Friday, 30 March 2007
New City
clear

OK, landed in Pittsburgh, a city I was never in before. Nice hotel room, looking right across a fine steel bridge to Pirates Stadium. The next bridge down I learned (by walking across it) is Andy Warhol Bridge. (Oh, I see the great freak man was born in Pittsburgh. Thanks, Wiki. You learn something new every day.)

I tremble to think what the sweating, raw-boned steelmakers of yore would have to say at learning that their splendid bridges were being named after po-mo poseurs. But heck, we're all symbol manipulators now. Nobody makes anything any more. Who makes steel nowadays? Someone in China, I suppose.

Pleasant, agreeably smallish city under a clear spring sky... but I'd better not record any fleeting impressions of the place, having got myself banned for life from New Orleans back in January by remarking on what a seedy, dilapidated, crime-addled sinkhole it is.

Am I the last person in the world not to own a cell phone? I noticed at the airports, on the plane, in the streets, two people out of three are talking into cell phones, or fiddling with those little things with minuscule writing on teeny screens with teeny-tiny keys that go about three to the average adult fingertip. How d'you use those things?

And what do people say into their cell phones? They tell each other where they are and what they're doing, that's what. I rode in a shuttle from La Guardia parking lot to the terminal next to a middle-aged woman with a cell phone. She dialed up. "Hey! Just thought I'd give you a call. ... I'm in the shuttle, going to the terminal. ... Right. ... OK, see you in a few days. Bye!" Then she dialed someone else and told her the same thing. I've been having visions of the rest of this woman's day. "Hi! I'm in the departure lounge..." "Hey! How's it going? I just got on the plane..." "Whassup? I got caught short—I'm in the bathroom voiding my bowels..." Is this what the human race has come to?

All right, I'm cranky. Not a good traveler, especially on my Jack Jones. Miss the family, miss my study. Need a drink.

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 3:36 PM by John Derbyshire
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
Unsafe in America
clear

Fred Thompson is the first (possible) Presidential candidate to talk about Hirsi Ali:

...There were many Germans and other Europeans who came to America and warned of the Nazi threat in the 1930s, including writers and filmmakers. Can you imagine that any of them would have ever needed bodyguards?

Hirsi Ali does — right here in America. Yet too many people still don’t understand what our country is up against. They might if they read her book.

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 3:32 PM by Rebecca Bynum
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
Military Education
clear

A good source for more information: Victory in Tripoli: How America’s War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation. By Joshua E. London. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 2005. --from a reader

The book recommended above, that by Joshua London about William Eaton's overland trip from Cairo, even after being discharged by Jefferson, in an attempt to rescue the hundreds of Americans held hostage by Yusuf Karamanli, bey of Tunis, and to replace him with his less-vicious and more-compliant brother, should be assigned to every Marine as part of their training. It will do them good, and help teach them about the history of Islamic conquest, and Muslim attitudes -- immutable as the sacred texts of Islam itself -- without a knowledge of which so many Marines, and soldiers, and sailors, and airmen, simply will not be able to understand the nature of the enemy -- this year's enemy, and that for the foreseeable, possibly endless, future.

The American government has a captive audience: its military. It should use the training period to teach them about Islam, and if that offends some Muslims outside or inside the military, that is simply too bad. As long as it is based solidly and irrefutably on the texts of Islam, and on what Muslim Qura'nic commentators, theologians, historians have said -- such as those whose statements on Jihad are collected in Andrew Bostom's "The Legacy of Jihad" -- such an effort will be unassailable.

And it needs to be done, lest the officers and men, in their justified disenchantment with the wasteful and misguided effort in Iraq, an effort that, if understood rightly, is merely another form of appeasement, of refusing to recognize that Islam, and not merely "extremists" who "if we don't stay will take over Iraq," is and will remain the problem, and that "democracy" or "freedom" is not, pace Lewis, the solution, but the only solution, when facing an enemy that cannot be changed in its essence, is first to render less immediately menacing the forces of that enemy overall -- to weaken the Camp of Islam by permitting rather than attempting to prevent, the natural divisions within it -- and then to help create the conditions that, little by little, will cause non-Arab Muslims to recognize Islam as a vehicle for Arab imperialism, eventually whittling down Islam, or re-dimensioning it, until its universalist pretensions are revealed as phony, and it again can be reduced or pruned back until it becomes what it always, in truth, has been -- the "Arab National Religion."

Educate the officers and then the men, in the history of Islam, and the tenets of Islam, and in the historic treatment, over 1350 years, of non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Start now -- not in ten years. The future of the West depends on such measures being taken, while there is time.

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 3:23 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
Androlepsy
clear

Androlepsy (from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Androlepsy, in ancient Greek law, was a custom in Athens that if a citizen was killed abroad, and the criminal was not delivered for punishment, it was held lawful to take three citizens of the offending community, and punish them for the homicide. This the Greeks called androlepsia, and the Romans clarigatio.
The word is formed of άνήρ, "man", and λαμβάνω, "I take".

Some authors also use androlepsia for reprisals. --from a reader

The definition you provide could be supplemented by that of the law dictionaries, as in that below:

"ANDROLEPSY. The taking by one nation of the citizens or subjects of another, in order to compel the latter to do justice to the former. Wolff. Sec. 1164; Molloy, de Jure Mar. 26."

I don't have my OED here, and I can't get to it easily, but I do recall that Webster's 2nd has a definition of "Androlepsy" that says the "citizens" of another government who are seized are, specifically, diplomats -- which is why earlier I wrote that the word "androlepsy" fit perfectly the Teheran Embassy seizure, but not quite so perfectly that of foreign military men seized not within the country, but outside it, even if it is claimed, obviously falsely, that they were in the territorial waters of Iran, in what must surely be the unpleasant debouchment at the base of what is, for English ears, so memorably called the Shatt al-Arab.

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 3:18 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
Perverted
clear

As far as I know, the only song containing the word "perverted" is the Beatles' While My Guitar Gently Weeps. Here is the verse:

I don't know how you were diverted
You were perverted too
I don't know how you were inverted
No one alerted you

I've no idea what this is about. Pop lyrics rarely mean anything. "Diverted" like Jane Austen? "Inverted" like Radclyffe Hall?  But this is a far better rhyme than you find in many songs. Think "Back in the USSR/Don't know how lucky you are", "Shake and cough/Nabokov" and "Keyboard/Oh Lord". I would be interested to know which "-erted" word they thought of first, and which were brought in just for the rhyme. I think "alerted" is the runt of the litter. Someone being diverted, perverted and inverted doesn't need alerting, as they are probably enjoying every minute of it.

I can't, off the top of my head, think of any other songs with "diverted", "inverted" or "alerted" in them. And I can't think of any poems with any of these words in. Perhaps "perverted" doesn't come into any poem, although the others surely must.

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 12:31 PM by Mary Jackson
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
German Anti-Americanism
clear

From Spiegel Online (h/t LGF):

The Germans have believed in many things in the course of their recent history. They've believed in colonies in Africa and in the Kaiser. They even believed in the Kaiser when he told them that there would be no more political parties, only soldiers on the front.

 Not too long afterwards, they believed that Jews should be placed into ghettos and concentration camps because they were the enemies of the people. Then they believed in the autobahn and that the Third Reich would ultimately be victorious. A few years later, they believed in the Deutsche mark. They believed that the Berlin Wall would be there forever and that their pensions were safe. They believed in recycling as well as in cheap jet travel. They even believed in a German victory at the soccer World Cup.

Now they believe that the United States is a greater threat to world peace than Iran. This was the by-no-means-surprising result of a Forsa opinion poll commissioned by Stern magazine. Young Germans in particular -- 57 percent of 18-to-29-year-olds, to be precise -- said they considered the United States more dangerous than the religious regime in Iran.

The German political establishment, which will no doubt loudly lament the result of the poll, is largely responsible for this wave of anti-Americanism. For years the country's foreign ministers fed the Germans the fairy tale of what they called a "critical dialogue" between Europe and Iran. It went something like this: If we are nice to the ayatollahs, cuddle up to them a bit and occasionally wag our fingers at them when they've been naughty, they'll stop condemning their women to death for "unchaste behavior" and they'll stop building the atom bomb...

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 12:19 PM by Rebecca Bynum
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
Muslim Aggression in Ethiopia
clear

Ethiopia is a country which, in the past thirty years, has repeatedly known major famine. We have all seen the pictures. Yet the headwaters of the Nile begin in Ethiopia, and intelligent irrigation projects could save many lives in Ethiopia.

Yet Egypt has been threatening, and screaming, that Ethiopia's plans are outrageous. And if the threats and screams do not work, then the Egyptians try smiles, and wiles, and offers to cooperate, if only -- oh, if only the Egyptians are given a veto over what Ethiopia does, and how much water it diverts.

Never mind that it is the Ethiopians who for years have suffered, and that Egypt looks benignly on the massacres of the blacks in the southern Sudan, because it wishes to extend Arab Muslim power down to where it will immediately threaten what has always been seen, in Islam and in the West, as the celebrated Christian kingdom of Ethiopia. Securing the Sudan is one element; threatening Ethiopia from Eritrea and Somalia and from the Arabs of Egypt and the Sudan from the north, and also from within the country with a very aggressive program of da'wa (conversion) which can always become subversion, is another.

Ethiopia, in Islam, was once accorded special status because 82 families of followers of Muhammad supposedly found temporary refuge there from the pagan Meccans. Gratitude to the Christian Negus of Ethiopia entitled the country to a kind of special status, as dar al-sulh, a kind of halfway house between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb. But that gratitude, and that special consideration, however minor it may have been, is not demonstrated in the slightest by Egypt's proprietary and exclusivist claims on the Nile waters.

If Ethiopia wishes to divert waters to feed people who have lacked, until now, the wherewithal and the technical assistance to use those waters for irrigation, that should be encouraged by the entire Infidel world. Egypt's threats, Egypt's wiles, should be seen in the proper context. The Arabs everywhere in North Africa essentially treat the black Africans with contempt. Indeed, in Darfur, the Arabs tried to wipe out black Africans -- as there is ample testimony from survivors -- even if they were Muslim.

It is not surprising that Egypt should attempt to arrogate to itself the water of the Nile, and deny, even in its nascent stage, the attempt of the oldest free black African country to recover its equilibrium. After all, Ethiopia is a country so celebrated for its long history of Christianity that, when Western Christendom imagined a Christian realm beyond Islam that represented an ally that might be counted on for succor and protection, they placed the Kingdom of Prester John first in India -- and then in Ethiopia.

Those in Western Europe who claim to have the interests of the Third World at heart really have to be put to the test. They sided with the Muslims in Biafra. They have not moved a finger to aid the Christian blacks in the southern Sudan, and have done nothing to denounce the Arab Muslim genocide against them that has lasted more than 20 years. They seem not to know much, and care nothing about, the continued enslavement of blacks by Muslim Arabs in Mali and in Mauritania. They do not take the side of the government of Tanzania, trying to deal with Arab revanchism in Pemba and Zanzibar. And what will they say about Ethiopia and its need for water? One suspects that the phony left, including the Anglican clergy who have never gone to the aid of the African Anglicans under attack by Islam, will say nothing – nothing whatsoever.

Really, it is important for the American government to do something dramatic -- for nothing will come from Europe, not even from, or especially not from -- the co-religionists of the black African Christians under assault in Africa.

I have repeatedly suggested that a small force could seize the southern Sudan and secure it until the local black population, Christian and animist, Dinka and Nuer and others, can vote on their own independence. Why should they not? And why should the sinister regime in Khartoum, which keeps denying it has anything to do with the Janjaweed in Darfur, be heeded in the slightest?

Why is the American government, too, hellbent on ignoring what is happening to black Christians throughout Africa, and doing nothing to help or protect them against Muslim depredation and aggression and threats?

Ethiopia is one test. Nigeria is another test. And the Sudan is yet another. Let us see.


[First Posted December 14, 2005 07:52 AM]

See here for more on The Kingdom of Prester John.

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 11:55 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
The Gleiwitz Incident: Not Forgotten
clear

"What about the GLEIWITZ INCIDENT which was stage managed by the Germans to put the Poles in a bad light before they invade."-- from a reader

More on this important event:

"The Gleiwitz incident was a staged attack on 31 August 1939 against the German radio station Sender Gleiwitz in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany (since 1945: Gliwice, Republic of Poland) on the eve of World War II in Europe.

This provocation was one of several actions in Operation Himmler, a Nazi Germany project to create the appearance of Polish aggression against Germany, which would be used to justify the subsequent invasion of Poland."

The Gleiwitz Incident has been mostly forgotten outside Germany, except -- naturally --in Poland, and mostly forgotten even in Germany, despite the recent movie about the matter. Yes, there's been a whole lot of forgetting going on in Germany, despite the efforts by the victorious Allies, those brief, often halfhearted, almost perfunctory efforts by those Allies, to force what should have been permanent remembering, and that process of German forgetting began rather promptly in May, 1945.

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 11:50 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
Letters of Marque And Reprisal
clear

Those who read the American Constitution for the profit and pleasure it affords, sometimes read a phrase or two that they do not understand exactly, and ordinarily they move on, without paying too much mind, to the next phrase, which they do understand, and then the next.

In the enumeration of powers belonging to Congress --Article I, Section 8 -- and remember, we possess a government of enumerated powers, not of any damn powers someone thinks the government should have -- one such phrase occurs early on:
Congress shall have the exclusive right to issue "letters of marque and reprisal."

Well, perhaps, given the bogging-down in Tarbaby Iraq, is the time for Congress to exercise that power, and exercise it world-wide, issuing to all kinds of groups and individuals permission to act against Iran and Iranian interests everywhere, and then we will all be able to learn the meaning, that is not the only thing the Western world appears to have forgotten, of the beautiful and haunting phrase "letters of marque and reprisal."

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 11:48 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
Parading of Enemies
clear

The parading of enemies, a staple of cruel and totalitarian regimes, begins with examples of Enemies of the State (domestic version), and those Soviet show trials of the Old Bolsheviks such as Bukharin, accused of the crime of being "wreckers" -- "wrecking" things built on the glorious path to Communism. The foremost prosecutor was the inimitable Andrey Vyshinsky, back in the 1930s, and along with being "wreckers" those Old Bolsheviks (old enough to have known Stalin when he was just one more young psychopath, not yet powerful enough to find a 6000-mile-wide outlet for his peculiar urges). For more see Alexander Weisberg, "The Accused" or read, still better, the actual Soviet transcripts of the trials (the paper can crumble in your hands, so watch out).

Baby versions of the Soviet trials were also arranged in the countries of Eastern Europe, once they were seized by the Red Army and its local collaborators. After the noble Tomas Masaryk (the son) was murdered, thrown out of a building's window by the NKVD in the Second (or for purists, Third) Defenestration of Prague, and the Communists came to power, there was scarcely time to hold one's breath before Rudolph Slansky, and others, mostly but not exclusively Jews, were removed from power, and charged with treason. Stalin, back in Russia, was just warming up to the pleasing idea of finishing off Hitler's unfinished symphony of mass murder of the Jews, and the idea of the Doctors' Plot, and what would naturally follow, was hatching in his wolf-like primitive brain. The Slansky Trials followed, very quick, very efficient, readings aloud by the accused of confessions prepared carefully by the NKVD, and a good time was had by all.

Then came the Parading of Enemies (foreign style). The Chinese Communists did a lot of this, and the North Koreans: the bestial Americans, whether soldiers or civilians, were captured and paraded, derided and berated. But this was still in the days before television was for the masses, so the parading was mainly for the world press.

The Iranians, in their earlier androlepsy (strictly speaking, a word that applies only to the seizure of diplomatic personnel), the seizure of the American Embassy in Teheran, and the parading of the blindfolded diplomats (one of those whom the Americans hostages saw on several occasions -- see the testimony of Don Sharer and others -- was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad), to be taunted and jeered and jostled about, all for the delight of the hysterical Iranians, in the first flush of their Khomeini madness.

Now it is the turn not of the Great Satan (America) or the Little Satan (Israel) but the Old and Cleverest Satan (in the Iranian mythology), England. The letter from Turney, the abashed confession given by British male sailor was at this point willing to yield (there will no doubt be others) -- all of this is of a piece with Stalin or for that matter with those Chinese professors forced to wear dunce caps, and have affixed to their chests their own "confessions" before being paraded in the streets and then killed (or sometimes merely condemned to a lesser fate) during the "Cultural Revolution."

Any country or regime that puts on such parades, just as any country that has giant photographs of its leaders, shows its own country to be unfit for human habitation, and should be accorded not automatic respect (for its display, as the Iranian government thinks, of its might) but automatic contempt. No other proof is needed. It has conducted its own show trial. It accuses itself. It confesses to its own crimes, which it does not recognize as crimes. And it condemns itself, as Iran is now condemning itself.

And it will be punished.

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 11:38 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
Muslim Lawsuits Proliferating Like Dandelions in the Spring
clear

With sunglasses to boot. This story is from the Detroit News with hat tip to LGF:

A Muslim woman who was told she had to remove her veil if she wanted to testify in 31st District Court in Hamtramck filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the judge who made the ruling.

Ginnah Muhammad filed the complaint against Judge Paul Paruk, alleging he violated her religious rights and denied her equal access to the courts.

Muhammad had gone to small claims court last October in a dispute with a car rental company when Paruk said she could not testify unless she removed her veil, the lawsuit alleges.

"If in fact, you do not wish to do it, then I cannot go forward with your case and I have to dismiss your case," Paruk told the woman, according to a transcript attached to the complaint filed by Dearborn Heights lawyer Nabih Ayad.

Muhammad refused and Paruk dismissed the case, the lawsuit alleges.

Paruk did not return a phone call.

"I'm a human being and I wanted to come to court to get justice," Muhammad said at a news conference Wednesday outside the federal courthouse in Detroit.

"When I walked out, I just really felt empty, like the courts didn't care about me."

Ms. Muhammad, I hate to break this to you, but our courts aren't there to care about you. Our judges really try to dispense impartial justice which means you have to appear in court like everybody else - not covered in that idiotic and demeaning niqab - so the judge, who is trying to determine the veracity of your statements, can see your face and hear what you have to say.

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 7:39 AM by Rebecca Bynum
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
Re: Keep The Focus Where It Belongs
clear

Do I detect a slight 'homophobia?'"-- from a reader commenting on this post

Not from me, in the slightest, though the word "homophobia" itself is one I would not use. I was making another point: that Muslim lesbians, or Muslim women, or Muslim anything, whose situation is intolerable under Islam, should not be given undue or confused attention, and Infidels hail this or that possible victory -- that for them, the Infidels, may mean nothing.

I don't think homosexuality will be openly tolerated in Muslim societies even though it is furtively tolerated. But if it were, would that imply less of a menace for Infidels? If Islam is made safe for Irshad Manji, does that make it safe for Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists and all others? No.

I was thinking not so much of the Muslim intolerance of homosexuality (see Peter Titchell, in England), but about the Problem of Muslim Women, which has become an industry. Think of the number of books and seminars and courses about "Women in Islam." That strikes me as a topic that, while seeming to recognize a problem in Islam, may too easily satisfy some. What if the lot of Muslim women improves?

There's a lot of breathless talk about that happening, and a lot of silly articles, like the one the other day in The Times about some Iranian-American who has taken it upon herself, having as an adult "accepted Islam" (apparently she was not raised as a Muslim), and having read the Qur'an and been horrified by verses about women, to translate it and somehow think she can get away with simply interpreting away, by omission, the verses damaging to women -- my god, with the Qur'an, the Uncreated and Immutable Qur'an that is the Literal word of God, this lady thinks she can do that, and what's more, have it accepted by more than a dozen or two Muslims, with many of the rest ardently desiring her death. This is the kind of thing that distracts the attention of the kind of people who both write for The Times, or read The Times uncritically, and think that yes, indeed, why not simply rewrite the Qur'an in order to quickly get that little matter of "reforming" Islam out of the way, and do it in the next decade or two.

Many Muslim "feminists" are more Muslim than feminists, and are quite good at sensing attacks on Islam and immediately coming to its defense, even if it means abandonment or betrayal of their so-called "feminism."

That was, in the main, what I was discussing.

And my point about the meeting of Arab (come to think of it, were they Muslims? Might they have been Christian Arabs?) lesbians in Israel, was that they might both be enjoying the tolerance of an advanced Western society, that of Israel, and yet still be unable to make the connection between Islam and intolerance, Islam and fear, and maintain their loyalty to that belief-system, and even keep intact the hostility, or even hatred, for Infidels that Islam so obviously inculcates (and some Muslims, just as obviously, may ignore -- that is, may be "bad" Muslims).

Homosexuality was not really the theme, not even tangentially. And I reject utterly your suggestion -- thus coming, by a commodious vicus, in the last sentence of this posting, right back to the first one, with which the present discussion began.

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 7:12 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
More on March 31st protests, these in the U.S.
clear

In addition to tomorrow's protest at the Iranian Embassy in London, there are several planned for the U.S.  From the 910 Group:

On Saturday March 31st Americans of all ethnicities and of all religious backgrounds are urged to take to the streets in peaceful protest of Islamic radicalism. The primary locations of the rallies will be in front of several offices of the Council on American Islamic Relations deemed by many as a radical Islamist front organization.

1. Southern California:

In front of CAIR's Southern California Office

We will be hanging an effigy of bin Laden

Location: 2180 W. Crescent Ave. Anaheim, CA 92801

Time: 1:00 PM

Contact: [email protected]

2. Hawaii - Kona

Location: Along the Queen K Hwy, near the Mormon Temple, just south of Henry St., in Kona, Hawaii

Time: Starting at 2:00pm and until 5:00pm

Contact: for more info or to confirm attendance email [email protected]

3. Washington State:

In front of CAIR's Seattle Office

Location: 9594 1st Avenue NE, Seattle WA

Time: 1:00 PM

Contact: [email protected]

4. New York - NYC: GROUND ZERO

MAIN RALLY AGAINST ISLAMOFASCISM DAY RALLY - BE THERE!

Location: Ground Zero - World Trade Center

Time: 12 Noon - 2 PM

Contact: [email protected]

5. Florida - Orlando:

Location: The corner of Hwy 50(Colonial Drive) and Bumby.

Time: 1:00 PM

Contact: [email protected]

6. Massachusetts - Boston:

Location: Boston Common

Tremont St. in front of the Constitution memorial and across from Lowes movie theater.

Time: 1:00 - 3:00 PM

Contact: [email protected]

7. Missouri - Columbia:

Location: Post Office on E 500 block of Walnut Street, across the street on the sidewalk.

Time: 9:45am to 11am.

Contact: [email protected]

For updates, check here:  http://www.unitedamericancommittee.org/

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 7:14 AM by Robert Bove
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
La Commedia ? Finita
clear

"We are not abolishing the military jihad with the civil jihad, but appropriate statements must be made in the appropriate setting. In another place I call for military jihad and even for martyrdom operations. In the eyes of some people, my blood is permitted because of this. But at the Al-Quds Institute, I call for civil jihad."-- from Al-Qaradawi's statement

What could be clearer? Depending on who is in the audience, Al-Qaradawi tells us, he will vary his pitch. When he's at the sober gathering of the Al-Quds Institute, with too many non-Muslims possibly present, it's the presumed sweet reason of a merely "civil jihad." When he can let down his hair without any Infidels overhearing, then of course, he tells his Muslim audience, "I call for military jihad and even for martyrdom operations."

Arafat whispered one thing to the credulous Clinton, and said quite another to what he assumed were all-Muslim audiences, beginning with that one he addressed in September 1994, in Johannesburg, telling them not to worry about the Oslo Accords he had just signed, because they didn't commit him to anything; he was just following in the steps of the great Master, and then he proceeded to refer, as one might expect, to Muhammad's deviousness with the Meccans when he signed the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya. That has been the model for all subsequent treaties between Muslims with Infidels -- always temporary, always to be broken, whatever promises of friendly relations and "peace" or even "permanent peace" may be solemnly undertaken, it means nothing -- Muslims are required to break such agreements the minute they feel strong enough to do so. They know, Al-Qaradawi knows, Arafat knew, Mubarak and the Saudi rulers, all daggers and dishdashas and sneers of cold command, know this. Every single Muslim ruler or ordinary Muslim understands this, and understands that Muslims have a right to sign things and then never live up to them, or to break them with impunity whenever they feel like it. "War is deception," said Muhammad.

The only strange thing is: if this is such an obvious part of Islamic treaty-making (see Majid Khadduri, Law of War and Peace in Islam - say, do you think Dennis Ross, or Richard Haas, or anyone at all in the whole American State Department has ever looked at that book, or even read it, or bothered to inquire as to what, in Islam, the rule is on treaties with Infidels? No? You don't? Neither do I.), why don't the Israelis, even with their celebrated incompetence, begin to mention the little matter of how Muslims regard treaties. Hmmm? Might spoil Rose Garden ceremonies? Queer somebody's pitch for a Nobel? What, exactly?

Meanwhile, Al-Qaradawi is just doing what all Muslim leaders do but he, apparently unaware that everything is overheard these days, tells the truth: that is, tells the truth about the fact that he essentially lies. He calls here for "civil jihad" and makes the gullible think that's all he's calling for, but over here, with fellow Muslims only, he calls as well for the other kind, the kind with bomb belts and homicide bombers on busses, in cafés, in schools and at Passover celebrations. That's Al-Qaradawi: a nice blend of Mahmoud Abbas (the "civil jihad") and Haniya (the other kind), the Slow Jihad and the Fast Jihad, or rather, both the tactics of the Slow Jihad and the tactics of the Fast JIhad at the very same time.

And we are supposed to pretend we didn't hear this. Or if we heard it, it doesn't mean what of course any sensible person knows perfectly well what it means. It means what Muslims, speaking to other Muslims, know perfectly well it means.

For god's sake, la commedia e finita. Or ought to be. We can only stand so much wilful ignorance and stupidity exhibited by those pushing for that madness, the "two-state solution" (which must be a "solution," some will say, because otherwise why would they call it that).

How long, o Lord, how long?

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 6:37 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
Red flags and swastikas
clear

I have posted before, most recently here, about the way that Nazi and other Fascist memorabilia are regarded as beyond the pale, yet Communist memorabilia are, at most, disapproved of, and are generally seen as rather amusing. This despite Communism’s much higher murder toll. I admit to sharing this inconsistent reaction – I can’t summon up the same revulsion for a hammer and sickle as for a swastika. 

Charles Moore echoes my opinion in this week's Spectator:

When Lord Turnbull said last week that Gordon Brown was like Stalin, the lack of outrage was interesting. If he had said that Mr Brown was like Hitler, many would have accused him of grotesque exaggeration and bad taste. This did not happen, partly, perhaps, because people really do think that Mr Brown is like Stalin, but also because, subliminally, people do not think of Stalin as nearly as bad as Hitler. Yet he was. The two are morally indistinguishable, though their characters were not the same. Stalin was probably personally the crueller of the two, but Hitler, being more fanatical, was probably even more destructive. Both loved death and absolute power and mass suffering. It is one of the great and subtle successes of the Left that they have managed to prevent Stalin from completely contaminating their cause, when really the red flag should inspire as much fear and disgust as the swastika.

Nobody seems to be able to explain why it doesn't. Perhaps it is simply that the Germans have – officially at least – acknowledged the evils of Nazism. Supporters of Communism have yet to admit, that they were wrong. Sadly, we in the free world take them at their word. The Chinese under Mao, in particular, have got away with murder on a scale that makes the Nazis seem quite puny, for motives no less hateful, and, like the Germans, with the enthusiastic participation of ordinary people. Even the sensible Charles Moore seems unwilling to knock a hole in the Great Wall of Silence.

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 6:48 AM by Mary Jackson
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
Protest tomorrow at Iranian Embassy, London
clear

Just in from the 910 Group:

URGENT:  Saturday, March 31: UK London Protest at Iranian Embassy for the Capture of the 15 Marines

From the 910 Group Forum:  Assuming the Marines are still captive, we are organizing a protest for Saturday, March 31 at 3pm outside the Iranian Embassy. It will be in Kensington Road (South side) 200 yards east of the junction with Prince's Gate - that's as near the Embassy as you are allowed to go to protest. Nearest tube is South Kensington - it's a 10 minute walk from there, but also on several bus routes.

Please come and bring placards. We will bring some leaflets, but please bring your own. Best is a copy of the front page of Thursday’s Sun, maybe with the email address of the Iran Embassy and postal address too, so people can write. The objective will be to get people to write/email the Iran Embassy to protest, and get press coverage of the public’s outrage.

If you can make placards, please do. For example, the smirking face of Ahmadinejad with "International Criminal: Release the 15 Marines Now" on it - can anyone do that?   Contact [email protected] right away.  Time is very short.

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 5:50 AM by Robert Bove
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
La Cajones
clear

(h/t: Atlas Shrugs, seen above.)

MADRID (Reuters) - A woman who lost her husband in the 2004 Madrid train bombings displayed an infamous cartoon mocking the Prophet Mohammad on her T-shirt in front of 29, mostly Muslim, suspects on trial for the attacks on Monday.

The woman's white T-shirt showed Mohammad wearing a bomb as a turban -- one of a series published by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten which unleashed violent protests by some Muslims last year.

Ten bombs ripped through four commuter trains on March 11, 2004, killing 191 people -- attacks which public prosecutors blame on a group of Islamist militants inspired by al-Qaeda.

The woman sat in the front row of the court wearing the T-shirt for around half-an-hour before getting up, walking up to the glass cage containing the defendants and finally walking out of the court, judicial sources said.


clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 5:41 AM by Robert Bove
clear
Friday, 30 March 2007
More b***s, sorry, b******s, make that balderdash from the EU
clear

As reported in The Telegraph

The European Union has drawn up guidelines advising government spokesmen to refrain from linking Islam and terrorism in their statements.

Brussels officials have confirmed the existence of a classified handbook which offers "non-offensive" phrases to use when announcing anti-terrorist operations or dealing with terrorist attacks.

Banned terms are said to include "jihad", "Islamic" or "fundamentalist".

The word "jihad" is to be avoided altogether, according to some sources, because for Muslims the word can mean a personal struggle to live a moral life.

An EU official said that the secret guidebook, or, "common lexicon", is aimed at preventing the distortion of the Muslim faith and the alienation of Muslims in Europe.

"The common lexicon includes guidance on a number of frequently used terms where lack of care by EU and member states' spokespeople may give rise to misunderstandings," he said.

Details on the contents of the lexicon remain secret, but British officials stressed that it is there as a helpful aid "providing context" for civil servants making speeches or giving press conferences.  "We are fully signed up to this, but it is not binding," said one.

However, Conservative MEP Syed Kamall hit out at the lexicon. "It is this kind of political correctness and secrecy that creates resentment among both the mainstream in Europe and in Islam," he said.

Meanwhile, UK Independence Party MEP Gerard Batten claimed that the EU was in denial over the true roots of terrorism. "This type of newspeak shows that the EU refuses to face reality," he said. "The major world terrorist threat is one posed by ideology and that ideology is inspired by fundamentalist jihadi Islam."

Even that falls short, but is an improvement.  Mary has written at great length on the EU so I will not repeat myself here.

clear
Posted on 03/30/2007 1:15 AM by Esmerelda Weatherwax
clear
Thursday, 29 March 2007
UN Watch Video
clear

From LGF:

UN Watch has now put together another must-see video, showing the kinds of disgusting, evil speeches that are NOT banned by the UN Human Rights Council—including support for the execution of homosexuals, support for terrorist groups, Holocaust denial, and the inevitable demonization of Israel (to a frightening degree).

The United Nations at work.

clear
Posted on 03/29/2007 6:28 PM by Rebecca Bynum
clear
Thursday, 29 March 2007
Uninformed or Incompetent?
clear

It's a little hard to admit that the Sunni-Shi'a split has been around for a long time, is observable in countries far from Iraq, was observed in Iraq by Gertrude Bell and others, and owes its origins to events that took place in the first century of Islam, with consequences that have never been exactly hidden from view.

Did Bush know about Sipah-e-Sahaba, the Sunni terrorist group that targets Shi'a? Did he know of any history of Sunni-Shi'a conflict in Yemen or Lebanon? Is he aware that in Afghanistan the Sunni Taliban massacred the Hazara (an ethnic group descended from Mongols) and would have killed all of them, because they were Shi'a (see Rory Steward, "The Places In-Between" for an account in a hard-to-miss best-seller).

No, apparently he did not.

And because he did not, nor did others in his Administration, they are not about to say, at this point: well, it was there all along. We just missed it. Chalabi didn't tell us. Bernard Lewis underestimated the problem (for god's sake, Lewis co-wrote an article proposing a Sunni monarch - his friend Prince Hassan, without naming him -- to be set on a throne created for him in Iraq by the Americans.

But if the Administration and its loyalists argue that this conflict was not inevitable, and that no one foresaw it, much less thought it was something to welcome and exploit, they have two problems:

1) Why, in 500-600 postings here, was that conflict steadily described as the inevitable outcome of the removal of Saddam Hussein, one that would occur whatever the Americans did or did not do?

2) If it was NOT inevitable, than presumably this outcome was the result of human error. Whose error? Why, the error of the Americans of course. Haven't they been the ones who have irrupted into Iraq, and mucked about with Iraq's otherwise splendidly harmonious sectarian and ethnic arrangements?

So the Bush Administration is going to have to choose what whipping it prefers. Does it wish to be accused of merely making mistake after mistake in "execution" of a perfectly sensible, rational policy, with goals that if achieved would have furthered American and Infidel interests, and weakened the Camp of Islam, but that here and there -- Bremer dissolving the army and accepting de-Ba'athification, for example -- "mistakes were made"?

Or should it choose to take the blame, that it deserves to take, for not understanding very much about Islam, and thus identifying the enemy wrongly in that phrase "the war on terror," and furthermore, not knowing much about Iraq, or how deep and intractable were, and are, and will be, the sectarian and ethnic fissures, and why that is not a bad, but a good thing for us, something that the Bush Administration just cannot seem able to comprehend.

Perhaps it is more than mere obstinacy, an inability to admit how wrong it was (and thus, what a waste most of those trillion dollars, and so many of those soldiers' lives, that were expended after the invasion and the first, possibly justifiable year). Perhaps it is also sentimentality: we can't "just leave these people to kill each other." Of course we can. Our loyalty should be singlemindedly to ourselves, to Americans and to the other Infidel victims of Islam, those threatened most immediately, and those that still have a decade or two to do something to protect themselves.

clear
Posted on 03/29/2007 4:23 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
clear
clear
Showing 21-41 of 748 [Previous 20] [Next 20]