for silence: As Daniel Pipes likes to say—or used to, until too few people seemed to be stepping up to prove the veracity of the statement—the cure for radical Islam is moderate Islam. How true. And yet, when a moderate Muslim is brave enough to speak out, the odds are that the radical Muslims, who believe they have Allah, the Koran and sharia on their side, are apt to take great offence, and attempt to silence him or her.

 

That’s what happened in Boston, when a moderate Muslim dared raise some concerns about the construction of a humungous mosque in Roxbury, a Boston neighbourhood. Among the concerns: some shady and questionable sources of financing and the mosque’s relationship to anti-American, anti-Zionist cleric Yusuf al-Qawadari. Some of the faithful were, as they as wont to be, outraged by such questions, and sued the folks, including the moderate Muslim, who dared to raise them.

 

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby has a piece about the incident on the JWR site:

 

When Ahmed Mansour learned that a lawsuit had been filed against him by the Islamic Society of Boston, he had one urgent question: "Will they put me in jail?"

The answer was no — in America, people don't go to prison for publicly expressing their views, or for encouraging the government to review questionable public transactions. But Mansour had good reason to worry. He had learned the hard way that Muslim reformers who speak out against Islamist fanaticism and religious dictatorship can indeed end up in prison — or worse. It had happened to him in his native Egypt, which he fled in 2001 after receiving death threats. He was grateful that the United States had granted him asylum, enabling him to go on promoting his vision of a progressive Islam in which human rights and democratic values would be protected. But would he now have to fight in America the same kind of persecution he experienced in Egypt?

Mansour is just one of many people and organizations being sued for defamation by the Islamic Society of Boston, which accuses them all of conspiring to deny freedom of worship to Boston-area Muslims. In fact, the defendants — who include journalists, a terrorism expert, and the founder of the American Anti-Slavery Group, plus the Episcopalian lay minister and the Jewish attorney who together with Mansour formed the interfaith Citizens for Peace and Tolerance in 2004 — appear to be guilty of nothing more than voicing concerns about the ISB's construction of a large mosque in the Boston neighborhood of Roxbury.

More than a few unsettling questions have been raised about the ISB and its mosque project. For example:

§        Why did city officials provide the land for the mosque for just $175,000, when the parcel was publicly valued at $400,000? And where did that $400,000 figure come from, when the land's market value had earlier been assessed at $2 million?

§        What is the Islamic Society's relationship to Yusef al-Qaradawi, a radical Islamist who praises suicide terrorism and endorses the killing of Americans in Iraq? For several years the ISB listed him as a trustee, though now it says that was an "administrative oversight." Was it also an oversight when a videotaped message of support from Qaradawi, who is banned from the United States, was played at an ISB fund-raiser in 2002?

§        After it was reported that another trustee, Walid Fitaihi, had written that Jews are "murderers of the prophets" who will be punished for "oppression, murder, and rape of the worshipers of Allah," why did the ISB drag its heels for seven months before unequivocally repudiating his words?

But if anything should raise eyebrows, it is the decision of the Islamic Society to pursue Mansour for his comments about the ISB at a press conference in 2004. He had gone to pray at the ISB's current mosque in Cambridge, and described at the press conference what he had observed: "I am here to testify that this radical culture is here, inside this society," he said. He had seen "Arabic-language newsletters filled with hatred against the United States." Books and videos in the mosque's library promoted "fanatical beliefs that insult other people's religions." A religious man who prays five times daily, he stressed that he was "not against the mosque. . . . I'm against extremists."

 

Unfortunately for Mr. Mansour—and for us—the extremists have very deep, very oily pockets, and can sue the pants off us all.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:21 | link | comments

 

Dying for sharia?: In Afghanistan today, a Canadian soldier—a woman—was killed in combat. That makes 16 Canadians who have been killed there since the mission began in 2002, and the first time a casualty was female.

 

I’m all for fighting the jihad; indeed, I believe the future of Western civilization depends on it. And I realize that, in the fight to preserve our freedoms, as has happened in past wars against totalitarianism, some Canadians are going to die in battle. But, with the killing of Nichola Goddard, (and not long ago, the trial and possible death sentence of a Muslim “apostate”) I think it’s time to ourselves some hard questions about what we’re trying to accomplish there.

 

If we’re trying to turn Afghanistan around, and let democracy take root—terrific, you can count me in. If we’re trying to keep the despicable Taliban from returning and retaking power, again, I’m on board, although I realize we’ve certainly got our work cut out for us. But I’d really appreciate it if someone could explain to me—Prime Minister Stephen Harper, perhaps—how either effort is even remotely possible when the Constitution of Afghanistan—the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan—includes the following:

Chapter One
 The State

Article One
Ch. 1. Art. 1

Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article Two
Ch. 1, Art. 2

The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam.

Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.

Article Three
Ch. 1, Art. 3

In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

Frankly, I’m not so sure Canadians should be putting their lives on the line for the sake of the primacy of sharia law. On the other hand, it's hard to see how, having committed ourselves, we can cut and run without the jihadis perceiving it as an immense victory for their side.

 

'Tis a puzzlement.

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

 

Food fight: The EU, which is indefatigable only in its efforts at appeasement, yesterday proffered Iran a carrot on a stick—a nuclear reactor that wouldn’t be able to produce any nuclear weapons. Since that’s obviously not the kind of reactor that holds any appeal for the mully-bullies, their front man, Moo Jihad, was quick to decline the offer. Fittingly, he employed another food analogy to do so. From the CBC:

 

Iran's president scorned a European proposal that would have sent nuclear technology and other incentives to Iran if the country were to stop enriching uranium.

 

"Do you think you are dealing with a four-year-old child to whom you can give some walnuts and chocolates and get gold from him?" said Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaking to thousands of people in a televised address.

 

European Union officials have considered offering Tehran a light-water reactor in addition to a package of economic incentives.

 

Western countries, led by the United States, are pressuring Iran to halt its nuclear program, fearing its ultimate goal is to develop nuclear weapons. They have brought the issue to the United Nations, where they hope to get a Security Council resolution threatening sanctions.

 

Talks leading to a proposed resolution have been put off until next week.

Both China and Russia, who hold veto power in the Security Council said on Tuesday that they would not support any resolution that could lead to the use of force.

 

Iran insists it has the right to develop a peaceful civilian nuclear industry for power generation.

 

Ahmadinejad repeated on Wednesday that Iran "won't accept any suspension or end" to its uranium enrichment activities...

 

Any other brilliant suggestions, mes amis? How about some foie gras and a nice slice of enriched yellowcake?

 

As if they needed any more.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:15 | link | comments

 

Missing pieces: From a “backgrounder” in The Economist outlining the current situation in Israel vis-à-vis the Palestinians:

How Israel's new coalition will work with the new Hamas-led Palestinian government is up for grabs (as is Hamas's relationship with the Fatah party). The victory of Hamas, a Muslim extremist group, in a Palestinian parliamentary election on January 25th caught most everyone by surprise (despite the fractious state of Fatah), and the party is struggling to project an image of technocratic competence. Efforts to isolate the regime economically until it recognises Israel and renounces violence have punished ordinary Palestinians, so the so-called Quartet (America, the European Union, Russia and the UN) has proposed a scheme for sending aid directly to the Palestinian people. How Gaza fares—economically and politically, with its 1.4m inhabitants—is still up for scrutiny, as there is talk of a similar withdrawal scheme in the West Bank. So far, the Palestinian Authority has yet to prevent the area from falling into violent disarray. And there is tension over the route of Israel's security fence, which extends into the occupied lands.

No mention, of course, of the jihad, which seeks to throw the Jews out of “the occupied lands”—all the occupied land, meaning all of Israel, nor the fact that those “ordinary Palestinians” who were being unfairly “punished” for Hamas’s misdeeds are the same people who willingly chose to elect a regime of terrorists dedicated, for religious reasons, to obliterating the uppity dhimmis who dared stake a claim to land already spoken for by dar al Islam.

 

I guess that’s a bit too much “background” for Economist readers.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:57 | link | comments

 

Silencing a brave Cassandra: Ayaan Ali Hirsi, one of the world’s truth tellers, the woman who dared speak out and warn her adopted country and by extension, all of Europe, of the perils of submission, has been forced out of Holland. Unfortunately for Europe, her truth has fallen largely on unreceptive and hostile ears. So rather than deal with the real problems, the Dutch have decided to shoot the messenger—Ms. Ali—and pretend they can maintain their identity through a policy that consists in equal parts of ignorance, foolishness and appeasement.

 

Good luck to them with that one.

 

As Magnus Linklater writes—scathingly—in The Times, the day Ms. Ali decided to leave the Netherlands was a black day for Western civilization:

 

FOR HER COURAGE, her honesty and her unflinching support of the rights of Muslim women, Ayaan Hirsi Ali deserves to be considered a heroine. A target for extremists throughout the Islamic world, her life is in constant danger. When, after the making of her film, Submission, its Dutch director, Theo Van Gogh, was murdered, she too found herself under sentence of death. Yet she has never held back from expressing her outspoken view that, in terms of subordinating women, repressing art and limiting freedom of speech, Islam is a backward religion. Controversial or not, she has a right to be heard.

One might have imagined that the Netherlands, as a bastion of liberal values, would guarantee that right. Ms Hirsi Ali is a full citizen of the country and, until yesterday, was an elected member of the Dutch Parliament. She is entitled to expect the same kind of protection that Salman Rushdie once had in the years after the publication of Satanic Verses. Instead, It is a squalid tale. Ever since the making of Submission, Ms Hirsi Ali has been subjected to a campaign of denigration by fellow Muslims. They have accused her of insulting her own native country — Somalia — her religion and her family. By refusing to marry the husband that had been chosen for her, by criticising Islamic attitudes to women, and then by using her position to argue for restricting immigration into the Netherlands, she has incurred the hostility, not only of fundamentalists, but also of even moderate Muslim opinion. Last year, Emel, the British Muslim lifestyle magazine, carried an article that described her as “a brown memsahib” and accused her of selling out to right-wing opinion. That Time magazine chose her as one of the 100 most influential people in the world did not endear her to her left-wing critics.

In the Netherlands, a country with a large Muslim population, struggling with multiculturalism and acutely aware of its failure to integrate its minorities, Ms Hirsi Ali’s uncompromising views were uncomfortable, not least because they were couched in such cogent terms. “I am not against migration,” she told The Guardian last year. “It is simply pragmatic to restrict migration, while at the same time encouraging integration and fighting discrimination. I support the idea of the free movement of goods, people, money and jobs in Europe. But that will only work if universal human rights are also adopted by the newcomers. And if they are not, then you run the risk of losing what you have here, and what other people want when they come here, which is freedom.”

It is for views like this — persuasive as they are — that she is being forced out of her adopted country. The lowest blow has come from her own political party in the Netherlands, the centre-right VVD, which has caved in to demands to open an inquiry into how she secured her Dutch visa. Ms Hirsi Ali has never denied that, when she first arrived in the country, she falsified her name and some of her details, claiming that she had come directly from Somalia, when in fact she had spent time in Ethiopia, Kenya and Germany. The VVD knew all of this when it adopted her as a candidate in 2002. It knew about the pressures she had been subjected to from members of her own family, and about the acute danger she found herself in because of her views.

Now, however, Rita Verdonk, the Immigration Minister, who is running for leadership of the party, has caved in to pressure from Ms Hirsi Ali’s critics and has pledged a formal investigation of her citizenship. Responding to a TV programme that has aired many of the accusations made against Ms Hirsi Ali, including complaints from her neighbours about the extra security she has been granted, Ms Verdonk has turned against her, saying her visa had been “improperly granted”. As Ms Hirsi Ali said yesterday: “It is difficult to work as a parliamentarian if you have nowhere to live. It is difficult, but not impossible. As of yesterday, it became impossible.”

This is a sad day in the history of liberal democracy, a stain on the reputation of a once-tolerant country and a setback for the reputation of Islam itself, cementing the impression that is simply not open to criticism. In particular, it lets down Muslim women, who are still being subjected to forced marriages. The debate about its role in Western society is one of the most urgent and complex that confronts us today — only this week, the Government launched an attempt to find a frame of traditional British values that could encompass young Muslim opinion. At the very least, therefore, we should be free to hear all strands of opinion, however challenging they may be.

Ms Hirsi Ali’s penetrating analysis of religion and society in Muslim countries should be answered, not ignored. This is not just a matter of a novel satirising the Prophet, or a few insulting cartoons; hers is a sustained and clear-sighted critique of Islam, from someone who has experienced its restrictions and believes that there is a reasonable case to be made against it. A country that turns its back on those views reveals itself, not only as illiberal, but one that has lost confidence in the resilience of its own democracy.

Indeed. As I wrote on an LGF thread about Hirsi Ali the other day, paraphrasing Winston Churchill, an iron veil is descending on the Continent.

 

Update: Der Spiegel online's article about Hirsi Ali features a quote by another former submissive. He's outraged--and saddened--that she's been treated in such an appalling and craven way. The article also notes that Holland's (and Europe's) loss appears to be the U.S.'s gain:

..."This affair is a disgrace for our country and for all of Europe. Voltaire and Erasmus are turning over in their graves," says an outraged Afshin Ellian, Professor of Legal Philosophy at the University. Ellian, born in Tehran in 1966, emigrated to the Netherlands in 1983. His history is similar to Ayaan's, except for the fact that he left his country because he was fleeing from the mullahs, and not because his family was trying to force him into an arranged marriage. Ellian is even considering filing legal action against "iron Rita" for perversion of justice, "not because she has now revoked Ayaan's citizenship, but because she has long known that Ayaan provided false information." Ellian knows that he's unlikely to make much headway with his argument, but he says he would certainly like to give it a try. of Leiden

But it seems that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has already moved on. After an hour she returns to her guests and announces the good news. The US ambassador in The Hague, she says, has assured her "that he will do everything in his power to help me move to the United States." In fact, the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, has already offered her a job.

"This affair is a disgrace for our country and for all of Europe. Voltaire and Erasmus are turning over in their graves," says an outraged Afshin Ellian, Professor of Legal Philosophy at the University. Ellian, born in Tehran in 1966, emigrated to the Netherlands in 1983. His history is similar to Ayaan's, except for the fact that he left his country because he was fleeing from the mullahs, and not because his family was trying to force him into an arranged marriage. Ellian is even considering filing legal action against "iron Rita" for perversion of justice, "not because she has now revoked Ayaan's citizenship, but because she has long known that Ayaan provided false information." Ellian knows that he's unlikely to make much headway with his argument, but he says he would certainly like to give it a try. of Leiden

But it seems that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has already moved on. After an hour she returns to her guests and announces the good news. The US ambassador in The Hague, she says, has assured her "that he will do everything in his power to help me move to the United States." In fact, the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, has already offered her a job.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:27 | link | comments

 

The real theat: There are some, like Ayaan Ali Hirsi, who is about to be cast out of the Netherlands, who warn of the threat radical Islam poses to the world. Then there are others, who are either submissives themselves, or who have decided to submit to the submissives, who think the real threat is the occupation by infidels of Islamic lands.

 

You can slot Islamic police chiefs into the second category. From Islam Online:

 

Occupation of Muslim lands is a blatant threat to the entire Islamic world, said the representative of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Kamal Seifullah al-Momeni, according to IRNA.

Al-Momeni’s comments came at the inaugural ceremony of the First Conference of Islamic Countries' Police Chiefs.

The three-day conference, held in Iran, brings together more than police chiefs of more than 40 Islamic countries, their security and police officials as well as high-ranking officials.

The event is aimed at devising a plan for police forces of Muslim states to improve security and combat crime.

In his speech, al-Momeni said that occupying the holy Al-Quds in the Palestinian territories as well as other Muslim lands isn’t acceptable, stressing that "OIC condemns the continued occupation of Muslim lands."

He also urged police forces of all Islamic countries to "take measures through cooperation to strengthen the security and stability of the Muslim world."

Pointing out that moves to strengthen cooperation among Muslim states shouldn’t reach the point of interference in each country’s internal affairs, al-Momeni said "Muslim solidarity serves to enhance commercial, cultural and economic cooperation among Islamic countries."

Moreover, he said that the OIC is trying to draw the attention of world powers that the international community must adhere to international law and respect individual rights as enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

 

The Islam Online piece draws the attention of world powers to a photo of the holy gold-domed mosque in “Al-Quds” that the faithful are so keen on liberating.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:01 | link | comments

Show me the Mahdi: During a visit to Bali, Indonesia, Moo gets a far-away look in his eyes as he points to direction where he believes the occluded imam is is getting set to shake off his occlusion and make a return engagement.

(Just kidding. I'm sure he was just forcefully underscoring one of his demento statements, or pointing to the next person in the audience whose question he wanted to field.)  

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:01 | link | comments

 

Enabling the big kaboom: There must be some scientific nuances I’m missing, because for the life of me I can’t seem to wrap my cranium around this one. From The Guardian:

 

Britain, France and Germany are discussing plans to offer Iran a nuclear reactor in exchange for a halt to its uranium enrichment programme, according to reports.

 

Sources told the Associated Press news agency that the countries were planning to offer Iran a light water reactor as part of a plan to be discussed by the three nations, alongside the US, Russia, and China, on Friday.

 

Last month Iran announced it had joined the ranks of nuclear countries after it produced its first domestically enriched uranium.

 

Western European nations and the US have called on Tehran to halt its enrichment programme, suspecting it is using the technology as a cover for a nuclear weapons programme.

 

Observers fear the Iranian government would use nuclear weapons to attack its neighbours. The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, has called for Israel to be "removed from the pages of history".

 

A US official rejected the reactor proposal, saying it "would be met with a real sense of scepticism" by Washington.

 

"If Iran is bent on having a nuclear weapons program, we ought not to be helping with that," the official said.

 

However, the offer of light water reactors has previously been used as a diplomatic bargaining chip - in the 1994 "agreed framework" designed to deal with North Korea's nuclear weapons programme.

 

The European offer follows long-standing Russian proposals to provide Iran with enriched uranium for its nuclear programme.

 

Both tactics are designed to allow Tehran to develop nuclear power without the uranium enrichment technologies and plutonium that could be used to build a nuclear bomb.

 

The radioactive U-235 form of uranium needs to be enriched to a level of at least 3.5% before it can be used in nuclear power plants, and an IAEA report last week confirmed that Iran had achieved a level of 5%.

Uranium needs to be further enriched to at least 20% before it can be used in nuclear weapons. Analysts believe Iran is at least five years away from successfully building an atomic bomb.

 

Five years, huh? That should give them plenty of time to use the EU’s “safe” reactor and Russia’s “safe” enriched uranium to blow all the Zionists and a good whack of the Americans to Kingdom Come.

 

Update: James S. Robbins is dubious about the five-years-till-warheads estimate. From NRO:

 

…Analysts who make these estimates look at a variety of factors, focusing chiefly on the known physical capacity to produce such weapons. Quantifiable variables such as these adapt well to creating timelines. Take the amount of fissile material needed to have a weapon, divide by the estimated rate of production (based on the number of reactors, for example), and you have a timeline. However, Iran’s supposed material constrains may not be as important as the intent of the regime to acquire the weapons. Highly motivated countries that devote their national energies to projects of this type tend to find ways to get them done.

 

Case in point: The United States went from no nuclear weapons—that is, no nuclear weapons in all of human history—to the Trinity test at Alamogordo, New Mexico, in about four years. It is hard to believe that today, with the widespread knowledge of nuclear theory; 60 years of experience with nuclear weapons in various countries around the world; the availability of former Soviet scientists and technology; the assistance of rogue states like North Korea; underground networks of the type put together by A. Q. Khan to build Pakistan’s nuclear weapon; the incredible surplus wealth being pumped into Iran daily due to inflated oil prices; and a highly motivated regime that seeks to develop nuclear capability as soon as possible—it is hard to believe that it would take Iran a decade to obtain a nuclear weapon…

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:57 | link | comments (4)

Tarnishing the faith: CAIR, the semi-crypto Islamist American lobby group, has its nose out of joint because Islam, a beautiful, peaceful religion, is being unfairly associated in peoples’ minds with terrorism. And you know, that’s really, really racist and unjust.

And racist.

From The Daily Times (Pakistan):

WASHINGTON: Reporters are 100 times more likely to associate Islam with terrorism or militancy than all other faiths combined, an article quoted a word search on news stories published in major newspapers over the past decade as concluding.

“Such lopsided portrayal is indicative of deep-seated misunderstandings about Islam, and sometimes just plain prejudice,” said Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the board of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in an article on Monday. “Surely, all terrorists are not Muslim. Neither are all Muslims terrorists.”

The European Union had noticed resentment among Muslims to the “objectionable juxtaposition of Islam and terrorism”, and was distributing new guidelines to its 25 members that recommended using “non-emotive lexicon for discussing radicalisation”, Ahmed said in his article titled ‘A sensible way to describe terrorists’. EU officials say that the guidelines, which are not legally binding, would ask European governments to shun the phrase ‘Islamic terrorism’ in favour of “terrorists who abusively invoke Islam”, Ahmed said. Other terms being considered by the review include “Islamist”, “fundamentalist” and “jihad”, he said. He praised this “first of its kind effort” to separate terrorism from its perceived roots.

“Associating the criminal enterprise of terrorism with the faith of 1.4 billion Muslims, 99.99 percent of whom will never come near any act of terrorism, much less use Islam as a justification for their crimes, is just plain wrong,” he said. Ahmed said the 9/11 attacks had “brought home the horrors of a new form of suicidal terrorism”. “More and more scholarly writings are delving deeper into this issue and offering us new insights,” he said. “The pioneering instigators and the largest purveyors of suicide terrorism are the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are overwhelmingly Hindu.”

Quoting Robert Pape’s book ‘Dying to Win’, Ahmed writes: “‘From Lebanon to Israel to Sri Lanka to Kashmir to Chechnya, the sponsors of every campaign have been terrorist groups trying to establish or maintain political self-determination by compelling a democratic power to withdraw from a territory they claim,’” Ahmed quotes Pape as saying. He said that occupation is the primary motivator and religion, at best, is an “aggravating” factor. “Considering this, the Iraq war has only amplified the problem,” he said.

“Falsely associating Islam with terrorism weakens the efficacy of these efforts by creating the impression that the global war on terror is merely a euphemism for a war on Islam,” Ahmed said. “Terrorism is stateless and yet trans-national. ... it will never be defeated through force alone. It will have to be fought ideologically by attempting to win the hearts and minds of those vulnerable to terrorist manipulations,” Ahmed said. APP

There is only one retort to the above: What about the jihad, Ahmed? Terrorism may be “stateless and yet trans-national”, but then, doesn’t that also describe the state the world will be in once the jihad prevails and the true peace of dar-es-salaam finally descends--and isn't that what the jihadi terrorists are working so hard to achieve? 

Or is that just me failing to separate Islamic terrorism from its perceived roots again?

Update: Here's CAIR's news release, the one on which The Daily Times based its article. It left out this final bit:

A recent policy brief by the Stanley Foundation states that Western powers "should not focus on the religious and cultural divisions between East and West when approaching this issue (of terrorism), as this plays into the existing grievances of Arab and Muslim populations and creates a sense of clash between civilizations, all of which hinder the resolution of differences."

An attempt to institutionally dissociate Islam from terrorism is imperative.

The EU seems to understand this crucial point. Will others follow their lead or will they choose to remain entrapped in their simplistic and counterproductive labels, which unfortunately spawn even more bizarre terms such as 'Islamo-fascism,' or 'militant jihadism'?

Every religion has its own fair share of extremists who commit heinous acts in the name of their faith. Why is Islam being unfairly singled out?

So as I understand it, the issue isn't so much that some people are going around blowing up other people as a result of their understanding of a fundamental tenet of Islam. It's that some people want you to ignore the fact that some people are going around blowing up other people as a result of their understanding of a fundamental tenet of Islam.

Gotcha. I'll try not to mention it from now on.

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

 

The morning after: Happy day-after-Naqba Day. And for all you weepy key-holders, here's bracing dose of reality by Amnon Ruberstein in the Jerusalem Post:

 

For many in the media the words "justice" and "Zionism" seldom go together. The world prefers to think about the "justice" that needs to be done for the Palestinians.

 

Granted, the Palestinians are deserving of self-determination in a political entity of their own and to live in a free and democratic society, even if most of them have opted for rule by a fanatical, anti-democratic and racist movement.

 

But on this, the day after what the Palestinians call Nakba Day (when they mark the catastrophe of the creation of Israel), we should not forget that the Palestinians' suffering has been caused by their own leadership, the Arab countries, and, in particular, because so many of them continue to cling to the futile idea of destroying Israel.

 

True, the Israeli-Palestinian case is sui generis, with the occupied denying the right of the occupier to even exist, and the occupier feeling that it is a threatened minority and the occupied part of the threatening majority. This is a situation unparalleled anywhere…

 

FROM THE moment the decision in favor of partition was made, the Palestinian Arabs and Arab nations rose up against the Palestinian Jews. Instead of accepting the compromise decided upon by the supreme international organization, which also had the authority to decide on the future of the areas under the Mandate of the League of Nations, the Arab countries made a declaration of war and began to plan their invasion of the Jewish state by regular Arab armies and a Palestinian Arab army led by the mufti.

 

There had been no more terrible, hostile invasion since the Nazi invasion than that of the Arab forces into the territory whose fate had been determined by the UN. Yet it did not succeed. The small, barely armed Jewish population succeeded in repelling the invading armies at a terrible cost in human life.

 

It is true that in this war, which we remember on Israel Independence Day along with its victims, terrible things were done, and Arab residents were also driven out of their homes and villages - alongside the masses that left of their own free will, following the advice of their leaders in the hope that they would soon return as victors. But where justice is concerned, we must not forget that if the Palestinian Arab leadership and Arab countries had accepted the United Nations' compromise resolution, the Palestinian people would have been saved much suffering, and justice could have been done to both peoples.

 

Similarly, we must remember that if the Arab countries had treated the Palestinian refugees who came to their countries as human beings rather than as bargaining chips, the refugees would have been saved considerable suffering and deprivation.

 

WHERE DOES this Arab refusal come from? It comes from the same argument that the president of Iran is now making - that the Jews are not a people, and therefore not entitled to a state; and that the Middle East is Muslim and has no place for a state that is not Muslim.

 

The majority in the UN General Assembly became convinced of the justice of the Zionist claim: that a persecuted nation was entitled to a homeland, that the establishment of a Jewish state would prevent further Jewish suffering, that the Palestinians could enjoy self-determination in a state of their own where they would be protected from becoming a minority, and that there was no other place in the world for Jewish independence than the Land of Israel.

 

That is the justice of the Zionist cause. It remains far stronger than any pro-Arab claim.

Even so, I have a feeling they’ll be holding on to their keys for a while longer.

Like, say, for forever, or until the Zionists are cast out—whichever comes first

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

 

The friend of my newly-reformed friend is my enemy: Hugo Chavez, the Venezualan thug who’s endeared himself to those who are apt to romanticize Che Guevera and Fidel Castro, has become quite the globetrotter. Yesterday, Chavez touched down in Londonistan, the guest of its “controversial” (a diplomatic way of saying “off his nut”) mayor, Ken Galloway. A few snide remarks about their shared pet peeve, George Bush (Chavez called him “a genocidal assassin” and “the worst criminal in humanity”—a view which Red Ken said was “not too dissimilar” from his own) and a visit to a public fete (attended by some of the loopier local lefties, including Nobel Laureate, Harold Pinter, and famous-for-being-Mick’s-lookalike-spouse-for-a-month-two-back-in-the-‘70s Nicarauguan ex-model, Bianca Jagger), and Chavez was off to his next destination: brief stop-over in Algeria, followed by a confab with reformed—but nonetheless still addlepated—potentate,  Moo Moo Khadaffy. From Reuters:

 

TRIPOLI – Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, whose socialist course has won him the opprobrium of Washington, will visit Tripoli on Tuesday for talks with the Libyan leader who once bore the brunt of U.S. disapproval.

Muammar Gaddafi, whose country like Venezuela is a major oil producer, has in recent years toned down fiery anti-American rhetoric and opened its industry to Western investment. Chavez, a self-styled socialist revolutionary, has by contrast led a campaign to tighten state control over the energy sector.

Libyan officials said Chavez would arrive in Tripoli after a stop-over in close ally and fellow OPEC member Algeria, where he is due to arrive late on Monday before meeting President Abdelaziz Bouteflika on Tuesday morning.

Analysts said the Libyan talks were likely to focus on energy industry knowledge sharing but that, with oil producers pumping as much as they can and oil prices near records, collaboration on output quotas was unlikely to top the agenda.

Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall at that meeting, and hear what Moo Moo, despite his purported transformation, really thinks about Bush?

Update: Hugo and Moo Moo, the two amigos, sing out for Mama Rose in “Together Whever We Go,” one of the crowd-pleasers from Gypsy (with a couple of minor adjustments):

Wherever we go, whatever we do, we're gonna go through it together.
We may not go far, but sure as a star, wherever we are, it's together.

Moo Moo: Wherever I go I know Hu goes.
Hugo: Wherever I go I know Moo goes
Both: No fits, no fights, no feuds and no egos, amigos, together!

Through thick and through thin, oil out or oil in.
And whether it's win, place or crude.
With you for me and me for you, we'll muddle through whatever we do.
Together, you're my kind of dude!

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:52 | link | comments

Judgt's judgements: "History," said Winston Churchill,  "is written by the victors."  And in the current writing of history, the victors are those academics who've swallowed and proferred the idea that almost everything can be explained by the "colonialism"--more specifically, the West's colonization of the Third World and the East.

This overarching theory, an adjuct of sorts to the Marxian notion that everything can be explained by economics, has taken hold in academe, and caused otherwise fully functioning brains to become clogged with a thick, gelatinous ooze. It's the intellectual version of the Big Lie--the idea that at the core of all complexities, there's a simple explanation: "colonialism", or the Jews, or, better yet, Jewish colonialism, like the kind that caused the Naqba ("our keys, our keys") and implanted an alien people in Muslim soil.

One of the most acclaimed historians of the "colonialism is key" theory is Tony Judgt. A smug, self-loathing, Israel-bashing Jew a la acclaimed academic, Noam Chomsky, Judgt wrote a critically acclaimed book about post-War Europe in which he insisted that Israel, alien, colonialist state, had no business being in the Middle East and, considering all the dispepsia it's caused, should be dismantled post haste. Judgt thinks it's best that the Jews be subsumed within a bi-national entitiy, although, unlike recently rehabilitated potentate, Moo Moo Khadaffy, he's clever enough to not suggest it be called "Isratine." (At this point, a disingenuous suggestion anyway, since everyone knows a "one state solution" would result in a nation called "Palestine" or "Hamastan.")

 There's more about Judgt and his wrong-headed historical judgements--which invariably slam Israel while pussyfooting around Islam and its adherents--on the FrontPage site:

...Judt’s free pass for Islam is the other side of the coin of his recent obsession with the sins of Israel and Zionism, areas which make the personal oh so political for Judt. Raised in London’s Jewish East End, as a teenager he became the national secretary of the Labor Zionist youth movement, spent time on an Israeli kibbutz, and served as a non-combatant volunteer for the Israel Defense Forces immediately after the Six Day War. Then, after taking his PhD in European Studies at Cambridge University, Judt not only grew disenchanted with his youthful vision of a socialist, peace seeking Israel but also became convinced that “the rule of law, the power of Western states and international diplomacy” were better guarantors of Jewish security than the Jewish state.

There’s nothing particularly earth shaking or newsworthy about one more progressive Jewish intellectual announcing that he has personally had it with Israel. The path Professor Judt is following is well worn, having previously been taken by the likes of I.F Stone, Noam Chomsky, Amos Elon and many other public intellectuals of lesser renown. All had dreams, or so they said, of a pure socialist, secular Israel that, through its good works, would be able to make peace with its Muslim neighbors and integrate itself into the Middle Eastern family of nations. But in their view the possible dream was sullied by the ugly reality of the new Israel emerging after the Six Day War, the Israel of religious nationalism and insensitivity to the suffering of the colonized Palestinians. Like Judt, they too all turned a blind eye to militant Islam while continuing to hold Israel to ever more exacting moral standards.

Despite his biography of engagement and disenchantment, Judt had actually written very little about the Israel/Palestine conflict until he emerged in October 2003 to publish his second thoughts about Zionism in the New York Review of Books. (Where better might a public intellectual announce his divorce from Israel?) In a piece called “Israel: The Alternative,” he repeated many of the standard anti-Israel tropes. But he also moved to distinguish himself from the herd of common, run of the mill Israel bashers by declaring that the entire Zionist project was all a colossal mistake. Israel, Judt proclaimed, has “imported a characteristically late –nineteenth- century separatist project into a world that has moved on, a world of individual rights, open frontiers, and international law.” Thus the very idea of a Jewish State is “an anachronism” and must be transformed, sooner rather than later, into “a single integrated, binational state of Jews and Arabs, Israelis and Palestinians.”

Judt called his essay an attempt to “think the unthinkable” and invited readers to undergo the same agonizing reevaluation. (After all, isn’t that what we pay our public intellectuals to do?) But Judt’s bi-national proposal is not only “unthinkable” -- as in unworkable -- but it is based on a misapplication of the European experience to the Middle East. This is stunning because Judt comes to us as a European expert. In fact, Judt might do a little more “thinking the unthinkable” about one of the countries he supposedly knows so much about, France. La Belle Republique is now buckling -- some would say disintegrating -- under a 10% Muslim population introduced by Judt’s recommended mix of “individual rights [and] open frontiers.” France is also a country that many Jews are now running from. So how could any reasonable person propose that the Jews of Israel try to live with a 40% radical Islamist population?

The answer is that public intellectuals are not necessarily reasonable. Sometimes, under the illusion that they are bravely “thinking the unthinkable” they become attracted to dumb and harmful ideas. In the case of Tony Judt the harm is now compounded by a stance of embattled victimhood. Unable to respond substantively to legitimate criticism of his unworkable bi-national idea, he has taken refuge in the big lie about how, because of pernicious Zionist influence, it’s not possible in America to have a rationale debate about Israel. Thus he told the Jewish Forward that he was dismayed that so few American Jews would even consider his proposal, whereas Europeans and even Israelis were more open to discussion.

Caught up in his idée fixe, in April of this year Judt took to the New York Times op-ed page to defend the argument advanced by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer that the “Israel Lobby” prevents open and unfettered debate in America of Israel’s policies. Incredibly, Israel’s liberal daily, Haaretz, also opened up its pages to Judt for an Independence Day jeremiad on how dismaying it was that at the age of 58 Israel was still so “uniquely” immature compared to all the other Western-style democracies, so unwilling to acknowledge its many errors and failings, so “full of wounded self-esteem” that it was unable see that the day of reckoning is coming for all of its sins against another people -- a reckoning, of course, that could only be averted by adopting the Judt bi-national state. The title of the essay was “The Country That Wouldn’t Grow Up.”...

Update: Dennis Prager has more on Judgt and the revolting but not uncommon phenomenon of Jews who side with the enemy.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:17 | link | comments

Every picture tells a (phony) story: Islam Online has a photo of an artistic "masterpiece", an immense painting showing the Arab version of what happened when the combined armies of Israel's enemies attacked it in 1948. And a masterful reworking of history it is, full of blood and guts and fiction.

In other words, "Guernica" it ain't:

On Nakba, marked every year on March 15, a 50-meter wall painting in the entrance of the Balata refugee camp in the occupied West bank tells it all.

A soft glowing sun rising over vast swathes of green land with waving orange trees symbolize the peaceful life enjoyed by the Palestinians until 1948.

The scene, however, is abruptly interrupted by people lying in pools of thick blood with its darkish red color against a backdrop of frightened mothers carrying their babies and running for their lives, symbolizing the bombardment of the onetime tranquil Palestinian villages of Askalan and Tal Al-Rabei, now known as Tel Aviv, by Zionist gangs.

Another section of the masterpiece shows an old Palestinian man holding firmly to the key of his home usurped by the Zionists, telling his grandchildren "one day we will be back."

A fourth part of the wall painting illustrates the deplorable living conditions of the Palestinian refugees in their makeshift tents.

On April 18, 1948, Palestinian Tiberius was captured by Menachem Begin's Irgun group, putting its 5,500 Palestinian residents in flight. On April 22, Haifa fell to the Zionist mobs and 70,000 Palestinians fled.

On April 25, Irgun began bombarding civilian sectors of the Palestinian city of Jaffa - the largest city in Palestine at that time, terrifying the 750,000 inhabitants into panicky flight.

On May 14, the day before the creation of Israel on the rubble of Palestine and bodies of the Palestinians, Jaffa completely surrendered to the much better-equipped Zionist gangs and only about 4,500 of its population remained.

Or, to paraphrase Thelma Ritter in the film classic, All About Eve, "Everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at their backsides.

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

Martyrs hurl threats: "Pay us our jizya or suffer out wrath." From the Jerusalem Post:

The Aksa Martyrs Brigades, the armed wing of Fatah, on Monday threatened to strike at US and European interests in response to international sanctions on the Palestinian Authority.

The threat, the first of its kind, came as PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas was scheduled to hold talks in Moscow with President Vladimir Putin on the severe financial crisis in the PA territories. Moreover, the threat by Abbas's Fatah party came as Palestinians marked the 58th anniversary of the nakba, or catastrophe (the secular anniversary of Israel's independence).

"We won't remain idle in the face of the siege imposed on the Palestinian people by Israel, the US and other countries," said a leaflet issued by the Aksa Martyrs Brigades in the Gaza Strip. "We will strike at the economic and civilian interests of these countries, here and abroad."

The leaflet added: "Let the entire world know that we won't succumb in the face of the policy of blackmail, siege and starvation. In the past we did not capitulate in the face of the policy of assassinations, detentions and air raids." ...

"Your money or your life"--isn't that what they call highway robbery?

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:28 | link | comments

Aberrant interpretation of Islam alert: The British minister of higher education fears that some Muslim students at some universities in the U.K. are being exposed to that perverse form Islam that has inspired and radicalized that infinitesimal fringe of the faithful. From This Is London:

Young Muslim students at some universities are being exposed to radical teaching that explicitly condones terrorism, higher education minister Bill Rammell has warned.

Mr Rammell said there was evidence that "narrow and unhelpful" interpretations of Islam were available to "many" young people. He ordered an urgent review of university Islamic courses and raised the prospect of compulsory lessons on "British values" in all secondary schools.

Ministers must work with Muslims "to improve the integration of Muslims into society", he said.

In a controversial speech to students at London's South Bank University, Mr Rammell stressed: "We are not saying that universities are hotbeds for terrorism."

But he continued: "The quality of teaching of Islam that takes place in our universities needs to be improved. There are weaknesses in the way young Muslims are educated about what their faith really requires.

"There is a concern that the teachings which the great majority of Muslims would want to stress about living in peace, protecting the vulnerable, avoiding harm to others, are sometimes sidelined.

"There is reason to think that in some cases students are being exposed more than any of us would like to wrong-headed influences, under the name of religion. In particular, exposed to teachings that either explicitly condone terrorism, or foster a climate of opinion which is at least sympathetic to terrorists' motivation.

"I am worried about this, so are colleagues in Government, so above all are Muslims that I have spoken to."

Mr Rammell announced a review of Islamic education at universities. Dr Ataullah Siddiqui, a leading scholar, will conduct the review, focusing on making sure courses are not restricted to narrow interpretations of Islam...

Siddiqui, huh? I wonder if he's related to our own "Harpoon."

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:23 | link | comments

Moo Moo's rehabilitation: A "rogue" no more,  Libya's addlepated potentate has been welcomed into the fold of civilized--or at least, non-terror-promoting--nations. From MSNBC:

The US on Monday restored full diplomatic ties with Libya for the first time in three decades following a decision to remove the north African country from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Washington was largely expected to re-establish full diplomatic relations with Libya after Muammer Gadaffi, the Libyan leader, in 2003 agreed to abandon his weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles in addition to renouncing support for terrorism. The move also reflects increased Libyan co-operation with the US in combating terrorism since the September 11 attacks of 2001. The US on Monday restored full diplomatic ties with Libya for the first time in three decades following a decision to remove the north African country from its list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Washington was largely expected to re-establish full diplomatic relations with Libya after Muammer Gadaffi, the Libyan leader, in 2003 agreed to abandon his weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles in addition to renouncing support for terrorism. The move also reflects increased Libyan co-operation with the US in combating terrorism since the September 11 attacks of 2001.

Update: Just had to share this photo of Moo Moo on aljazeera.net:

Is it just me, or does it look like Madame Tussaud's least animated waxwork ever?

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:29 | link | comments

Key fetish: I'm not sure how many keys Jews from Arab lands discarded when they were unceremoniously tossed out: No doubt tens--if not hundreds--of thousands. We'll never know for sure, because they didn't save them as keepsakes, to be hauled out for Western photographers every year on the anniversary of their expulsion.

Unlike, say, the Palestinians, who have fetishized "the keys" to property they vacated during Israel's War of Independence--to them, the Naqba, the biggest catastrophe to have ever befallen them.

And thanks to foolish Westerners, like, say, Canada's publicly-funded broadcast, the Ceeb, which continues to fetishize the Palestinians, we have the good fortune to see these cumbersome symbols dragged out anew every year.

RAMALLAH, WEST BANK - Palestinians held parades and demonstrations Sunday to commemorate what they call Al-Naqba Day (Catastrophe Day), marking 57 years since the creation of the state of Israel and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Crowds in the West Bank city of Ramallah fell silent for two minutes as sirens were heard across the Palestinian territories.

 

People had travelled from across the territory for the rally in Al-Manar Square. They were there to hear President Mahmoud Abbas deliver the official speech from Japan, where he is on a visit.

 

He accused Israel of failing to live up to commitments it made under a ceasefire deal agreed to three months ago. He also called on Israel to free Palestinian prisoners, and to hand over control of more West Bank towns.

 

In his speech, Abbas stressed that peace between Israel and the Palestinans will not be possible until Palestinians have their own state with East Jerusalem as its capital.

 

He also reiterated Palestinian commitment to the controversial right of return – the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to go back to their original homes in what is now Israel. The Israeli government opposes this position.

 

To the elderly gentlemen depicted in the AP photo in the Ceeb story I would repeat the following statement made by an unnamed, but droll, Israeli: “Tell them we changed the locks.”

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:21 | link | comments

Thar he blows!: A limerick for the Toronto Star’s Mody dick, “Harpoon” Siddiqui:

A Toronto Star scribe named Siddiqui
Had opinions that many thought friqui.
An Islamist manqué,
He hopes there’s a way
To prop up the mullahs—how sniqui.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:44 | link | comments

 

Good guys, 1; Jew-haters, 0: The only way to get a bully to lay off is to stand up to him. And that’s exactly what Martin Kramer has done with Mearshimer and Walt, the two Harvard academics who penned that specious paper, a spruced-up version of The Protocols, that claimed the Jewish lobby pushed the U.S. into a war in Iraq. Kramer, a noted academic himself (one of the lonely few these days who doesn’t suffer from academe’s collective derangement re Israel) confused the Jew-haters with the facts, forcing them to reconsider and recant many of their assertions. From Kramer’s blog, Sandbox:

 

"Israel Lobby" authors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt have published a rejoinder to their critics in the current issue of the London Review of Books. The careful reader will detect tactical retreats in nearly every paragraph. On the two points over which I challenged Mearsheimer in person three weeks ago in Princeton (while he and Walt were preparing their response), the retreats appear to be total.

The first has to do with the alleged role of Israel in pushing for the Iraq war. The original paper devoted an entire section to the authors' claim that Israel used the Lobby to conduct a campaign in favor of war. Mearsheimer and Walt: "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical." At the Princeton conference, I provided a body of counter-evidence, which pointed to Israel's dissent from the U.S. preoccupation with Iraq, and its fear that much-stronger Iran would benefit from the Iraq distraction. Evidence for this dissent even surfaced in leading U.S. papers in the year before the war, in articles that Mearsheimer and Walt failed to cite.

Here, then, is the reformulated Mearsheimer/Walt position: "[T]he lobby, by itself, could not convince either the Clinton or the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence that the neo-conservatives and other groups within the lobby played a central role in making the case for war." Let's count the retreats. First, Israel is no longer cited as pushing for war. Second, the lobby (with a lower-case "L" this time) is disaggregated into "groups," and in any case takes second place to the neo-conservatives. Third, the role played by the "groups within the lobby" is now merely "central," not "critical." By my reading, the authors have backed down from at least half of their original claim about the origins of the Iraq war...

 I'm going to make a prediction here: Mearsheimer and Walt will continue to back up from claims made in their original paper, not because of pressure but because they got in way over their heads on substance, and now they know it. They will continue to duel straw men, merely to cover the withdrawal or sacrifice of many of their main pieces. In doing so, they will lose the support of the extremists who earlier rushed to embrace them for their courage. They will thus have succeeded in enraging one half of their readers, and disappointing the other half. And they would advise Washington on strategy...

 

Score one for the good guys.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:24 | link | comments

 

Peace pipe dream: Happy Naqba Day. As part of the festivities, lame duck Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, sidelined by the election of his political rivals, Hamas, is calling for the resumption of peace-in-our-time talks.

 

A former IDF Chief of Staff explains that, for the foreseeable future anyway, peace is merely a pipe dream. From israelinsider:

 

Former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Chief of Staff Lieutenant-General Moshe Ya'alon, in an address to the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), warned of the perils of a Palestinian state, further concessions to the Palestinian Authority (PA) and stressed the need for Israel to achieve a decisive victory against Palestinian terrorism.

Speaking to an overflow crowd of over 500 people at Lincoln Square Synagogue in Manhattan, Ya'alon explained from his 37 years' military experience, especially his term as Chief of Staff (2002-2005) in which the IDF greatly reduced Palestinian terrorism, why he, a former kibbutznik from the Labor movement who had initially supported the Oslo process, completely changed his mind.

As a senior military figure during the Oslo process, Ya'alon said that it became obvious to him by 1995 that Yasser Arafat and the PA, instead of preparing Palestinian society for peace and reconciliation, were indoctrinating it with murderous hatred and glorifying jihad and suicide terrorism. As he puts it, "I needed no sophisticated intelligence to reach this conclusion -- I only had to look at their textbooks, posters and so on. We should not be surprised, but we ignored it. In 1999, I was commander of Central Command and I said then that we would face a war with Arafat in 2000. I knew it when Barak said that he would have a settlement with Arafat within 15 months, which meant by September 2000. Israel and the West were surprised."

Ya'alon believes that Israel started to win the war on the PA by methodically cutting down the terrorists and taking the war to them but then lost many of the gains it had made. He speaks of Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 and especially the clearing out of Jenin as "a very necessary operation." The result was that the terrorist organizations, including Hamas, were on the run.

But the announcement in December 2003 that Israel would unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and northern Samaria changed all that. Hamas and others concluded that their terrorist campaign was working, that no concessions had to be made and that more terrorism would bring about more unilateral withdrawals from Israel.

Ya'alon stressed that the Israelis withdrawal from Gaza was a major factor in the Hamas election victory because it was perceived as surrender to Islamic terrorism. "What we are doing is leaving a legacy for the next generation who will deal with Palestinians who believe that terrorism pays, that Israel cuts and runs under pressure," Ya'alon explained. He added that Israel is in a "war" not merely dealing with an uprising.

Worse, Israel left Gaza saying it would fiercely retaliate against continued terrorism launched from there, but did not. Ya'alon said that "After the Gaza withdrawal, I would have recommended after the first Qassam rocket fired into Israel that there should have been a strong and immediate retaliation." But Israel did not follow this path. Instead, Israel is following the path of facilitating the creation of a Palestinian state.

"The establishment of a Palestinian state," says Ya'alon, "will lead, at some stage, to war. Such a war can be dangerous to the State of Israel. The idea that a Palestinian state will achieve stability is disconnected from reality and dangerous." He said that the Israelis must maintain a military presence in Judea and Samaria as long as the Palestinians refuse to make a serious peace deal, and that "Israel must brand into the Palestinians' consciousness" that terror will bring them no benefits.

 

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

Oh, brother: Some of those "one state solution" fans have gotten together on Naqba day to lament the catastrophic establishment of the state of Israel.

Yeah, wouldn't everything be peachy but for Zionism? From Arutz Sheva:

(IsraelNN.com) Jewish and Arab students joined together at Tel Aviv University today in a demonstration lamenting the establishment of the State of Israel.

The demonstration, held off campus under the aegis of the Hadash party, was timed to commemorate “Catastrophe Day,” the day on which the Arabs bemoan their defeat in the 1948 War of Independence.

Students also condemned the Citizenship Law which precludes Arab citizens from automatically attaining Israeli citizenship for their non-citizen spouses.

Idjits.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:45 | link | comments

Ozzy Hussein: He resides is a jail cell, a premises far removed from the grandiose palaces in which he used to hold court. Still, Saddam Hussein, on trial for as assortment of abominable crimes, persists in his delusions of grandeur. Most recently, he has proclaimed, "I am Ozymandias, king of kings, look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair."

Well, actually, according to AP what he really said was, "You are before Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq. I am the president of Iraq according to the will of the Iraqis and I am still the president up to this moment."

Which more or less amounts to the same thing.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:14 | link | comments

 

Floating away on a sea of crocodile tears: The finance minister of Hamas’s sinking ship of state (or more accurately, a ship of state that would have been sunk had the West not taken it upon itself to refloat it) tells aljazeera.net that were the P.A. to collapse, “Muslims around the world would view the U.S. as an evil power bent on tormenting them.”

 

In other words, not discernably different that how they currently view the U.S. after decades of enduring that perverse form of torment known as “the jizya.” (You’ll understand if the minister is a bit fuzzy on the details as to who’s been tormenting whom.)

 

The minister tells Jihad TV he’s been “searching in every nook and cranny for a solution” to Hamas’s financial woes.

 

Well, there’s his problem right there. Instead of searching in all those nooks and crannies he should have been shaking down all the crooks and ninnies--the ones who love to shed oceans of crocodile tears over their poor, oppressed brethren, but who invariably fail to come though at crunch time:

Aljazeera.net: When are you going to pay the salaries of the 165,000 civil servants?
 
Abdul Razeq: We are working day and night to secure these payments and I hope we will be able to pay the salaries very soon.
 
But you and other Palestinian officials have been saying this for several weeks, and nothing has materialised.
 
Yes, yes, I understand this too well. But I assure you, and I am sure our people know this as well, that we are doing what we can to overcome this crisis.

Last week, we thought the crisis was being mitigated when we succeeded in procuring enough money to pay the salaries, but then the Americans bullied the banks, barring them from transferring the money to the occupied territories.
 
Are the banks that vulnerable to American pressure?
 
Yes, since they rely on the so-called "correspondent banks" in the US for making transfers in US currency to any part of the world.
 
How much money have you been able to procure so far?
 
We have been promised hundreds of millions of dollars. Iran and Saudi Arabia have promised $100 million each. Libya has also promised an unspecified amount.
 
In our hands here we have nothing. But we have already received around $70 million which are kept in a special fund at the Arab League in Cairo.

How much money have you received from the Iranians? And aren't you worried that the Iranian connection might harm you?
 
The details of the Iranian contribution are still being worked out. As to what you called "Iranian connection", I want to ask you, what are we supposed to do? Starve to death? Besides, the Iranians are our brothers and have an Islamic obligation to stand beside us. In any case, it wouldn't make any difference…

If the Palestinians have to depend solely on their devoted Muslim brothers, they'd be looking at some mighty lean times in the P.A. Aside from all the food and cash that's being shipped in on the q.t., I mean.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:52 | link | comments

Moo sings Porter: A song for Marty's, er, Mother's Day in which the impassioned president updates that old Cole Porter chestnut, "My Heart Belongs to Daddy."

Betcha didn't know he was such a "sophisticate":

Though some insist
I top the list
As Islam's biggest fuddy-duddy,
I must intrude
And presume to occlude
'Cuz my heart belongs to Mahdi.

Should I invite
The Prez one night
To turn into Mohammed's putty.
It's cuz he should,
It's for his own good.
And my heart belongs to Mahdi.

Yes, my heart belongs to Mahdi,
And I'm longing for his return,
Yes, my heart belongs to Mahdi.
Jews will burn, burn, burn, burn, burn, burn, burn.
Now I want to warn you, Georgie,
Thought you think I'm simply a loon
That my heart belongs to Mahdi,
And my Mahdi is coming back soon…

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:18 | link | comments

 

The courage to speak the truth: A voice of sanity today from, of all places, The Guardian, one of the most unhinged media outlets in the Western world. The writer derides the EU’s lunatic scheme to placate adherents of the one true faith by scrubbing away all unpleasant references to jihadis drawing inspiration from the tenets of Islam:

…I was brought up as a democratic socialist and abhorred the crimes committed in the name of the left. But I would always agree that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were inspired by a version of socialism, just as the most liberal American Christian would accept that fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics are inspired by a version of Christianity.

Yet the EU wishes to deny that political Islam inspires terrorists to blow up everything from mosques in Baghdad to tube trains in London, even when Islamist terrorists say explicitly that it does. You should always pay your enemies the compliment of taking them seriously. The EU can't understand what its enemies are saying, because it won't call them by their right name.

Keith Porteous Wood, of the National Secular Society, is going to the Council of Europe this week to uphold the battered cause of freedom of speech. He has files full of policy papers from religious groups agitating for the EU or UN to impose a universal blasphemy law. It won't work for the same reason that New Labour's incitement to religious hatred law hasn't worked. A law that protects all religions is self-contradictory, as each religion is blasphemous in the eyes of its rivals.

None the less, we should worry about how illiberal 'liberal' Europe is becoming. It's not only Islam that is provoking censorship. Bans on Holocaust denial have spread across the Continent. In France, it is an offence to question any genocide, including the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, while in Belgium, the country's highest court denied Vlaams Blok, a Flemish nationalist party, state funding and forced it to disband after finding it guilty of racism.

The point here is not to argue in favour of Holocaust deniers or Flemish rightists, any more than it is to argue in favour of incitement of religious hatred, except when the religious are hateful. What matters is that the supposedly liberal states of Europe are showing an indecent eagerness to reach for their lawyers. Their contempt for plain speaking, as much as the refusal of the European Commission to accept the 'no' votes in the French and Dutch referendums on the European Constitution, shows their waning faith in liberal democracy. A backlash from Europeans who believe they have the right to speak their minds and have their votes respected strikes me as inevitable…

If only. That backlash, should it materialize, is the only thing standing between the EU and its EUrabian future

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:11 | link | comments

 

Spot on: Mark Steyn blasts another one out of the ball park. This time he discusses the conflict arising from the need to gather data about crazed jihadis who want to kill us, and the belief that gathering such information is unnecessarily intrusive and infringes on cherished civil liberties. Steyn asks how we can be expected to connect the scattered dots of terrorism if we're not even allowed spot them in the first place. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

…How do you connect the dots? To take one example of what we're up against, two days before 9/11, a very brave man, the anti-Taliban resistance leader Ahmed Shah Massoud, was assassinated in Afghanistan by killers posing as journalists. His murderers were Algerians traveling on Belgian passports who'd arrived in that part of the world on visas issued by the Pakistani High Commission in the United Kingdom. That's three more countries than many Americans have visited. The jihadists are not "primitives". They're part of a sophisticated network: They travel the world, see interesting places, meet interesting people -- and kill them. They're as globalized as McDonald's -- but, on the whole, they fill in less paperwork. They're very good at compartmentalizing operations: They don't leave footprints, just a toeprint in Country A in Time Zone B and another toe in Country E in Time Zone K. You have to sift through millions of dots to discern two that might be worth connecting.

I'm a strong believer in privacy rights. I don't see why Americans are obligated to give the government their bank account details and the holdings therein. Other revenue agencies in other free societies don't require that level of disclosure. But, given that the people of the United States are apparently entirely cool with that, it's hard to see why lists of phone numbers (i.e., your monthly statement) with no identifying information attached to them is of such a vastly different order of magnitude. By definition, "connecting the dots" involves getting to see the dots in the first place…

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:59 | link | comments

Zbig and Harpoon’s really bad ideas: Another Sunday, another column full of really crappy ideas as articulated by the Toronto Star’s resident Islamist, Harpoon Siddiqui. Today Harpoon has managed to have his notions confirmed by another repository of really bad ideas: Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinki. Ole Zbig, who used to be something of a hawk, for example counseling Jimminy to take military action to prevent the odious Ayatollah Khomeini from coming to power, has since lost both his cojones as well as most of his spine. His current flaccidity accounts for his new approach to matters Iranian—which seems to consist of telling people not to rile ‘em up by attacking them because many dark and dire consequences will ensue.

Siddiqui is all for that approach since it’s the one he himself has been cheerleading for lo these many weeks.

This being Mother’s Day and all, I’m not going to bother fisking the entire column, because, frankly, who needs the agita on such a pleasant day? However, I’d be remiss if I didn’t select a couple of very special “insights.” And of course, I can’t resist the opportunity to post my “missive” to the Star, secure in the knowledge it will never see the light of day in its pages.

Here’s the first of Brezinski’s blinding insights that must be highlighted:

Brzezinski is no fan of George W. Bush. But he is a highly regarded strategic thinker.

On cutting off aid to the Palestinians for having elected Hamas, he said: "I think the American foreign policy is mindless.

"When Likud came to power in 1977, it had a position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict not fundamentally different from the position of Hamas; that is to say, all of the former Palestine should be part of Israel. Some Likud officials even felt the Palestinians should be expelled physically across the Jordan River. But we did not isolate or embargo the Likud government. We kept talking to it and over a period of time, the position of Likud evolved to the point that Likud itself accepted a two-state solution.

"I think over time, if we are intelligent and patient, one cannot exclude the possibility of a similar evolution taking place with Hamas."

Got that? Likud, a right-of-centre Israeli political party, has a lot in common with Hamas, a terrorist outfit whose charter calls for a genocide of the Jews. Moreover, we should be open to the possibility that Hamas, like Likud, can “evolve”.

Silly Zbig. Everyone knows that fascist, Jew-hating pond scum never evolve: their genetic material merely mutates to an even nuttier and even more extreme form of hatred The kind, in fact, we find today in anti-Zionism, the latest in a long line of mutations (which, borrowing some of that Darwinian lingo, we might appropriately describe as a "descent of man").

As for expecting any “evolution” of jihadis, the warriors on the front line of the battle for Islamic supremacism—as a student of history, Zbig should be able to see that jihadism, like Jew-hatred, is a bacillus that only becomes more virulent as time goes on.

So much for that idea.

Zbig’s second “brilliant” notion:

How to separate out Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitism from a considered and ultimately successful Western strategy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

"One has to wonder whether, in fact, he is not doing it deliberately in order to create tensions.

Zbig calls it “creating tensions”; last week Harpoon referred to it as Iran’s desire for a “latent capability” to use nukes. Since both of them neglect to mention that Moo Jihad and the mully-bullies are eagerly awaiting the imminent return of the occluded 12th imam, an event which hinges on the obliteration of the Jews, it’s hard to be as optimistic as they are that all the nuke-rattling is a “tactic” and has nothing to do with their desire to get on with the Islamic Final Solution. Then again, they can afford to be optimistic. They’re not Jewish.

Finally on this delightful Mother’s Day, here’s the letter I sent to the Star:

I find it interesting that Zbigniew Brzezinski is counseling a “go-slow” approach with Iran, urging a “diplomatic solution” to dealing with the prospect of a nuclear Iran. During the days of the Iranian revolution—the event which led up to the current crisis—Brzezinski got into a heated battle with Cyrus Vance, then Secretary of State, over how to proceed. According to the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, “Brzezinski wanted to control the revolution and increasingly suggested military action to prevent Khomeini from coming to power, while Vance wanted to come to terms with the new Khomeini regime. As a consequence Carter failed to develop a coherent approach to the Iranian situation.”

We are still living with the consequences of that incoherence. Had the President listened to Brzezinski, the world may have been far better off, and we probably wouldn’t be in this current pickle. As it is, his advice was ignored, and Khomeini and his mullahs went on to develop a grandiose sense of self-importance, and to play a pivotal role in funding, encouraging and inspiring Islamist terrorist organizations like Hamas.

Now Brzezinski has had a change of heart, and says we should find some way to open discussions with religious fanatics who seem bent on acquiring nuclear weapons—a strategy both he and Siddiqui assure us can be separated from their genocidal impulse to obliterate Israel. Brzezinski’s sage advice: “Keep your fingers crossed.”

You’ll forgive me if I don’t take a great deal of comfort in those words.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:08 | link | comments

 

The elephant at the summit: Eight of the largest countries in the Muslim world and an elephant had a confab the other day in Indonesia. Among the subjects discussed: alternative fuel sources, including nuclear energy.

 

Although the elephant—Iran’s covert effort to build nukes—loomed large, not one of the energy-minded delegates saw fit to mention it. From the appropriately named IranMania:

A summit of eight large Muslim countries largely skirted a diplomatic nuclear crisis engulfing its member Iran but agreed members should cooperate to develop atomic energy, said AFP.

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who hosted the one-day Developing 8 (D-8) summit, was asked at its conclusion whether international reaction to Iran's nuclear ambitions was about anti-Islamism.

"We did not discuss specifically on Iran, so there is no statement formally or informally to connect the Iranian nuclear issue with Islamophobia," he told a press briefing.

"We strictly looked at it as a problem of communication and cooperation between Iran and IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)," he said.

"I appealed to His Excellency, Iranian President Ahmadinejad to continue cooperation between Iran and the IAEA to find a peaceful and just solution," he added without elaborating.

Western nations have been seeking to halt Iran's nuclear enrichment program, fearful that it is using it as a cover to develop an atomic bomb, but Iran insists it is only pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

A declaration from the D-8 did not mention Iran's nuclear issue but instead affirmed member commitment "to develop alternative and renewable energy resources, among others biofuel, biomass, hydro, solar, wind and the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

 

As President Bambang (a terrific name for a nuclear jihadi—Moo must be jealous) paraphrasing Groucho Marx might have said, “I could have shot an elephant in my pajamas, if only I wasn’t in such an utter state of denial that I refused to acknowledge the pachyderm right in front of my punim.” 

 

Update: Some days, you don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Like when you read stuff like this, for instance:

 

Iran's president, emboldened by the support of Muslim nations, said on Saturday that he was willing to hold talks over his nuclear programme, but not with countries that "hold bombs over our head".

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made the comments after closed-door talks with the heads of state from Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Turkey and Malaysia, and government ministers from Egypt and Bangladesh.

He also said his country was "ready to have a dialogue with all the countries in the world except for the Israel regime".

Delegates at the D-8 summit of Muslim leaders from eight developing countries released a statement saying they support the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.

That has given Iran's hardline leader a much-needed boost. "I would like to thank the members of D-8 who have supported the peaceful nuclear technology", Ahmadinejad said.

 

Moo then mounted his elephant and rode triumphantly out of the room.

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:33 | link | comments

 

Sparing Moussaoui: Charles Krauthammer has an eminently sensible take on the Moussaoui case. Dr. K. says he, too, would have spared him the death sentence, but not because of any boo-hoo -“he’s depraved-on-account-of-he’s-deprived” mitigating factors (a.k.a. the Officer Krupke defence). He says Moussauoi was too insignificant to execute.

 

At the same time, Krauthammer is disturbed that so many of the jurors fell for the Moussaoui sob story, and concludes that this four-and-a-half year farce, manipulated to great effect by the grandstanding defendant, isn't the proper venue in which to mete out justice to holy warriors. From RealClear Politics:

 

…In the Moussaoui case, there were three plausible grounds for mitigation: insignificance, lunacy or deprivation. Insignificance would have been my choice. Moussaoui was hardly even a cog. If he had any role in 9/11, which is doubtful, it was very peripheral. He was a foot soldier in an army of evil, but he never got a chance to practice his craft. That warrants life, not hanging.

The government tried to argue that if he hadn't lied to the FBI, the 9/11 plot would have been discovered and lives would have been saved. But if you're going to execute someone, you ought to prove commission, rather than omission. Albert Speer knew a lot more about a lot more killing, and yet the Nuremberg court spared him execution. It's hard to argue that Moussaoui was a greater monster than Speer.

Yet the bit-player argument seems to have been a mitigating circumstance for only three of the 12 jurors. And none cited a second possible factor, weaker than the first but still plausible: psychosis.

As one of the few who favored John Hinckley's acquittal on grounds of insanity, I take delusions and paranoia pretty seriously. Hinckley was a marginal insanity case, as was Moussaoui. The extreme case is the guy who is delusionally convinced that your head is a pumpkin before he proceeds to open it with a machete. The harder case is the guy who is delusionally convinced that Jodie Foster is in love with him and that to consummate the romance he must shoot the president.

Moussaoui is more in that equivocal Hinckley category. He clearly is delusional, but he is also clever, aware, and savagely cruel, as he demonstrated in taunting the 9/11 families. Nonetheless, he seemed to me just deranged enough to be spared execution on an admittedly close insanity call.

But that appears not to be why the jury spared him. Instead, fully nine of 12 jurors found mitigation in his ``unstable early childhood and dysfunctional family,'' lack of ``structure and emotional and financial support'' and ``hostile relationship with his mother.'' Plus the father with the ``violent temper.''

You read that jury form and you despair for your country. Have we sunk so low? So Moussaoui had a tough childhood. I'm sure Pol Pot's was no bed of roses either. Who gives a damn? On those grounds, there is not a killer in history who cannot escape judgment. What next? The Twinkie defense -- the junk food made me do it -- for Khalid Sheik Mohammed?

The Moussaoui verdict came out right, but the process was atrocious. The jury's reasons for mitigation were risible. And the entire process was farcical, a four-and-a-half-year charade manipulated by a self-declared terrorist gratuitously given a world platform by those he was working to destroy. We need no more lessons in the obvious: Civilian court -- with civilian procedures, civilian juries and civilian sensibilities -- is not the place for those who make war upon us.

My one quibble with Krauthammer: Albert Speer got off at Nuremberg not because the judge thought him too small a cog to execute. In an effort to spare his own life, Speer expressed great remorse, likely more feigned than genuine, and lied, lied, lied, about his knowledge of the crimes against humanity being perpetrated by the regime he was part of. Later on, after being released from Spandau, Speer wrote two bestsellers about his life; the first, his biography and life as Hitler’s fair-haired boy, the one who was going to build the grandiose edifices that were supposed to last a thousand years; the second, documenting his life in prison. Writer Gitta Sereny debunks Speer’s “Sgt. Shultz”-like protestations regarding his role in the Third Reich (“I know nothing, I see nothing…”) in her book Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:02 | link | comments

 

A martyr for Mater: You can file this one under "they blow up so fast"--two "intellectuals" on Syrian TV discuss how super-dee-duper it is for a Muslim mama to raise a human bomb. From MEMRI:

 

Palestinian author 'Adnan Kanafani: "I think martyrdom is the most noble sacrifice one can make for the cause - a cause pertaining to the essence of being, to life and death. This great people - the Arab people as a whole - has managed to shape a new culture from these ideas - the culture of martyrdom. The opponents try to bring us down from this honor, with claims about suicide bombers, terrorists, and so on. But we don't care about that, because we have rights, and we sacrifice our souls in order to attain these rights. Therefore, the martyrs are the vanguard of this nation. Because of the blood they have sacrificed, the very least we owe them is to always remain optimistic that victory will be ours one day."
[...]

"The Mother in Our Arab and Islamic History Has Always Sacrificed Her Children and Prepared Them for Martyrdom"

Ibrahim Za'rour, history professor at the DamascusUniversity: "Martyrdom is the value that surpasses all values. The most exalted level in the elevation of mankind is when a person sacrifices his soul for the sake of something more precious - his homeland. Hence, when a person embarks upon martyrdom, he does so because he wants to protect the homeland, its identity, its culture, its continuity, and its future.

"When a martyr embarks upon martyrdom he thinks of nothing but his homeland. He leaves his children, his brothers, his wife, his mother, and his father, and embarks upon martyrdom, because the homeland is more precious to him than all of them."
[...]

"The mother in our Arab and Islamic history has always sacrificed her children and prepared them for martyrdom. This is rooted in our religion, our culture, in our values, and our upbringing."
[...]

"The mother is the school that prepares the children and sends them to martyrdom in defense of the homeland. This culture is within all of us. I always see mothers who utter cries of joy when they learn that their sons were martyred in battles in Palestine, in the Golan Heights, or Iraq."
[...]

"The Palestinian Mother, or the Arab Mother in General, is the Most Compassionate Mother on the Face of the Earth"

'Adnan Kanafani: "The mother knows perfectly well that if she does not sacrifice her son, she will never be liberated, or her son's sons, or the homeland, will never be liberated.

"When an olive tree is uprooted from its soil, a woman may weep a lot, but she will not weep over the martyrdom of her son, because she believes that he has ascended to a better world, leaving a mark of pride on her forehead.

"The Palestinian mother, or the Arab mother in general, is the most compassionate mother on the face of the earth, because she is dedicated to the upbringing of her children, and would rather eat dirt than refrain from breastfeeding. This is a well known fact about the Arab woman, in complete contrast to the other women...

 

Yeah, let's alert the La Leche League to give 'em a special prize.

 

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:17 | link | comments

 

Prison perks: How pathetic is this--JTA reports that some Palestinians are showing up at checkpoints with makeshift weapons because they want to get arrested. It seems the benefits of taking up residence in an Israeli jail outweigh the delights of living in Hamastan:

 

Israeli officials have reported an increasing number of young Palestinians trying to get themselves imprisoned in Israel.

A Reuters story issued Thursday quoted army officials as saying that, since the beginning of the year, dozens of Palestinian youths have turned up at West Bank checkpoints with makeshift weapons, hoping to get arrested.

Under interrogation, the youths have said they wanted to avail themselves of the educational services and inmate stipends available in Israeli prisons.

Several of the detainees have been released after the army determined that they posed no security threat. But Israel is concerned by the phenomenon, given the chance that soldiers at checkpoints could respond to the armed Palestinians with lethal force.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:43 | link | comments

Mel’s inspiration: I have to say, I'm not so thrilled with the Bush administration of late. The man who, earlier in his administration, stood so resolute against the jihadis, asserting "you're either with us or against us" has recently become something of a marshmallow. Some might attribute it to the stage he's now in--well into his second term, the time when ducks are known to become lame. Others have noted an overall weariness, brought on by endless problems and scandals, and a press that keeps at him day after day after day. Then there's the war in Iraq--as unpopular as he is, with neither likely to experience a boost in approval for the time being.

Whatever the reason for Bush's flaccidness, it's resulted in a number of questionable statements and decisions. For example, referring to the Palestinian election, which saw genocidal jihadis Hamas come to power, as a sign of "health." (Yeah, George, about as "healthy” as ptomaine.) Most recently, the bad ideas have culminated in the worst possible idea--the decision to keep sending the jizya to the Palestinians, even though Hamas has no intention of moderating its stance, and fully intends to carry through with it's Jew-killing agenda

Still, even though Bush has slipped a few notches, I'm nowhere near as--how shall I put it?--nutty as Mel Gibson. After raking in mega-shekels from his passion for the Passion, Mel is completing work on his next spectacle, the savage saga of human sacrifice and the Mayan culture.

Mel says he thinks Bush and the Mayans have a lot in common. From Yahoo! (via Drudge):

Film star and director Mel Gibson has launched a scathing attack on US President George W Bush, comparing his leadership to the barbaric rulers of the Mayan civilisation in his new film Apocalypto.

The epic, due for release later this year, captures the decline of the Maya kingdom and the slaughter of thousands of inhabitants as human sacrifices in a bid to save the nation from collapsing.

Gibson reveals he used present day American politics as an inspiration, claiming the government callously plays on the nation's insecurities to maintain power.

He tells British film magazine Hotdog, "The fear-mongering we depict in the film reminds me of President Bush and his guys".

Let’s see: A leader attempting to fight the jihad (although careful not to describe it in those terms) by interposing democracy into the Muslim world, and a culture devoted to sacrificing virgins to assuage a blood-thirsty serpent God.

Yup. Hard to tell the the two apart.

You’d think that someone who professes to be such a devout Christian would have some sense of the threat posed by jihadis—members of the triumphalist faith that came after Christianity and claims to supercede it—to people they describe as “Crusaders.”

And if you thought so, you’d be wrong.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:02 | link | comments

Moo's letter: For those who missed it, here's James Lilek's absolutely uproarious translation of some excerpts of Moo's "missive." If you don't want a sodden computer screen, I advise to not to read it with a mouth full of beverage:

Dear Infidel Crusader Zionist sock-puppet Saudi-lackey depoiler of Mesopotamia woman-touching pigdog fiendish (293 words excised) Shah-licking son of a toad’s offal: I trust this finds you well. I have much on my mind, and have taken the pen to unburden my breast. I have enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope should you wish to reply.

(429 words concerning Jewish penetration of the Postal System excised)

. . . Do you not realize you are beaten, as a donkey is beaten, but knoweth not his donkeyhood is cursed? Your comics have turned against you in your own lair, and mock you without mercy. We have seen the videos of the Meal of the Correspondents, and we know how your left regards the men of the laugh as prophets and seers. It is only a matter of time before Johnny Carson (applause be upon him) returns from occlusion to request that you, Mr. President, take the Slauson cutoff, get out of your car, and cut off your Slauson, Hi-yo, salaam. And a third part of the Slauson shall be stained with the tears of the womenfolk, and (9323 words excised)

. . . Our people glow with pride over our nuclear efforts, sometimes literally. I repeat that the enrichment is for peaceful purposes only, and we seek only peace, and peace is our goal, and there is nothing more we love than peace. Except death. Sorry; forgot. Death is definitely number one. In third place of things we love, well, there were those nice ice-cream desserts they had at this little place in Tehran. When I was Mayor I had them brought in on Fridays. Good times, good times. But once I found a hair.

(2356 words excised concerning Jewish penetration of the Iranian Dessert-Industrial complex)

... Na na na nah, nah, everything’s underground! And your Congressors cut funding for the nuclear bombs which permit the busting of the bunker. Na na na! I do a taunting dance and cock my hips mockingly! In sudden seriousness, please to be thank them for this, although we lost a day’s work in the labs due to the celebration. I even permitted the drinking of whiskey, and decreed that the suppliers of alcohol be only lightly killed. (549 repetitions of “na na na na” excised)...

Moo, in good fettle, after re-running the video of the Meal of the Correspondents

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:26 | link | comments

The wide open window of opportunity: A report looking into the jihadis, two of them homegrown, who blasted themselves into Paradise on the London transit system last summer was released this week. Its conclusion: authorities are shocked, shocked they say, at the speed with which some unremarkable, seemingly well-assimilated youths transformed themselves into full-fledged holy warriors. (I'm not such if the report employed that exact phrase since the word "jihad" has become verboten in today's culturally-sensitive EUrabia.). And they were able to do it with a bit of ingenuity using some ordinary household items. From the Financial Times:

...In one new detail, the July 7 narrative said Hasib Hussain, who blew himself up and killed 13 others on a bus one hour after three attacks on the Tube, bought a nine-volt battery at WH Smiths at King's Cross station. This has led to speculation that he needed it to detonate his bomb but could not re-enter the Underground afterwards because it had been closed.

The report said the four set off from Luton station, each carrying 2-5kg of high explosive, "looking as if they were going on a camping holiday".

The hydrogen peroxide- based explosive had been mixed in a bathtub in a rented flat next to the grand mosque in Leeds, where three of the four lived.

The mixture would have smelt badly and the fumes had killed the tops of plants outside the bathroom window. The chemcial had lightened the hair of two of the men in the weeks before the bombings.

The ISC report indicated the intelligence services believed erroneously that their disruption of groups in 2004 had dented terrorist capability. They had considered that suicide attacks would not be the norm in Europe, an assessment since revised. "We are concerned that this judgment could have had an impact on the alertness of the authorities to the kind of threat they were facing and their ability to respond," the report said.

It said authorities should have been alerted by the capture of two UK-based shoe bombers and deaths of the two Britons on a suicide bomb mission in Tel Aviv.

The consequence of the finding that people could turn rapidly to violent ex-tremism "means the window of opportunity for identifying and disrupting threats could be very small".

The report called for a better understanding of the process of radicalisation though there was no simple Islamist extremist profile. It quoted Andy Hayman, ass-istant (sic) commissioner of the Metropolitan police, as saying: "We were working off a script which has actually been completely discounted from what we know as reality."

Well, Mr. ass-istant commisioner. I'd say it's high time for a reality check, wouldn't you?

Apparently, two of the explosive young men had already come to the attention of authorities. But since they were only thought to be involved in "training and insurgency in Pakistan and...financial fraud schemes"--nothing to worry about there, I guess--they weren't preceived as a threat:

The report confirmed that Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader, and Shehzad Tanweer, had come to the attention of MI5, the Security Service, on the periphery of 2004 inquiry. But they were thought to be focused on training and insurgency in Pakistan and on financial fraud schemes. They were not identified until after July 7. However, MI5 failed to show a poor-quality picture of Khan to a detainee who was later able to identify him.

Both reports said it was likely that Khan and Tanweer contacted members of al-Qaeda in Pakistan in 2004-05, and Khan appears to have had training near the Afghan border in 2003. There were suspicious contacts in Pakistan between April and July 2005. Yet the report notes there were 400,000 visits by UK residents to Pakistan in 2004, of an average length of 41 days.

Don't worry, I'm sure at least 350,000 of them are only there to visit the mishpacha, and not to partake in any anti-infidel training.

As for whether the blasters were freelance warriors, as was earlier suggested, or took their marching orders from an official jihad outfit, the report can't say for sure. Maybe. Then again, maybe not:

The Home Office report concluded there was no firm evidence the attacks had direct al-Qaeda support. "But the target and mode of attack of the July 7 bombings are typical of al-Qaeda and those inspired by its ideologies," it added.

Looks like maybe.

Update: The report concluded that no one person or security sevice can be held responsible for failing to prevent 7/7. However, that doesn't mean there weren't some "appalling failures of intelligence assessment and priority," as the lead editorial in the Times points out: 

...Yet there were three appalling failures of intelligence, assessment and priority. And it is these that contributed directly to the carnage on July 7. The first, and most serious, is the assumption that a suicide attack in Britain was highly unlikely. This was a fatal misjudgment. Presumably, it was made because the previous al-Qaeda operation in Europe, the Madrid train bombings, had not involved suicide bombers, and because this grisly technique had so far been largely confined to Iraq and Israel. There was plenty of evidence to the contrary: the attempt by Richard Reid, the British shoe bomber, to blow up a plane in 2001; the recruitment of two British suicide bombers for a mission in Israel in 2003; and the exposure of many British Muslims to the loathsome preachings of extremist imams within this country and on the internet.

Ruling out suicide bombing, however, sent the security services off in the wrong direction and blinded them to signals that they should have picked up about terrorist intentions. And one place where they should have scented danger was within Britain’s own Muslim community. This was the second major failing. Nobody sitting around the table at MI5 strategy sessions or briefing the Joint Intelligence Committee really knew what the children of Pakistani immigrants in Leeds were thinking, what their frustrations were and why their anger had become lethal. The security services had barely penetrated those circles already identified as receptive to the rhetoric of hatred. The milieu was largely unknown, and where there were attempts to draw up a profile of an Islamist extremist, these were as stereotyped as misleading. As the report says, with magisterial understatement, “more needs to be done to understand radicalisation in the UK”.

The third failing was the lack of co-ordination between the police and the various security agencies. This was, perhaps, not as serious as the failing identified in America before the 9/11 atrocities. But as the report says in its sensible, if limited, recommendations: “More needs to be done to improve the way that the Security Service and Special Branches come together in a combined and coherent way to tackle the ‘home-grown’ threat.”

If there had been better exchange of intelligence or even of suspicion, more could have been learnt from the one glaring pointer to future danger — the ravings of Abu Hamza at Finsbury Park mosque and its arsenal of terrorist weapons, manuals and incitement. Blame for the failure to stem this fountain of hatred lies largely with the police, who clearly sensed that the Government did not want to be seen to “interfere” in Muslim affairs. But it was a further opportunity missed.

The report’s recommendations are limited — largely because of the constraints, arguably exaggerated, of sub judice laws before the trials of the suspects in the failed bombings. One sensible proposal is an immediate simplification of the confusing secur-ity risk assessments, which neither reassure the public nor help decision-makers. The main lesson, however, is clear: the terrorist danger is real and present, and Britain’s security services must have the resources, imagination and strategy to defeat it. Before 7/7 they woefully lacked all three.

Begging the question: Is Britain any better prepared today?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:11 | link | comments

Bumpy road: Just in time for Mother's Day--a lovely parable for the young'uns on Islam Online. It's a conversation between a Ma and her son about how life is like a bumpy road, and how the Koran can smooth over those rough patches:

...“You could think of this road as life. And here you are driving down it—that means, living your life. Everyone has their own road they’re traveling on. Sometimes we go over potholes and some people will shout and swear, blaming the others for what happens. But it’s up to us to keep ourselves away from the dangers and then not to blame others if we carelessly drive through a mound of sand and puncture a tire! Get what I mean?”

“Yes, I think so,” said Samy. “But,” he continued, “life’s hard, Mum. It’s really full of potholes and dead dogs,” he said, as he swerved around one lying on the road...


Pot holes? Dead dogs?

Where are these folks driving? Gaza?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:55 | link | comments

Kofi in the zone: Kofi Annan, a man who never misses an opportunity to miss the point, has a suggestion for George W. Bush. While others may choose to see Moos's "missive" for what it is--a rambling, 18-page invitation to submit to Allah and experience the fullness of life as a member of the one true faith, Kofi has a different take. He sees it as an opportunity to engage in face to face discussions.

Apparently, the clueless Mr. A. hasn't read up on his Shia eschatoloogy, and thinks there may be some "wiggle room" here:

May 12 (Bloomberg) -- United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan today said the U.S. needs to follow-up on Iranian offers of direct negotiations in order to peacefully resolve their dispute over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.

``I've asked all sides to lower their rhetoric and intensify their diplomatic efforts to find a solution,'' Annan said at a briefing in Vienna. ``I think it's important that the United States comes to the table.''

The U.S., which has accused Iran of developing a nuclear weapons program, has let French, German and U.K. diplomats lead talks with their Iranian counterparts. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said today in Indonesia that he's ready for direct talks. A U.S. State Department spokesman in Vienna declined to comment.

The U.K. and France, backed by the U.S., have proposed a resolution under Chapter 7 of the United Nations charter to compel Iran to stop its nuclear work. A Chapter 7 resolution can invoke economic sanctions or military force against ``any threat to the peace'' of other countries. Iran says it's developing nuclear technology to generate power, while the U.S. and European countries accuse Iran of trying to develop atomic weapons.

Alas, Mr. Annan, there's no wiggle room with a fanatical, Mahdi-befuddled worm.

Update: Then again, his cluelessness doesn't prevent  the money-befuddled Mr. A. from missing an opportunity to accept a monetary tribute and some glory. From Human Events:

In a recent interview, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton described the UN as hopelessly out of touch and stuck in a Twilight Zone-style "time warp" where "there are practices, attitudes and approaches that were abandoned 30 years ago in much of the rest of the world." [1] Bolton's cutting analysis perfectly captures the latest controversy to hit Turtle Bay—Secretary-General Kofi Annan's appointing German activist Achim Steiner as Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) just months after Steiner helped award Annan $500,000. [2]

Steiner, whose four-year term of office will begin next month, was part of a nine-member jury chaired by a senior UN official that awarded Annan $500,000 last December. Annan's initial decision to accept such a huge cash gift, as well as his subsequent appointment of a man who had played a key role in the award of that money, [3] gives the appearance of a major abuse of power. Both were extraordinary acts of political recklessness by a Secretary-General who has overseen some of the biggest scandals in UN history, from the Oil-for-Food and procurement scandals to peacekeeping abuses in the Congo and elsewhere. This latest scandal inevitably gives the impression that jobs at the world body may be traded for financial favors. As well, the Steiner appointment further reinforces the unflattering portrait of the UN as an unaccountable institution that acts without regard to public opinion or the concerns of its member states.

Annan’s prominent role in Steiner's selection should be fully investigated by the newly established UN Ethics Office and by the UN’s Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS). An investigation into the Steiner appointment would be an important test of the effectiveness and independence of the Ethics Office and the OIOS, an internal investigative body whose powers were largely curtailed during the UN's administration of the Oil-for-Food Program.

Annan's Cash Award

Kofi Annan was awarded the Zayed International Prize for the Environment [4] on December 19, 2005, and received a cash gift of $500,000 at a ceremony held on February 6 in Dubai. [5] The International Jury was chaired by Dr. Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of UNEP, and included Achim Steiner (Director General of the World Conservation Union, or IUCN), Yolanda Kakabadse (former president of IUCN), Professor Mostafa Tolba (President of the International Environment and Development Centre), Yoriko Kawaguchi (former Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs), Sir David King (Chief Scientist of the British government), Professor Mario Molina (1995 Nobel Prize recipient), and two representatives of the United Arab Emirates. [6]

The conflict in this award should be apparent. The Zayed jury was chaired by a leading UN official (Toepfer), who awarded the person who appointed him to his current position half a million dollars. Dr. Toepfer words were fawning: "The jury was faced with many outstanding candidates for the Zayed Prizes. But when you look at the overall global impact on politics, business, science and civil society of Mr. Annan's environment and sustainable development-related initiatives, we came to the conclusion that he is deservedly the global winner." [7]

That Annan accepted this huge sum while serving as Secretary-General and drawing a salary partly paid by U.S. taxpayers demonstrated a stunning lack of judgment and undermined the integrity of his office. In the U.S. government, for example, this transaction would be seen as a highly suspect conflict of interest and, if exposed, would likely prompt the resignations of the official or officials involved. In the UN, however, this is just business as usual...

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:21 | link | comments

The U.K.'s Cassandra: FrontPage Magazine has an interview with the indefatigable Melanie Phillips. Phillips is one of the rare truth tellers in the U.K. these days. For the past several years, she's been issuing dire warnings about the perilous direction her nation is headed in, and how public discouse has been poisined by anti-Zionism and a refusal to face the Islamist threat. She has gathered some of her thoughts in her just-published book, Londonistan:

FP: So what inspired you to write Londonistan?

Phillips: I was just appalled by the fact that, not only had Britain become the key European hub of Islamist extremism and terrorism during the 1990s under the noses of the British authorities, but even after both 9/11 and last year’s suicide bombings in London the British political and security establishment is still appeasing Islamist extremism, and remains in a state of denial about the threat to the west. After the London bombings, when home-grown British Muslim boys set out to murder as many of their fellow British citizens as possible, a senior London police officer went on TV and said that the words Islam and terrorism did not go together. If a threat is so badly misunderstood in this way, it will not be defeated.

FP: Can you talk a little bit about the collapse of traditional British identity and of the destructiveness of multiculturalism?

Phillips: This is absolutely a key issue. Multiculturalism has turned Britain’s values inside out – and the root cause of the problem is the deconstruction of Britain’s identity. For decades, the British elite has been consumed by loathing of its national identity and values which it decided were racist, authoritarian and generally disagreeable. Much of that was due to our old friend, post-colonial guilt. The elite was therefore vulnerable to the predations of the left, which had signed up to Gramsci’s insight that a society could be suborned by replacing its normative values by the mores of those who transgressed them or were on society’s margins.

This gave rise to multiculturalism and minority rights, which held that all cultures were equal to each other and which thus provided minorities with an enormous weapon with which to force the majority to give in to their demands. One of the consequences of this was moral inversion, which holds that since minorities are weak they must always be victims of the majority because it is strong. So even when minorities behave badly, it’s always the majority’s fault. Translate that onto the world stage, and you arrive at the view that even when third world people commit terrorist outrages against the west it must be the west which is to blame. That’s why multicultural Britain said, after 9/11, that America ‘had it coming to them’ – and why, after the London bombings last July, it said the reason British Muslim boys had blown up the London transit system was because of Britain’s support for the US in Iraq.

FP: Describe for us Britain’s culture of appeasement. What do you think engendered it?

Phillips: Various factors. First, the kind of moral inversion and cultural slide I’ve just been talking about. Next, sheer funk. Then there’s Britain’s deep reluctance – which it shares with the US – to get stuck into issues of religion. It’s a kind of fastidiousness that religion represents private space into which a liberal society should not intrude –which is fine, all other things being equal, but which of course here they are not.

On top of that, Britain – like so much of Europe – has signed up to the idea that the nation is a Bad Thing because it does war – and war must be avoided at all costs. So war must be replaced by law, the authority of the nation must yield to supra-national institutions – hence the obsession with getting the approval of the UN, which is in the fact the world’s Club of Terror -- and confrontation must be replaced by concessions.

Finally, don’t forget that before a certain Winston Churchill came along and inspired the ‘bulldog breed’ who stoically endured the Blitz and saw off Hitler,

Britain in the 1930s was cheering to the echo Neville Chamberlain’s ‘peace in our time’. There is an insularity to the British that leads them to think that, provided they don’t upset anyone beyond their island fastness, nasty people in far-away places will leave them alone. And besides, the British ruling class have always done appeasement. Think of their betrayal of the Jews and kowtowing to the Arabs in Mandatory Palestine; think of Aden, Malaya, Northern Ireland...

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:58 | link | comments

In his dreams: Apparently, Moo’s note to George wasn’t a “deft” or “astute” delaying tactic. It was actually a written invitation to sign up with the one true faith.

Maniac that he is, Moo must have imagined—prayed, even—that when Bush read his “missive,” he would immediately renounce his grandiose Satanism and resolve to become one of Allah’s Übermenschen—like Moo and the mullahs.

And, being an old Monkees/Neil Diamond aficionado, perhaps Moo even envisioned how, upon reading his letter, the President would immediately drop to the ground and break out into song, proclaiming to one and all,  "Allahu Akbar, I’m a Believer”:

I thought God was only true in Bible tales.
Jesus was my man, my saviour too.
Oh, Moo was out to get me.
That much I could see.
Sent a note to try to “revert” me.

Then I read his words.
Now I’m a believer.
It’s not absurd,
The truths that he’ll tell.
In a flash, oh, I’m a believer,
What a relief, won’t go to Hell.

I thought Moo was more or less a lunatic.
Nothin’ but the mullahs’ talking head.
But he set me straight now
(Doo doo doo doo)
Made me see the light.
Diff’rence as distinct as day and night.

‘Cause I read his words.
Now I’m a believer.
It’s not absurd,
The truths that he knows.
So I’ll submit,
Oooo, I’m a believer,
Now foes are friends
And friends are foes…

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

 

Par-tay time at the UN: Woo hoo! Get out the dip and vodka coolers. Put on your blood-splattered lapel ribbons. Iran Resolution Day is fast drawing nigh.

 

And by fast, of course, I mean slow. Really slow. About as slow as a constipated, parapalegic sloth. With narcolepsy.

 

From AP (via ABC News):

 

 AMSTERDAM, Netherlands May 11, 2006 (AP)— The head of the U.N. atomic watchdog agency Thursday welcomed the delay in adopting a Security Council on Iran and its nuclear program.

More time is needed for negotiations with Iran to address concerns about its program, said Mohamed ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"I hope people will adopt a cool-headed approach," he told reporters during a visit to the Netherlands. "We need compromises from both sides to ensure that Iran has the right nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

He said Iran needed to build confidence with the international community, and would need "a transitional period before confidence is built."

Key Security Council members agreed this week to postpone a draft resolution, giving Iran another two weeks to reevaluate its insistence on developing its uranium enrichment capabilities.

Under the proposed draft, the Security Council's demand in late March for Iran to stop enrichment would be made mandatory, and Tehran would be given a short period to comply. If Tehran refuses, the resolution says the council intends to consider "further measures" to ensure compliance, which could include sanctions.

Britain, France and Germany will prepare a package of incentives and sanctions, a European official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because there has been no official announcement.

The official said the package is likely to include issues related to energy security and civilian nuclear power. The package will be presented to European Union foreign ministers in Brussels on Monday, and if approved will be presented to the Iranian government, the official said...

 

 I with you on that one, Mo. We wouldn’t want any hotheads to get hold of the agenda and run off with it. Far better to ponder and mull and measure and weigh—and then weigh and measure and mull and ponder. In other words, to continue doing absofrikkinlutely nada.

 

I’m sure Moo, for one, would concur.

Nuclear watchkitten Mo ElBee in jovial party mode

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:15 | link | comments

 

Clamping down on unacceptable speech: Ever since Ezra Levant, editor of The Western Standard, defied Canadian politesse and rudely published those Danish ‘toons (prompting one true believer to haul Mr. L’s keester in front of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission so it can adjudicate his indiscretion and encourage him to apologize to the offended party), and Heather Reisman banished his publication from the shelves of her chain of bookstores—Canada’s largest—I’ve become even more aware of an alarming fact: There are forces within Canada and elsewhere that are striving mightily to banish all such rude voices—the stones making ripples on the p.c. pond.

 

The ban on Levant’s magazine was supposed to be temporary, pertaining only to the offending issue. However, ever since the uproar, I have kept a lookout for the magazine at the local Indigo, and have yet to come across a copy. Nor, for that matter, have I been able to find American periodicals such as National Review or The Weekly Standard, publications that happen to share the same political orientation as Levant’s. I can, however, find a wealth—or, since such publications are apt to decry capitalism and its fruits, should I say a poverty?—of magazines that perceive issues through a different lens, the accepted and acceptable one. Harpers, Mother Jones, The Nation and many many others—you name it, they got it. So if you want your notions about Bush being a Nazi chimpanzee with the mental acuity of a cantaloupe confirmed—no problemo. However, if you’re looking for an alternate perspective, I advise you to turn on your computer and surf the Web, ‘cause you’re not going to find it trolling the magazine racks at Chapters.

 

Nor are you likely to find it on the CBC, Canada’s taxpayer funded public broadcasting system. The CBC considers its point of view—left of centre, anti-Israel, anti-American, pro-Palestinian, Europe-besotted, mired in multiculturalism and post-modern notions of (im)moral equivalence—to be the point of view, the only one available to intelligent Canadians, the default setting on the national hard drive. Any variance is immediately decried as “right-wing” and thus dismissed as either deranged or dangerous or both.

 

Thus, last weekend on CBC radio I was able to listen to not one, but two interviews with anti-war media hog-ess, Cindy Sheehan (because she had so much to say that a single interview wasn’t sufficient to capture all her vitriol), along with some purportedly hilarious comedy from the Winnipeg Comedy festival in which one wag, British comic Simon Evans, quipped that the reason we’re having so much trouble in Afghanistan is because that’s what comes of “standing shoulder to shoulder with that murderous berk, George Bush.” And I can’t recall if it was last Sunday or the previous one that we were treated to Sunday Morning host Michael Enright offering an impassioned defence of Ezra Levant’s right to publish offensive ‘toons. Of course, it would have been nice had the Ceeb leapt to the defence of free speech when the incident occurred all those weeks ago. And it would have been nice had it not prefaced the defence by implying that Levant was a deranged, right-wing nutbar who edits a deranged, right-wing magazine that only other deranged right-wing nutbar would ever read. But, hey, we’re talkin’ about the Ceeb here. One can’t expect miracles from a corporation with such a limited Weltaushauung.

 

Not only is the Ceeb committed to purveying its world view, it does its darndest to ensure that alternative viewpoints never make it onto air. In yesterday’s National Post, Michael Coren, describes particularly egregious example of this largely undocumented censorship. Coren, a writer and broadcaster who is also a devout Catholic and has come out against social policies that contravene church doctrine—like abortion and same sex marriage—describes how he was invited, and then quickly uninvited, to participate in a panel discussion of CBC TV. The reason for his “disinvitation”: it seems there were people at the Ceeb who hated him because he dared to hold views contrary to their own. Thus do the CBC thought police strive to keep our airwaves pure.

 

But the Ceeb isn’t the only media outlet uncomfortable with opposing viewpoints. Here, for instance, is how Marco Ursi, the editor of The Ryerson Review of Journalism (the Canadian equivalent of The Columbia Review of Journalism) describes the article in the current issue about Ezra Levant and his magazine:

 

"Then there’s the Western Standard (see Terry Woo’s “Riding With the Right, (sic) page 44), the upstart magazine published by Stockwell Day’s former director of communications, Ezra Levant. It wants to ensnare readers with rabidly right-wing opinion and attention-seeking gimmicks, such as republishing the Danish cartoons satirizing the Prophet Mohammed. Levant and his team buy into the old showbiz adage that any publicity is good publicity, but not so fine if you’re looking to make a serious contribution to this country’s political discourse.”

 

Actually, Marco, Levant and his team buy into that old Western adage that freedom of expression trumps Islamic religious doctrine—the one that many would like to foist on the rest of us and which, should it prevail would successfully put the kibosh a free press, thus precluding the need for any kind of review thereof. And, personally, I’d much rather be ensnared by the upstart, rabidly right-prose of, say, Mark Steyn, a Western Standard columnist, than by almost everything in past and current edition of The Ryerson Review of Journalism (even though, confession time, I’m a product of the Ryerson Journalism school). That’s because I’m convinced that Mark is telling me the truth and always manages to make me laugh out loud—on purpose, that is. The Ceeb and The Ryerson Review of Journalism (to which you could add other mainstreamers like The Toronto Star)? Not so much.

 

I wonder what the ursine Marco would make of the EU’s latest gimmick—an Orwellian scheme to sanitize the populace’s language. For example, the phrase “Islamic terrorism”—out; the phrase “those who have an abusive interpretation of Islam,” clunky and unwieldy though it is (and you should hear how it sounds in Swedish and German)—in. Considering his outlook, he’d likely see it as merely another effort consider the sensitivities of the same folks who were so offended by those ‘toons.

 

I also wonder what he thinks of Warren Kinsella’s piece in today’s National Post. Kinsella describes how National Post vending boxes have been defaced with the epithet “NAZI POST.”

 

“NAZI POST”—as if expressing a different viewpoint makes one a Nazi. As if a Canadian newspaper which dares to be un-Usine and un-Ceebish is ipso facto a  Der Sturmer.

 

I guess Ezra Levant should count his lucky stars The Western Standard isn’t available in a vending box.

 

As Warren Kinsella points out, only someone of unsurpassed ignorance could make such a claim. And I would hope that, despite his outlook, Mr. Ursi would be similarly outraged by this obvious effort to defame and silence the paper, and would insist that even though its political leanings don't match his own, it is essential in a free society to for people to be able to express a wide range of ideas and opinions. However, given his over-the-top reaction to The Western Standard and his Ceeb-like perspective, I’m not so sure.

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

 

Sarkozy on Jew-hate: Here’s French political leader Nicolas Sarkozy’s response to an email from the Simon Wiesenthal Center. The email had expressed concern about the alarming rise of Jew-hatred in France:

 

Mr. Director,

I wish to thank you for your e-mail dated 20 February 2006.

The barbaric act committed against Ilan Halimi frightened my whole country. The French authorities took firm and drastic action so that the murderers and the accomplices of this felony could be imprisoned as soon as possible, awaiting their trial.

The perpetrators of this crime, who behaved like barbarians, had a sordid and loathsome motive, money. But they also believed that "Jews have money" and that, if the kidnapped person did not have the means, someone of his family or his close relations would show solidarity. This has a name: antisemitism.

I insisted on personally receiving the young victims of the antisemitic attacks in Sarcelles.

These barbaric acts remind us, unfortunately, that antisemitism is not defeated, even though we recorded a significant decrease of antisemitic violence in France

You must know that I intend to remain vigilant. There are 4 priorities for my fight against antisemitism in 2006:

- Renew the financial efforts of the State in order to ensure security in Jewish community premises, according to the convention between the State and the FSJU (Unified Jewish Social Fund), three million euros were budgeted for this in 2006.

- Maintain a police presence next to the most dangerous places. Some buildings are being watched by policemen 24 hours a day.

- Facilitate video surveillance next to synagogues and other Community premises.

The law on antiterrorism, which has just been promulgated, gives us new instruments.

- Go on with the fight against antisemitic propaganda. I asked the Direction of the French Police to be more alert toward antisemitic messages on the web.

Moreover, profound efforts in the educational sector are underway in order to contain antisemitism, and to promote tolerance among youth: organization of a Shoah commemoration day, school class trips to commemorative sites. Schools will take a long-term approach to promoting tolerance. Indeed Shoah education has been a mandatory element of the French school curriculum for many years.

Antisemitic violence is not inevitable. It horrifies me. From where I stand, I will combat it with all my might. This is a moral imperative.

Yours faithfully,
Nicolas Sarkozy 

Encouraging words from M. Sarkozy. Still, I’d like to ask him if he thinks Shoah commemorations are likely to have any impact on that segment of the French population which is convinced that the Shoah is an immense scam perpetrated by Jews in order to insinuate themselves into an exclusively Muslim region. But since most of them live in “no go” zones outside the purview of the mainstream school system and are thus unlikely to be inveigled into participating in any Shoah outings, I realize the question is moot.

 

Update: From the forward by Radu Ioanid to the book Rising From the Muck: The New Anti-Semitism in Europe, by Pierre-Andre Taguiff:

 

A French researcher who took the pen-name of Emmanuel Brenner describes in his book 'Les Territoires perdus de la Republique' (The Lost Territories of the Republic) how in certain French public schools, where French students of Arab decent are dominant, Jewish students and teachers are terrorized because of their ethnic or religious affiliation. Supporting this charge, Alvin Rosenfeld writes that in these schools, "teachers who are prepared to teach about the Holocaust in French classrooms are often intimidated from doing so by angry Muslim students, some of whom act aggressively to prevent knowledge of Jewish victimization during World War Two from being disseminated in the schools. The subject has effectively become taboo, and many of these schools are almost extraterritorial enclaves." Along the same lines, Brenner castigates the "civic and educational ghetto where Jewish children will leave for Jewish schools, followed by Jewish teachers often disgusted of (sic) working under conditions of permanent tension."