JDS - Food for Thought

A Little Fun:

2007-05-10T19:56:00.000-04:00

More content to come in the near future, of a more informational variety, so stay tuned. In the meantime, enjoy this short video clip from across the pond. Sarcasm that also makes sense.

I want to be clear - I find this amusing, and do not intend for readers to assume that this individual represents my views or opinions. Some parts of his rant do make sense, specifically the comments about many in the free world being cowed and intimidated into relative silence by the actions of radical Muslims (notably the murder of Theo Van Gogh, the harassment of Ayan Hirsi Ali, and the violent overreaction to the Danish cartoons (for which, by the way, some countries have agreed to make some modest restitution). In any event, if you are offended, lighten up, and feel free not to return to these pages in the future - it's your right not to read my words.

Cheers.

~JDS

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the video clip above do not in any way represent the opinions or beliefs of the author and operator of this blog. the video clip is embedded using HTML code from another website, and so the operator of this blog assumes absolutely no responsibility for any harm that may or may not come to a reader's computer should one choose to view this clip.

Feels Real Good:

2007-01-21T18:53:00.000-05:00

Bears Are NFC Champions!

Been 20 years, but it feels sweet!
~JDS

A Historic Convergence:

2006-12-15T07:19:00.000-05:00

It often seems as though the right thing to do and the practical or politically savvy thing to do are rarely one and the same. However, there is one issue that can see a convergence of such interests - from national security, to environmental awareness and concern, to fighting the war on terror - the issue of energy independence.

As concerned citizens from a variety of walks of life, energy independence is an issue that has the ability to appeal to Americans from all different political persuasions. Those concerned about environmental issues now have a means of making "green" alternative energy solutions appealing to national security-types, and those whose primary preoccupation is national security have the ability to achieve their goals of securing America by appealing to environmental types. Isolationists now have a compelling issue to withdraw America from one element of globalization. Those who believe that Middle East woes are at partly (or mostly) due to American involvement in oil interests now have a means of encouraging significant, monumental changes to these foreign policies. Those feeling the pinch of higher energy costs now have a chance to help bring stability, and therefore lower prices, to energy products.

The list could go on, but what matters is that this is an issue nearly every citizen can get behind. I encourage everyone to write their Congressional representation to make this issue a national priority. I have done so, and below the article that follows provide links to find your Senator and Representative so that you can write them today.

Let's all make this issue one of America's top priorities - by doing so we can achieve an unprecedented number of policy goals often at odds with each other. Let's take advantage of this historic convergence of doing the right thing, and doing the practical, politically convenient thing.

~JDS

The big lesson Iran can teach the U.S.
Original here
The Philadelphia Inquirer, December 14, 2006

What do you call a world leader who faces a strategic threat stemming from his country's energy dependence and introduces a crash program for energy independence that taps into his country's domestic resources?

Ahmadinejad.

With 43 percent of Iran's gasoline imported, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knows that a comprehensive gasoline embargo could cause social unrest that could undermine his regime. In response, he recently announced a three-part crash program for energy independence.

One tenet of the plan is massive expansion of the country's refining capacity. While no refinery has been built in the United States in decades, Iran's refinery infrastructure is undergoing one of the world's fastest expansions, including the construction of two large new refineries.

A second pillar is to secure imports of refined products from Venezuela, one of Iran's staunchest allies against the West.

The third, and most innovative, part of the plan is to convert Iran's vehicles to run on natural gas rather than gasoline within five years. Iran has the world's second-largest natural-gas reserve after Russia - 16 percent of the world's total - which guarantees an uninterrupted supply of cheap transportation fuel for decades. The cost of conversion of both the cars and refueling stations is heavily subsidized by the government.

The conversion of cars is simple, particularly in a country where unemployment surpasses 10 percent and labor is cheap. All that is needed is a minor engine adaptation and the installation of a gas cylinder in the trunk of the car. More than 105 conversion centers have already been built.

A shift from petroleum to natural gas will save Iran between $3 billion and $8 billion per year on gasoline imports. It will also leave refineries free to produce a greater proportion of essential non-gasoline petroleum products like jet fuel, which will keep Iran's air force and commercial airlines intact, and diesel to power its army and navy.

Ahmadinejad's gas revolution is a clear sign that Iran is preparing itself for the possibility of war and is developing a comprehensive economic warfare strategy to supplement its military and diplomatic initiatives.

Yet, while Iran is taking meaningful steps to reduce its strategic vulnerability, the United States is doing the exact opposite when it comes to energy security. Despite President Bush's statement in January that "America is addicted to oil," neither Congress nor the administration has done much to address this vulnerability. We still impose a stiff, 54-cent punitive tariff on imported Brazilian ethanol; our fuel-efficiency standards have been stagnant; and severe limits on domestic exploration of oil and gas are still in place. This year, imports account for more than 60 percent of U.S. oil supply. Barring policy changes, U.S. dependence five years from now will have swelled further, with profound implications for its national security. At that point, economic sanctions against Iran would likely hurt the United States far more than Iran.

With the sanctions option waning, we must begin to answer Iran's economic warfare strategy with one of our own. Therefore, the United States should:

Require that every new car sold here be a flex-fuel vehicle capable of running on any combination of gasoline and alcohol fuels, such as ethanol and methanol, that can be generated from vast domestic resources of biomass, wastes and coal. The extra cost to the automaker to make a car fuel flexible is less than $150, about a quarter the cost of converting an Iranian gasoline-powered car to run on natural gas. Requiring fuel flexibility will provide investors in alternative fuel plants the confidence that there will be a growing market for such fuels.

Tap into domestic resources by encouraging the use of electricity as a transportation fuel. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can shift our transportation sector from oil to made-in-America electricity generated from coal, nuclear power, and renewable sources.

Remove the ridiculous 54-cent-a-gallon tariff on imported ethanol, and encourage friendly Latin American countries to ramp up ethanol production from sugar cane. Nothing would improve America's posture in Latin America more than dollars invested in the region's farming communities.

Energy dependence presents a serious and urgent national security problem. This is something America's staunchest enemy clearly understands and is sparing no effort to address. Will we be smart enough to do the same?

Gal Luft: is executive director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (www.iags.org) in Washington

Anne Korin: is chair of the Set America Free Coalition (www.setamericafree.org) and co-director of IAGS

Write your Rep

Find your Senator

Radio Free Iran?

2006-12-14T07:28:00.000-05:00

Brilliant suggestion, though it remains to be seen whether or not Iranians remain capable of being inspired to act by information and analysis outside the regime's control. I remain skeptical as to whether or not the Administration will make any attempt to implement such a strategy.

Radio Free Iran
Down with music. Up with ideas
by S. Enders Wimbush

The Weekly Standard
12/18/2006, Volume 012, Issue 14

Iran looms intractable on America's radar, while the Bush administration casts about for nonmilitary weapons to use against it. Although President Bush insists that we are in a war of ideas with Iran, he has yet to unlimber some of America's most potent instruments to fight it. Chief among these should be the Persian-language broadcasts of Radio Farda. But, like most of America's international broadcasters, the station has fallen into the public diplomacy trap of advocating for America rather than stimulating debate within the targeted society.

Originally intended by Congress to operate as Radio Free Iran, the station was abruptly morphed into Radio Farda ("Tomorrow" in Persian) in 2002. It now broadcasts chiefly music and American popular culture aimed at Iran's kids. Mostly gone is the "ideas" menu--history, culture, religion, economics, law, human rights, labor, business, critical thinking--employed to great effect during the Cold War by its parent organization, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, whose intended listeners were critical elites and the populations that supported them.

To become an effective instrument in the war of ideas, Radio Farda should be completely overhauled, not just tinkered with. Six strategies are required, all of them based on proven RFE/RL choices and methods.

Strategy One: Question the regime's legitimacy. Iran's noxious regime will survive so long as it retains legitimacy among those most likely to seek to change it. America's communications strategy should chip away at this legitimacy by describing and analyzing the nature of the regime from many angles.

It would contest the regime's claim to Islamic legitimacy. Direct involvement in politics by Islamic clerics has traditionally been frowned upon in Iran, a point made frequently by many Iranian theologians and ayatollahs.

It would discredit the clerics as sources of moral authority. Pervasive corruption at all levels of government is public knowledge, and it is increasingly associated with the ruling clerical establishment in the mind of the public.

And a sound strategy would rebut the regime's anti-Westernism, which is intensifying as a source of its legitimacy. It would emphasize the great historical attachments of Iran to the West and, particularly, the mutual, and mutually beneficial, interpenetration of Persian and Western culture. The aim must be to deny traction to anti-Westernizing influences.

Strategy Two: Highlight the leadership's disunity. Iran's regime is at its strongest when its leaders are united. A targeted communications strategy would highlight disagreements among leaders that we know to exist, underlining divisions, straining friendships, and endangering alliances. It would give special attention to those who break ranks. (Boris Yeltsin acknowledged that his rise to power in the crumbling Soviet Union was due in large part to Radio Liberty's intensive reporting of his activities.) The strategy would focus on revealing controversies that may not exist openly but that are endemic to the regime's view of the world and the policies by which it articulates its vision.

Strategy Three: Highlight threats to Iran's culture. For Iranians of most stripes, the sanctity and salience of their historic culture, and its preeminence among world cultures, is of high importance. A successful communications strategy would describe how this preeminence is endangered and in decline. Examples of mediocre cultural products (in literature, music, poetry, art, films), made more mediocre by Iran's isolation from the rest of the world and the intellectual straitjacket enforced by the regime, could be discussed to make a powerful point: Iran's historic culture is deteriorating in Iran itself, with the only advances taking place outside the mother country.

During the Cold War, Radio Liberty's strategy of stressing the gains of Russian culture outside Russia--for example through movie reviews and readings by noted authors in exile--had a sobering impact on its listeners. Iran, where virtually everything is viewed through the prism of culture, is an even more resonant milieu for such a strategy.

Strategy Four: Describe Iran's isolation, economic decline, and growing lack of competitiveness. A targeted communications strategy should draw attention constantly to the economic and social costs of Iran's isolation from the world. It would emphasize that Iran is embarking on a catastrophe in science and technology, partly because of isolation but also because the educational system no longer supports such pursuits. It would make the case that Iran is missing out on globalization. Take away Iran's oil (which accounts for 90 percent of exports) and you have a failed state. As much as 50 percent of the rural population and 20 percent of the urban population live below the poverty line. This places Iran in competition with Pakistan (34 percent poverty rate) for the distinction of being the poorest country in Asia.

An effective communications strategy would take aim at failing "Islamic economics" that is dragging Iranians away from the globalization sweeping the rest of the world. It would point out that for Iranians poverty and demography are converging. Unemployment among the young averages 35 percent. Things are especially dire for Iran's young women, who suffer an unemployment rate of 50 percent, despite being easily the best educated in the Middle East. The prospects of the massive youth cohort are not bright, and they know it. Moreover, with half a million college graduates joining the ranks of the unemployed each year, things are getting worse, even without the palpable political alienation of this key demographic. These people don't need popular music. They need, and want, powerful ideas for change.

Strategy Five: Build critical/pragmatic thinking. Islamic education is inflicting a knockout punch on critical thinking skills. This is happening in most parts of the Islamic world, including Iran, where Islamic precepts permeate every level of the educational system, including the hard sciences. A communications strategy would focus on generating and strengthening pragmatic thinking and decision-making throughout the population, but especially among young people. To this end, the strategy would emphasize programs and topics that instill listeners with ways of thinking about problems that the regime currently proscribes or for which it insists on "Islamic solutions."

Strategy Six: Empower alternative power centers with new ideas. Like all complex states, Iran has a number of real and potential power centers--regional, labor, ethnic, professional, institutional, military, even religious. A focused communications strategy would aim to challenge the regime's ability to suffocate these centers in its ideological embrace. A successful strategy would provide the ideas to encourage potential power centers and leaders to develop stronger profiles, advance unique demands, and compete for power. The Eastern European and Soviet cases are instructive in this regard--think of the free trade union, Solidarity. None of the Soviet-bloc regimes proved able to survive even modestly persistent challenges from alternative power centers.

President Bush has incessantly asserted that fighting the war of ideas is his top priority, but he seems not to understand that public diplomacy, which aims to make people like America, is not the solution. It's time he got serious about the war of ideas and unleashed Radio Farda.

S. Enders Wimbush is senior fellow and director of the Center for Future Security Strategies at the Hudson Institute. He was director of Radio Liberty from 1987 to 1992.

Kick him out:

2006-12-01T07:23:00.000-05:00

Kick him out
By ELIE WIESEL
Saturday, November 25th, 2006

Those among us who thought that the victory of allied democracies in 1945 would mark the end of hate and state-sponsored racism were naive. What remains in human memory as the most cruel of conflicts changed neither human nature nor peoples' ambition. Religious wars, political dictatorships, ethnic clashes, sectarian, cultural and economic crises: Their impact affects us all pretty much everywhere on the planet. Our world is still the target of more than one threat. Such is life, that everything comes full circle to start over again.
Yet even in the domain of evil, differences and degrees exist. Certain dictators are worse than others, and their hateful actions have consequences more dangerous.

For the reader who has not yet guessed, I am speaking of the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: More than so many others who abuse their position if not their power, this one represents the darkest of political action.

Ridiculing historical truths, offending the memory of survivors still alive, he glorifies the act of lying: As the No. 1 Holocaust denier in the world, an anti-Semite with a disturbed mind, he claims that Hitler's "Final Solution" never happened. He even had a large international exhibition of anti-Holocaust cartoons mounted in Tehran. Several hundred cartoonists participated. When asked about the future, the exhibition organizer states that the project will continue as long as the Jewish state has not been destroyed.

And who will destroy it? On this point, President Ahmadinejad is not afraid to clarify his view: Iran will take the lead. As soon as this Muslim country has acquired a nuclear weapon, the first bombs will be launched on Israel. And he has not ceased to repeat this threat.

Consider it this way: According to him, there was no Holocaust in the past, but there is sure to be one and it is on the way. Scandalous rumblings of a fanatic? Yes, but this fanatic addresses crowds that like his ideas and applaud them. Just empty words? No. This orator does not speak for nothing. He seems rather committed to keeping his "promises." It would be wrong to question his determination. A person does not just preach hate for nothing. Isn't his goal to break the heart and snuff the life of anyone who does not think like him? As for me, I belong to a generation that learned to take the enemy's words of hate seriously.

And lest we forget, who is behind the Hezbollah terrorist organization? Iran. Iran sends them the most modern weapons and officers to train their soldiers. But what does Hezbollah want? Territorial concessions? No. The creation of a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with the Jewish state? No. The sole objective of this movement - and of the Iranian president - is the destruction of Israel.

This is why I maintain that such a figure does not have a place within the community of international leaders. Persona non grata, an undesirable individual, this is what he should become, because of what he is doing to his country, to his people, to all of humanity. This is why he deserves to be turned away everywhere. I'll go even further: The country he leads and embodies should be excluded from the United Nations as long as he is its ruler and symbol. On what grounds? It is quite simple: One member state of the United Nations that threatens to destroy another member state of these same United Nations violates its very charter and conventions.

Is something like this possible? I am not naive enough to believe that this could really happen. What state would introduce such a UN resolution? And how many delegates would vote to adopt it? I know all too well: very few. But at least they won't feel so comfortable in their fear. At least they'll learn from lessons of the not-so-distant past: We know with whom a dictator will begin; but he will not stop there. If Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, do we really think that Israel would remain its only target?

Some will say: What about North Korea? Why aren't we doing something about them? Don't they have the same atomic ambitions? Yes, they do. But there is still quite a difference. North Korea has never threatened to wipe away another state. Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor, is author of "Night" and winner of the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize. This article, written for the Daily News, was translated from the French by Jamie Moore.

Terror on the Airlines redux?:

2006-11-30T07:36:00.000-05:00

This is a fine example of attempts to manipulate the media to serve Islamist ends by promoting the fiction that Muslims are singled out for no other reason than their obvious religious connections. There is no climate of hostility towards Muslims pervading American society, only a suspicion of odd behavior in situations where fears of repeat Islamist terrorism make the public more aware of abnormal behavior.

This isn't a case of racism, its a case of these religious leaders acting in a manner illsuited for their surroundings. According to pilots, crew, and security officials, the imams switched seats so as to fit a seating formation (2 in front, middle and rear of aircraft) used in suspected terror dry-runs, requested seat belt extensions - typically reserved for oversized passengers, which these men were not - and promptly deposited the belt extensions on the floor near their seats, and apparently at least one of the men made two trips to one of the imams seated in the rear of the plane. I for one am willing to suffer the indignity of investigation should I begin acting suspiciously on an airliner after my co-religionists have demonstrated a propensity for hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings.

How the imams terrorized an airliner

By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES, November 28, 2006

Muslim religious leaders removed from a Minneapolis flight last week exhibited behavior associated with a security probe by terrorists and were not merely engaged in prayers, according to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials.

Witnesses said three of the imams were praying loudly in the concourse and repeatedly shouted "Allah" when passengers were called for boarding US Airways Flight 300 to Phoenix.

"I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud," the gate agent told the Minneapolis Police Department.

Passengers and flight attendants told law-enforcement officials the imams switched from their assigned seats to a pattern associated with the September 11 terrorist attacks and also found in probes of U.S. security since the attacks -- two in the front row first-class, two in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle and two in the rear of the cabin.

"That would alarm me," said a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous. "They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."

A pilot from another airline said: "That behavior has been identified as a terrorist probe in the airline industry."

But the imams who were escorted off the flight in handcuffs say they were merely praying before the 6:30 p.m. flight on Nov. 20, and yesterday led a protest by prayer with other religious leaders at the airline's ticket counter at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, called removing the imams an act of Islamophobia and compared it to racism against blacks.

"It's a shame that as an African-American and a Muslim I have the double whammy of having to worry about driving while black and flying while Muslim," Mr. Bray said.

The protesters also called on Congress to pass legislation to outlaw passenger profiling.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, Texas Democrat, said the September 11 terrorist attacks "cannot be permitted to be used to justify racial profiling, harassment and discrimination of Muslim and Arab Americans."

"Understandably, the imams felt profiled, humiliated, and discriminated against by their treatment," she said.

According to witnesses, police reports and aviation security officials, the imams displayed other suspicious behavior.

Three of the men asked for seat-belt extenders, although two flight attendants told police the men were not oversized. One flight attendant told police she "found this unsettling, as crew knew about the six [passengers] on board and where they were sitting." Rather than attach the extensions, the men placed the straps and buckles on the cabin floor, the flight attendant said.

The imams said they were not discussing politics and only spoke in English, but witnesses told law enforcement that the men spoke in Arabic and English, criticizing the war in Iraq and President Bush, and talking about al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

The imams who claimed two first-class seats said their tickets were upgraded. The gate agent told police that when the imams asked to be upgraded, they were told no such seats were available. Nevertheless, the two men were seated in first class when removed.

A flight attendant said one of the men made two trips to the rear of the plane to talk to the imam during boarding, and again when the flight was delayed because of their behavior. Aviation officials, including air marshals and pilots, said these actions alone would not warrant a second look, but the combination is suspicious.

"That's like shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater. You just can't do that anymore," said Robert MacLean, a former air marshal.

"They should have been denied boarding and been investigated," Mr. MacLean said. "It looks like they are trying to create public sympathy or maybe setting someone up for a lawsuit."

The pilot with another airline who talked to The Washington Times on condition of anonymity, said he would have made the same call as the US Airways pilot.

"If any group of passengers is commingling in the terminal and didn't sit in their assigned seats or with each other, I would stop everything and investigate until they could provide me with a reason they did not sit in their assigned seats."

One of the passengers, Omar Shahin, told Newsweek the group did everything it could to avoid suspicion by wearing Western clothes, speaking English and booking seats so they were not together. He said they conducted prayers quietly and separately to avoid attention.

The imams had attended a conference sponsored by the North American Imam Federation in Minneapolis and were returning to Phoenix. Mr. Shahin, who is president of the federation, said on his Web site that none of the passengers made pro-Saddam or anti-American statements.

The pilot said the airlines are not "secretly prejudiced against any nationality, religion or culture," and that the only target of profiling is passenger behavior.

"There are certain behaviors that raise the bar, and not sitting in your assigned seat raises the bar substantially," the pilot said. "Especially since we know that this behavior has been evident in suspicious probes in the past."

"Someone at US Airways made a notably good decision," said a second pilot, who also does not work for US Airways.

A spokeswoman for US Airways declined to discuss the incident. Aviation security officials said thousands of Muslims fly every day and conduct prayers in airports in a quiet and private manner without creating incidents.

Doubting a Grand Bargain:

2006-11-28T07:24:00.000-05:00

If we had any doubts as to the extent to which Syria and Iran will go to protect their interests viz-a-viz Hezbollah and their influence in Lebanon and the Middle East, they are demolished now. What is scary is that the "realist" school of thought that continues to dominate Foggy Bottom can't seem to see the forest through all the trees.

In their narrow, in many ways blind perspective of world events, it does not appear taht US diplomats "get it", meaning that they simply do not understand that this is a situation where talk and dialogue will not secure American interests - unless that talk and dialogue is supported by an understanding that NOT talking would mean certain doom.

Put simply, we cannot achieve diplomatic victories while we criticize the possibility of a military confrontation, while we deplore the use of force, or while we condemn our Commander in Chief as a second-rate Hitler. We can't win a diplomatic concession without a credible military option on the table any more than we can get a snack from a vending machine without
money. That is just how it works.

I hope State wakes up before they push us over the brink.

Anti-Syrian Minister Assassinated in Lebanon-Christine Hauser

Pierre Gemayel, a Lebanese cabinet minister and prominent anti-Syrian Christian leader, was shot and killed Tuesday in Beirut in the latest in a series of killings of prominent Lebanese figures who were critical of Syria. Gemayel's father is Amin Gemayel, a former president. Witnesses said at least three gunmen rammed a car into Gemayel's vehicle, then leapt out and
riddled his vehicle with bullets, firing at him with silencer-equipped automatic weapons at point-blank range. (New York Times)

See also Assassination Increases Tensions with Syria, Iran - Robin Wright

President Bush blasted Syria and Iran Tuesday after the assassination of Christian cabinet minister Pierre Gemayel for trying to destabilize Lebanon. Bush said the U.S. remains "fully committed" to supporting Lebanon's democracy despite attempts by Damascus, Tehran, and their allies in Lebanon "to foment instability and violence." He also charged that the regime of
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is in violation of two UN resolutions for its ongoing meddling in Lebanon. (Washington Post)

See also Syrian Link to Murder Threatens Blair's Policy of Engagement with Syria - Rosemary Bennett and Philip Webster

Tony Blair's policy of engagement with Syria came under immediate threat Tuesday as the assassination of a Lebanese government minister was blamed on Damascus. The murder brings the Lebanese government perilously close to collapse. The government will fall if it loses one more cabinet member. (Times-UK)

See also Syria Denies Involvement in Gemayel Assassination, Accuses Israel (Kuwait News Agency)

"Realist" picture of the Middle East:

2006-11-28T07:16:00.000-05:00

A rather accurate graphical depiction of the "realist" school's plans for the Middle East.

~JDS

Liberal Disgrace:

2006-11-28T07:00:00.000-05:00

Another example of Western disgrace. I reiterate that I believe a sensitivity to the feelings of religious and ethnic communities is an essential component of a true liberal (not lefty-loo liberal, but liberal in the way America's forefathers were liberals) society.

That being said, however, the sort of behavior exemplified by the following article is an absolute shame, and represents an inability to distinguish between respect and pandering; between honoring a group's sensitivities and tip-toeing around them so as not to permit even the perception of slight.

Were this attitude directed at all groups, one could make a case for its usefullness. But the sad truth is that this restrictive, excessive level of political correctness is corroding Western society from within, and we don't seem to be willing to stop it.

~JDS

Australian Publisher Nixes Book Over Muslim Sensitivities
By Hillel Fendel

Scholastic Australia, a publisher of books for children and youth, has refused to publish a book it commissioned - because the villains are Muslim terrorists.
Australia's national daily The Australian reports that Scholastic pulled the plug on a book by award-winning novelist John Dale after booksellers and librarians said they would not stock the adventure thriller.

Andrew Berkhut, a Scholastic general manager, said the company had canvassed "a broad range of booksellers and library suppliers," who expressed concern that the book featured a Muslim terrorist. "They all said they would not stock it," he said.

Scholastic Australia is part of Scholastic Inc., the largest publisher and distributor of books, magazines, educational and multimedia materials for children in the world. Scholastic Australia's website says it "has a strong commitment to children and education" and that it "believes that children and educators deserve the best - access to the highest-quality literature and learning materials from Australia and throughout the world."

Yet Dale's book, "Army of the Pure," was canceled because of its content - despite its fulfillment of all other Scholastic criteria. "There are no guns, no bad language, no sex, no drugs, no violence that is seen or on the page," Dale said, but "because two characters are Arabic-speaking and the plot involves a mujaheedin extremist group," Scholastic's decision is based "100 per cent [on] the Muslim issue."

Dale said the decision was "disturbing because it's the book's content they are censoring."

In March 2004, The Australian reported, Scholastic commissioned Dale to deliver "a tough, snappy thriller" that would cause young readers to "break out in sweats and their eyes to bulge without giving them actual nightmares." Scholastic later described Dale's writing as "almost flawless." Dale is the director of the Centre for New Writing at the University of Technology.

Scholastic also said that the story about four children chased by Afghan terrorists after discovering a plot to blow up Sydney's Lucas Heights nuclear reactor was a "gripping page-turner."

Dale's agent, Lyn Tranter, branded the move to withdraw the book a "gutless" publishing decision.

The Australian notes that the decision clashes with the recent publication in Australia of two books that attack the struggle against Muslim terrorism: Richard Flanagan's bestselling "The Unknown Terrorist," which is dedicated to David Hicks, a Westerner who was imprisoned after fighting side-by-side with the Taliban, and Andrew McGahan's "Underground," in which terrorists are portrayed as victims driven to extreme acts by the West's extreme struggle against Muslim terror.

The WesternResistance.com site opines, "It seems that despite the world in which today's children are growing up, where Muslim terrorists seem hell-bent on causing widespread publicity through acts of terror, politically-correct libraries and booksellers would rather delude everyone with the lie that there is no such thing as Muslim terrorism."

Articles of Interest - November 21:

2006-11-21T07:33:00.000-05:00

Articles of interest for November 21, 2006:

Aims and Methods of Europe's Muslim Brotherhood

Top court refuses to hear whether religion can be a murder defense

Dutch to Ban Muslim Veils

GM likely to launch new plug-in hybrid

Narcissism on Stilts

MIT makes case for wireless power

Unanswered Prayers

Argentina Orders Ex-Iran Leader Held

On Rivalries:

2006-11-18T17:00:00.000-05:00

A lot has been made of sports rivalries this week - at least, a lot has been made if you have been living anywhere near a radio, TV, or computer connected to a sports news portal.

There are two or three large scale rivalries in US college athletics - Duke v. UNC; Notre Dame v. USC; and of course, the mother of them all, Michigan v. Ohio State.

Of these, however, none has the nationwide intensity and appeal of Michigan v. Ohio State. Don't believe me? See for yourself. Using Google search results was an indicator of the amount of attention each rivalry gets, Michigan v. Ohio State tops them all by a significant margin.

Duke v. UNC: 1.5 million hits

Notre Dame v. USC: 2.2 million

Michigan v. Ohio State: 36.8 million

Disclaimer - I recently discovered Google's Elmer Fudd language setting, hence the bizzare English for the above Google links.

Still don't think so? Then consider that an Ohio jail has provided inmates with a pizza party for the big game (story here). I would be surprised to find out that a similar situation occurred in relation to another college rivalry.

And if that does not convince you, well, you had probably get back under that rock you have been living under for all these years... (Sorry Dick Vitale - this means you, too).

Bo, rest in peace.

To lighten the mood:

2006-11-10T20:54:00.000-05:00

Every once in a while, it helps to take time to laugh at the roses. Or something to that effect.

See below, and enjoy (pardon the quality, newsprint doesn't scan like it used to).

~JDS

Articles of Interest - November 9:

2006-11-09T07:27:00.000-05:00

Articles of interest for November 9, 2006:

Don't Mention The War

Prepare For War In Gaza - Excellent article

Confessed Al-Qaeda Operative Gets Life

Gunmen May Have Dressed As Women in Mosque Raid

Are We the Mongols of the Information Age?

Outwitting Ahmadinejad

Hizballah in Venezuela

Hamas in the New York Times - Excellent article

Bolton: Lebanon Covering Up Arms Smuggling

Since there are so many articles this post, I have noted two of the more important articles in the list above. If you don't know where to start, or have limited time, start with these.

More substantive posts to come. For now, you have some reading to do.
~JDS

Middle East Empires:

2006-11-02T07:34:00.000-05:00

The following is a very interesting web animation of the various empires that have dominated areas of what we today call the Middle East (sans audio that I noticed). Found out "in the wild" here, I have attempted to include it below. The website, MapsOfWay.com has several other interesting maps, though none as pertinent to the overwhelming focus of this blog.

To view the animation, please click here. It is worth the click, and loads with a short, few seconds wait.

Note: because this was designed for a web site of different dimensions, and because my knowledge of HTML is limited, the animation is wider than Blogger's alloted space, and so overlaps with links to the right. There is no problem with your window.

Is this the beginning of the end?

2006-11-02T07:00:00.000-05:00

Begginning of the end for the UN? I hope so...

More to come on this topic, rest assured. Stay tuned to this space.

~JDS

U.S. Sets Ambitious 'Global' NATO Summit Agenda

By PAUL TAYLOR, REUTERS, BRUSSELS

The United States set out an ambitious agenda on Oct. 30 for transforming NATO into a global security organization at a summit next month but acknowledged that some European allies have misgivings.

U.S. NATO ambassador Victoria Nuland said the 26-nation alliance had gone beyond debates about whether to act outside its Euro-Atlantic area, deploying forces on four continents in the last 18 months, most importantly in Afghanistan.

NATO is already performing missions in practice for which it has yet to adapt its theory, she said, forecasting tough drafting debates before the Nov. 28-29 summit in Riga, Latvia.

"We want NATO to be able to demonstrate when our heads meet four weeks from now that we have an alliance that is taking on global responsibilities, that it increasingly has the global capabilities to meet those responsibilities, and that it is doing it with global partners," Nuland said in a speech to the Centre for European Policy Studies think-tank.

The alliance is fighting Taliban guerrillas in Afghanistan, supporting African Union peacekeepers in Darfur, patrolling former Yugoslav battlefields in Kosovo and has flown relief supplies to earthquake victims in Pakistan.

"For the next four weeks, allies are going to spend a lot of time arm-wrestling and mud-wrestling about the words that we use in our NATO documents ... to reflect today's reality. "It's going to be a tense conversation as we head towards Riga," she said without identifying which allies objected to stating such global ambitions in the summit documents. "But today, I would argue that the reality of what's going on in NATO is outstripping our ability to encapsulate it in NATO doctrine in theory here in NATO headquarters," Nuland added.

FRANCE MOST RETICENT

Diplomats said France was most reticent about accepting a global role for the U.S.-led alliance, of which it has been a prickly, semi-detached member since General Charles de Gaulle pulled French forces out of allied military command in 1966. Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and Spain also had reservations about appearing to rebrand NATO as a world policeman, they said. Nuland said European allies were coming to realize in Afghanistan that they needed to spend more on defense and develop long-range airlift and more special commando forces to cope with 21st century security challenges. Many European allies were spending less than NATO's unofficial minimum of 2 percent of gross domestic product. The NATO Reaction Force, designed for rapid deployment to high-intensity combat situations, will not be fully operational in time for the Riga summit because of the strain on national defense resources, Nuland acknowledged.

"We are not all the way yet but we are making progress," she said.

But the summit will see progress on strategic airlift, with 14 allies and non-NATO Sweden signing a joint deal to acquire long-range C-17 heavy lift aircraft, and on joint training and communications for special forces. Politically, Nuland said the NATO council was now discussing global issues far beyond the Euro-Atlantic area, such as the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

The U.N. is a Farce:

2006-11-01T07:30:00.000-05:00

This is the price we pay for trusting in the multilateralism of the United Nations. From sex scandals (especially in Africa), to failed endeavors (PDF) in the Middle East, to UNRWA, to this most recent debacle, the UN has proven again and again that it cannot be relied upon to tie its own shoes without someone getting a kickback, or someone being hurt.

It is time we had a change. The UN has got to go.

Bolton: Lebanon Covered Up Arms Smuggling

BY BENNY AVNI - Staff Reporter of the Sun
New York Sun, October 31, 2006
http://www.nysun.com/article/42549

UNITED NATIONS — Fearing Syrian retaliation, Lebanese politicians have failed to disclose information about the illegal flow of arms to Hezbollah, the American ambassador to the United Nations said.

John Bolton spoke to reporters yesterday after a closed-door U.N. Security Council briefing on the implementation of U.N. resolutions on Lebanon, which call for an arms embargo on all Lebanese militias. Lebanese politicians, as well as the new European-led U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon, have been hesitant to confront Hezbollah and prevent from being rearmed.

Defense Minister Amir Peretz of Israel said last week that the flow of arms to the Islamist terrorist group has intensified recently, but Secretary-General Annan's special envoy to oversee the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559, Terje Roed-Larsen, told the council yesterday that he could not say whether more weapons have been smuggled to Hezbollah.

"In order to have an effective arms embargo," Mr. Roed-Larsen told The New York Sun, "there has to be cooperation from all regional partners," specifically Iran and Syria.

The government of Lebanon has informed the United Nations "that there are indeed arms which are coming over the border," Mr. Roed-Larsen said. However, he added, "They cannot give us any specifics in the form of information on volumes and types of weapons."

Lebanese politicians may be afraid of angering Syria, Mr. Bolton said. In yesterday's closed-door session, Mr. Roed-Larsen told the council that "he had received info from the government of Lebanon about the resupply of Hezbollah, in violation of the arms embargo," Mr. Bolton said."But the government was afraid to be specific about these arms coming across the Syrian-Lebanese border because of fear of retaliation."

Mr. Bolton added, "The absence of complete cooperation by the government of Syria remains very troubling in that respect. And I think it's very courageous for any of the democratic politicians in Lebanon to go on about their business under that kind of threat."

The Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Jaafari, denied that weapons have been passing across his country's border with Lebanon. He told reporters that Syria has given information to the Lebanese defense and foreign ministers that disprove reports of weapons smuggling.

Mr. Jaafari also said he had "no information" on threats that would make Lebanese officials afraid to report weapons violations. "Those who spread these lies are the ones threatening the peace and stability in Lebanon," Mr. Jaafari told Al-Arabiya TV.

The arms debate surrounding Hezbollah and other armed militias in Lebanon — over how, or even whether, to collect illegal weapons — has been contentious since the Security Council passed resolution 1559 in 2004, and that debate only intensified after the council passed resolution 1701 this summer.

The French ambassador to the United Nations, Jean-Marc de la Sabliere, said his country is convinced that disarmament should be done as part of a "national dialogue." He added yesterday that he has no information that anyone is breaking the arms embargo.

Israel, which was recently accused of violating the U.N. resolutions by flying over Lebanon, has said it will continue the flights as long as Hezbollah remains armed and the flow of weapons into southern Lebanon is not stopped. Jerusalem has accused Syria and Iran of being Hezbollah's main arms suppliers.

Lebanon so far has declined to ask the new, larger UNIFIL for help in closing off its border with Syria to enforce the arms embargo. For its part, Syria has promised Mr. Annan that it will guard its border to prevent arms smuggling. Yesterday, Mr. Jaafari said Europe had declined a Syrian request for help in putting a stop to the flow of arms.

Update on Gullibility:

2006-11-01T07:09:00.000-05:00

This clip from the indispensable MEMRI speaks volumes. How many children are quoted on mainstream or state sponsored TV in the West calling for the death of foreign diplomats? I will answer: none.

Click on if you prefer to simply read the transcript.

My previous posts on this topic can be found below:

•Gullibility
•More on Gullibility

Articles of Interest - October 30:

2006-10-30T20:30:00.000-05:00

Articles of interest for October 30, 2006:

The Dark Ages -- Live From the Middle East!

Hamas Must-See TV

POLITICALLY CORRECT WAR

Articles of interest focusing on space

Note: One of my reasons for posting articles in this manner is to provide a useful bibliography to readers of this space. If you have suggestions for articles of interest, please feel free to post them as comments, or send them to me via e-mail. As some have pointed out, my choice for these articles may appear to be one sided, and so if provided with links, I would consider posting a counter point to the perspective I post here.

~JDS

Space Policy and Threat:

2006-10-27T08:00:00.000-04:00

Here are some articles of interest focusing on space issues. Note that while the JINSA article is old, it remains relevant and insightful.

(Space) Articles of interest for October 27, 2006:

Foes See U.S. Satellite Dependence as Vulnerable Asymmetric Target

A Dangerous Step toward Space Warfare

China's GPS: Military Threat?

And here is something funny, but likely true:

Nuclear Umbrella:

2006-10-26T08:00:00.000-04:00

Get out that nuclear umbrella, we are going to need it. This article just about speaks for itself. I simply add to it the note that a truly nightmare scenario is unfolding - and we must rededicate ourselves and our nation's resources - political and otherwise - to halting the spread of nuclear weapons.

Arabs have no choice but to possess nuclear arms
Dr Ibrahim Al-Bahrawi, Al-Ittihad (UAE, Oct. 19)

Amid a flurry of recent reports about North Korea's nuclear test, Egypt was
mentioned as the sole Arab country with the potential to make a substantial
nuclear development because Cairo declared the resumption of its peaceful
nuclear program several months ago. In addition, Egypt has previous
experience in this domain - operating the "Inshas" nuclear reactor.
Moreover, Arab Gulf countries can help Egypt financially to develop its
nuclear capacity.

The Arabs (read Egyptians) should take into consideration the following
facts in this regard: Signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
does not constitute a hindrance in the face of planning a peaceful nuclear
program that can eventually be transformed into a military program.
Washington's global influence is fading and smaller countries such as North
Korea and Iran can circumvent international curbs and the US appears unable
to launch military strikes on these countries.

The Arabs face the threat of Israeli nuclear arms, with the approval of the
United States, and identical weapons in Iran's possession without approval.
Analysts believe that the Arabs have no choice but to seek to possess these
arms to repel the enemies.

Articles of Interest - October 27:

2006-10-26T07:00:00.000-04:00

Articles of interest for October 27, 2006:

'Our Rejection of Israel is Our Demise'

Cloak of Invisibility Tested

A New Terrorist Haven

Sex for Fun, IVF for Children

The Wonders of Hindsight

Veil War Breaks Out on Egypt University Campus

Enron Shmenron - Let Turtle Bay Show You How It's Done:

2006-10-25T07:29:00.000-04:00

Claudia Rosett makes an excellent point here - one that I think truly highlights the situation at Turtle Bay. The fact that we have such high level, unapologetic corruption that is the rule rather than the exception in the UN screams out for a change in our global perspective.

That is, I propose the United States - chief financier of the UN, chief force driving UN missions abroad in terms of soldiers and resources - deliver an ultimatum to this disgraceful international playground: Reform, or say goodbye. I suggest that the US deliver this message, making it clear to the world that we will no longer rubber stamp participation in the UN until we see recognizeable, measurable reforms. This means that, while we retain our seat and veto on the UNSC, we will not send over another cent of US funds - exempting dues - we will not send a single US serviceperson anywhere in a Blue Helmet, and we will absolutely NOT participate in any more UN programs until internal reform is established.

October 24, 2006

If Jeffrey Skilling Had Worked for the UN Instead of for Enron...

He'd be looking forward to years of dining out with his pals and collecting his pension in comfort. Instead, found guilty of fraud and conspiracy, he's facing a 24 year sentence.

Meanwhile, at the UN, which from 1996-2003 under the label of Oil-for-Food ran the biggest scam in the history of humanitarian relief, not a single official involved in the program has even been fired, let alone prosecuted. Oil-for-Food provided cover and conduits for UN-sanctioned Saddam Hussein to pocket billions meant strictly for relief — bribing businesses, politicians and officials of the UN itself along the way. But Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who presided over this program, and Annan's handpicked head of the program, Benon Sevan, have paid no penalties. Instead, Sevan has retired on full pension to Cyprus. And at the unreformed UN, the unrepentant and apparently unembarrassable Annan, undaunted by his own record as chief administrator of Oil-for-Fraud, has set himself up as a guru of governance — peddling a UN-corporate "Global Compact."

The real lesson here: If you want to preside over a world-class scam, don't do it in the private sector. Get yourself a top job at the UN.

Hindsight Finger-pointing or Learning While We Go:

2006-10-25T07:18:00.000-04:00

Victor Davis Hanson (VDH) has written a thought-provoking piece for the National Review Online. While I agree with VDH's assessment that hindsight is not at all productive in the current debate about how to move forward in Iraq, I do think that such review is essential to learning valuable lessons. There is a time and place, however, for such a review, and it can occur in tandem to the current situation, but ought not influence the debate about moving forward beyond taking the lessons that can be learned and applying them in an effective and appropriate manner.

Now, we can learn lessons as we go, but such lessons should not be the subject of popular debate, though this learning should be done in public. I believe that Congress should hold hearings about our Iraq policy, should study through private - though not classified - proceedings, hearing from both the military and civilian personnel who have spent time in Iraq. But these proceedings should be serious, not a media circus centered on or devolving into a blame game for the "mess". No, this should be a serious effort to learn lessons quickly and make recommendations to ensure previous mistakes or errors are not repeated. The danger, however, is that such an effort would quickly turn from productive effort to partisan fire-fight. And unfortunately, rather than sending a clear message to our political echelon that this would be beyond unacceptable, the American public - polarized as it appears to be - would likely sit back and eagerly watch the political carnage, with pundits waving their pom-poms cheering from the sidelines.

The choice is very clearly ours. I just hope we make the right decision.

Say It Ain't So!!!

2006-10-23T06:00:00.000-04:00

Assad or no Assad, dealing with Islamists is a dangerous game. Think juggling flaming knives which, by the way, are coated with acid and poison. While on a unicycle, riding on a tightrope 150 feet up.

The unfortunate truth is that the seeming utility of consorting with the enemy of our enemy is a mere illusion. What is frustrating and surprising is that the White House is even considering this, especially given the war on terror. I am an advocate of change for Syria, I think that the regime there has been in place for long enough ( i.e. too long) and I would like nothing more than to see the myriad despots and dictators in this troubled region toppled. But NOT if it means opening the floodgates towards the creation of an Islamist government, espcially not one in such a strategic position as Syria (borders with Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, et al). And though I think we SHOULD consort with "domestic" opposition to the establishment in Damascus, we should do so only as long as said opposition is NOT Islamist.

Syrian Opposition To Open Washington Office

BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 20, 2006

WASHINGTON — A Syrian opposition coalition that includes the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood will open a Washington office in the coming months to lobby Congress, the press, and the Bush administration to help bring democracy to Damascus.

The umbrella group, known as the National Salvation Front, already has the tacit approval of the National Security Council, whose officials met with some of the organization's unaffiliated and liberal representatives in August.

On November 7, Election Day for Americans, the Front will work out funding details for the new Washington office at a meeting in Brussels, Belgium. One member of its 11-member general secretariat, Husam al-Dairi, said yesterday that the Front is soliciting bids from public relations and lobbying firms. The decision to set up new digs in America's capital is significant for both the White House and the National Salvation Front.

While America has worked with both Baathists and Islamists in Iraq to quell the sectarian violence, as a general rule the Bush administration has backed away from working with Islamist groups like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Indeed, after Hamas won parliamentary elections in Gaza and the West Bank in January, the Treasury Department began pressuring Arab banks to cut ties with the Palestinian Authority, creating financial turmoil.

The National Salvation Front also has been wary of working with the Americans. But in the past two months, the leader of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Ali Sadreddine Bayanouni, has taken a series of steps aimed at casting himself in a more moderate light. In August, Mr. Bayanouni told Al-Jazeera that he would be open to negotiations with Israel over the return of the Golan Heights. Mr. Dairi said yesterday that Mr. Bayanouni would even be open to meeting with American officials.

"Mr. Bayanouni would not have a problem meeting with Americans. If he is invited, he will not refuse the invitation. He has told this to me personally, and I believe him," Mr. Dairi said.

Over the last six months, the Bush administration has expressed cautious interest in a coalition that includes the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, in part because of its frustration with the Assad regime, which the Brotherhood opposes. In March, for example, the assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, David Welch, noted that the State Department was interested in what the Front had to say. Those remarks came a few weeks after a summit between a former Syrian vice president who defected in 2005, Abdul Halim Khaddam, and Mr. Bayanouni, who agreed to work together toward the ouster of the Assad regime.

On August 24, a delegation from the National Salvation Front met with officials from the National Security Council for what one participant described as an exchange of issues, one of which was a future office in the capital.

"We did discuss a Washington office," a founder of the Front and scholar at the Brookings Institution, Ammar Abdulhamid, told The New York Sun. "There was no problem. We not detect any hostility to this idea."

Mr. Dairi gave a similar assessment of the meeting."There will be a Washington office. This has been decided," he added.

Another Syrian opposition organization, the Reform Party of Syria, has criticized the Front's plans to open an office in Washington. In a statement released this week, the party said the new space would effectively be an office of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. (The Brotherhood was responsible for a wave of terrorist attacks in Syria in the early 1980s that led President Hafez al-Assad to send his brother to the city of Hama and level it, killing at least 20,000 people.)

Yesterday, Mr. Abdulhamid refuted this characterization of his organization. He pointed out that the Front also includes several Kurdish and liberal dissidents. A fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and an authority on the Levant, Tony Badran, told the Sun that it is significant that the Front is opening a Washington office. "Americans have not said they have met with members of the Front openly, but at the same time they have not said they would not meet with them," he said. "It would be a significant move if indeed if the Front got over its problems with having anything to do with America and are now reaching out to America."

Infuriating:

2006-10-22T22:05:00.000-04:00

The following is absolutely infuriating. How can we believe anything we read coming from major reporting agencies in the Middle East? The piece below is yet another example of the pattern emerging of dishonesty in the media - a trend that convinced me to remove links to mainstream media websites from my recommended links. But with so many still relying on obviously flawed and untrustworthy news organizations this pattern of dishonesty to fulfill personal agenda presents a real problem in the critical fight to win the PR battle.

~JDS

Reuters Cameraman Remanded for Inciting Rock Attacks

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / 25 Tishrei 5767

On Tuesday, a Reuters cameraman was remanded to prison until trial for his part in rock-throwing attacks on security forces in Bil'in, where the separation fence is a constant target of protesters.

The cameraman, Imad Muhammad Intisar Boghnat, was arrested and charged as a result of violent riots in the Arab village of Bil'in, in the Modi'in region, on October 6, 2006. A videotape that the prosecution presented to the judge shows Boghnat encouraging and directing rioters in Bil'in to throw large chunks of rock at Israeli vehicles in such a way as to cause maximum damage. The accused is heard shouting, "Throw, throw!" and later, "Throw towards the little window!"

The judge of the Judea-area military court who issued the remand order, Major Amir Dahan, called the case "borderline" for pre-trial imprisonment, but he noted that the alternative of house arrest was not wise, as Boghnat is a resident of Bil'in.

"That village is a constant source of conflict and the respondent [Boghnat] should not again be placed in such a dilemma, lest he again, Heaven forbid, disgrace himself," the judge wrote in his decision. In addition, Maj. Dahan emphasized that "above all, the accused must be cut off from camera work in tense and sensitive locales where disturbances take place." Security forces must also have easy access to Boghnat, the judge said.

Suggesting a possible explanation for Boghnat's behavior, Maj. Dahan wrote that the criminal act in question may have been perpetrated "out of the desire to mollify the villagers who know him, rather than acting as he normally does, as has been preliminarily proven, as a purely objective cameraman."

In accordance with the military court's decision, Boghnat's case will be heard at the earliest possible opportunity.

Guilty For Voting:

2006-10-22T21:26:00.000-04:00

Note the comment in the short article below that we in America "are all warriors because you chose this government". I will forgo making the point that this is yet another example of the fact that radical Islamists view our society as a threat, and so it is not specific grievances that drive their violence, but a belief that Western society is somehow fundamentally unholy, and must therefore be destroyed.

Moving on from this, I second that sentiment in a way - in a deomcracy, we are not entirely innocents as we partake in the system, or at least are given the chance to do so. We therefore must take responsibility for the policies of our nation, and work to elect those who will carry out those policies that we believe to be propper.

(But by the same token, we should extend our loyalties to that same government - even if we disagree and while we maintain a healthy skepticism regarding government action here and abroad - and not attempt to dissociate ourselves simply because we don't like the leader the majority of voters has chosen. To do so is irresponsible, immature, and worst of all, social-suicide (in the sense that leads to the ultimate demise of our own society).)

However, working from the philosophical basis of our political system - namely that of John Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers - when one lives in an unjust society, one has the right and duty to rise up against that government. That is, living in a Democracy only provides us with the peaceful, nonviolent means to replace an existing government with one more just or more in line with the views of the general public - of the people. Living in an oppressive society should not excuse one of this moral, social, and personal obligation. Therefore, while Islamic fascists may be right, in a sense, to charge that all civilians in the West are complicit in the existence of our societies, our cultures, our infidel world and therefore are not innocent - so too may we consider, in a sense, that all peoples in the Middle East, living in states sponsoring or supporting terrorism are also complicit in the existence of their societies - and therefore are not innocent.

The implications of this reasoning are many, but I will not address them here. Just some food for thought.

~JDS

In the Netherlands, 6 Muslims Accused In Bomb Plot

BY TOBY STERLING - Associated Press
October 17, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/41681

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — Six Muslims accused of plotting an attack against Dutch politicians went on trial yesterday, including a man who was acquitted last year on separate charges in a setback for prosecutors.

Since Samir Azzouz's earlier trial, the government has passed new laws making membership in a terrorist organization a crime and outlawing "recruiting" for a terrorist network. Mr. Azzouz, 20, is charged with both, as well as plotting to murder one or more politicians that authorities said he considered hostile to Islam. Evidence against him includes a videotaped apparent suicide message Mr. Azzouz recorded — leaked and broadcast on national television — in which he is shown holding an automatic rifle and saying he wanted to punish the Dutch people for their government's support of the American-led war on terrorism.

"You are considered warriors because you chose this government.Your possessions and blood are promised to us," he said on the tape. Months after Mr. Azzouz's release following his April 2005 acquittal, he was arrested and accused of plotting to attack a Dutch politician or government building.Authorities said he had tried to buy weapons for the attack.

Yesterday, Mr. Azzouz grinned and chatted with his co-defendants in court.

Defense lawyer Victor Koppe says Mr. Azzouz is innocent of any wrongdoing and his latest prosecution shows authorities are prejudiced against him and harassing him.

Other evidence in the current case includes automatic weapons, digital bombmaking manuals, and a list of the home addresses of politicians, including Prime Minister Balkenende and a former member of parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, authorities said.

In June 2004, Mr. Azzouz was arrested as a suspect in the armed robbery of a grocery store. At his home, police said they found bomb-making materials and detailed maps of parliament, Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport, and a nuclear reactor. He was taken into custody, and the country was put on a nationwide terror alert that lasted for several weeks.

Investigators also said they found a pellet gun, ammunition clips and a silencer for automatic weapons, night vision goggles, and a bulletproof vest at Mr. Azzouz's home. In the April 2005 verdict, judges found the bomb-making materials he had assembled were not capable of causing an explosion. He was convicted on weapons possession charges and released with time served.

The Dutch secret service said then that it considers him a terrorist, and the agency keeps him under constant surveillance.

Articles of Interest - October 20:

2006-10-20T00:00:00.000-04:00

Articles of interest for October 20, 2006:

Sound Familiar?

2006-10-18T07:17:00.001-04:00

Does this sound familiar? It should, this is happening with increasing frequency. Violent actions against religious minorities in the Arab and Muslim Middle East (including Iran and Afghanistan) causing these populations to suffer tremendously or flee. One rarely hears of Jewish persecution in Arab/Muslim countries - but this is because these countries' Jewish populations almost completely abandoned their homes and moved to Israel or points West - and they clearly made the right choice. This sort of violence and religious animosity is something that highlights the fundamental lack of shared core values between this region of the world (excepting Israel) and the West - and one wonders what this means for the chances of a lasting peace under the current social and political conditions. When will the majority of our populations catch this clue and see that the violence is not our fault, but a symptom of an ill political and moral system that condones brutality in the name of god.

~JDS
(Disclaimer: I do not mean that war is necessarily the best course of action, nor that peace is impossible - merely that such a reality is more likely than a rosy-pink picture of what we can accomplish if only we would lay down our guns, hold hands and sing - i.e. rely on unsubstantiated diplomacy.)

Iraq's Christians Flee as Extremist Threat Worsens
New York Times, October 17, 2006
Original here

By MICHAEL LUO
BAGHDAD, Oct. 16 — The blackened shells of five cars still sit in front of the Church of the Virgin Mary here, stark reminders of a bomb blast that killed two people after a recent Sunday Mass.

In the northern city of Mosul, a priest from the Syriac Orthodox Church was kidnapped last week. His church complied with his captors' demands and put up posters denouncing recent comments made by the pope about Islam, but he was killed anyway. The police found his beheaded body on Wednesday.

Muslim fury over Pope Benedict XVI 's public reflections on Islam in Germany a month ago — when he quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor as calling Islam "evil and inhuman" — has subsided elsewhere, but repercussions continue to reverberate in Iraq, bringing a new level of threat to an already shrinking Christian population.

Several extremist groups threatened to kill all Christians unless the pope apologized. Sunni and Shiite clerics united in the condemnation, calling the comments an insult to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. In Baghdad, many churches canceled services after receiving threats. Some have not met since.

"After the pope's statement, people began to fear much more than before," said the Rev. Zayya Edward Khossaba, the pastor of the Church of the Virgin Mary. "The actions by fanatics have increased against Christians."

Christianity took root here near the dawn of the faith 2,000 years ago, making Iraq home to one of the world's oldest Christian communities. The country is rich in biblical significance: scholars believe the Garden of Eden described in Genesis was in Iraq; Abraham came from Ur of the Chaldees, a city in Iraq; the city of Nineveh that the prophet Jonah visited after being spit out by a giant fish was in Iraq.

Both Chaldean Catholics and Assyrian Christians, the country's largest Christian sects, still pray in Aramaic, the language of Jesus.

They have long been a tiny minority amid a sea of Islamic faith. But under Saddam Hussein, Iraq's million or so Christians for the most part coexisted peacefully with Muslims, both the dominant Sunnis and the majority Shiites.

But since Mr. Hussein's ouster, their status here has become increasingly uncertain, first because many Muslim Iraqis framed the American-led invasion as a modern crusade against Islam, and second because Christians traditionally run the country's liquor stories, anathema to many religious Muslims.

Over the past three and a half years, Christians have been subjected to a steady stream of church bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and threatening letters slipped under their doors.

Estimates of the resulting Christian exodus vary from the tens of thousands to more than 100,000, with most heading for Syria, Jordan and Turkey.

The number of Christians who remain is also uncertain. The last Iraqi census, in 1987, counted 1.4 million Christians, but many left during the 1990's when sanctions squeezed the country. Yonadam Kanna, the lone Christian member of the Iraqi Parliament, estimated the current Christian population at roughly 800,000, or about 3 percent of the population. A Chaldean Catholic auxiliary bishop, Andreos Abouna, told a British charity over the summer that there were just 600,000 Christians left, according to the Catholic News Service.

At the Church of the Virgin Mary, Father Khossaba showed a visitor the baptism forms for parishioners leaving the country who need proof of their religious affiliation for visas. Some weeks he has filled out 50 of the forms, he said, and some weeks more.

Attendance on Sundays has dwindled to four dozen or so, he said; it used to be more than 500 on average, and on Easter Sundays, before the collapse of the Hussein government, more than 1,500. Not all the missing members have left, of course; some simply stay at home on Sundays because of fears for their safety.

Many Christians have relocated, changing neighborhoods or even cities. About a thousand Christian families, from Mosul, Baghdad, Basra and elsewhere, have taken refuge in Ain Kawa, a small town outside the Kurdish city of Erbil, which has become an oasis for Christians, said the Rev. Yusuf Sabri, a priest at St. Joseph's Chaldean Catholic Church there.

A Christian man with Baghdad license plates on his car who asked not to be identified said he had just arrived in Ain Kawa to inquire about moving there. A leaflet had been left at his home demanding he leave in three days. It bore the signature of Muhammad's Army, a Sunni insurgent group.

"They regarded me as an agent for the crusaders," he said.

Asaad Aziz, a 42-year-old Chaldean Catholic, is one of those trying to leave the country. After the ouster of Mr. Hussein, he bought a liquor store in a mostly Shiite neighborhood. Nine days after he opened, the store was bombed. Mr. Aziz was hospitalized for a month.

The employees rebuilt the store. But several months later, a note slipped under the door gave Mr. Aziz 48 hours to close.

"Otherwise, you will blame yourself," it said.

Mr. Aziz closed. But after an unsuccessful stint at a friend's printing company, he returned to the business he knew best, opening a liquor store in a mostly Christian neighborhood. Last month, a gunman riddled the new storefront with bullets as Mr. Aziz cowered in a back room.

He told another story: the teenage daughter of another Christian family he knows was kidnapped recently. The captors initially demanded a ransom, but later sarcastically said the pope was the only one who could release her. She was eventually killed.

"When the pope gave his statement, it destroyed any last hope that we had here," said Mr. Aziz, who has forbidden his daughters, one in high school and the other in college, to return to school.

He recently went to the Turkish Embassy to inquire about a visa but was rebuffed. At this point, he said, he will go anywhere.

"We cannot practice our rituals and we cannot bring food home to our families," he said. "That's why I want to leave the country."

Mosul, near the historic heart of Christianity in Iraq, has also become increasingly dangerous. The recently murdered priest, the Rev. Boulos Iskander Behnam, is just the latest member of the Christian community to be kidnapped or killed there.

Conditions have been especially bleak for Christians in Basra, the southern city that is dominated by radical Shiite militias. Christian women there often wear Muslim head scarves to avoid harassment from religious zealots trying to impose a strict Islamic dress code. After the pope's statement, an angry crowd burned an effigy of him.

In Baghdad, Juliet Yusef attends St. George's, the country's lone Anglican church. She, too, now wears a head scarf anytime she ventures outside her neighborhood. "I am afraid of being attacked," she said.

Dora, a neighborhood in southern Baghdad that was once heavily populated by Christians and has been plagued by sectarian violence, has now been mostly emptied of them. Christians were singled out there by insurgents who accused them of being friendly with the occupying Americans.

"They are Christian, we are Christian," said one holdout, who asked to be identified only by her first name, Suzan. "They think most likely we know each other well."

Two priests were kidnapped over the summer in Dora, although both were released, one after nearly a month.

Oddly, before the pope's comments, as sectarian violence has escalated in Baghdad in the past year, some said the situation might have actually improved for Christians as Muslim militants turned their attention on one another.

Canon Andrew White, the Anglican vicar of Baghdad, who lives in Britain but visits Iraq frequently, said his driver was kidnapped recently but was promptly released after his Sunni Arab captors discovered he was a Christian. He said his captors apologized by saying, "We thought he was Shiite."

"It must be the only occasion when being a Christian actually helped in this country," he said.

Wisam H. Habeeb and Khalid al-Ansary contributed reporting from Baghdad, and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times from Mosul.

Articles of Interest - October 18:

2006-10-18T06:49:00.000-04:00

Articles of interest for October 18, 2006:

Clog-busters

Op-Eds Now More Central In War Than Bullets

Holiday from History

Bush - Noble, but Mistaken

No Islamic Law in Minnesota, For Now

Radicalizing Muslims in Prison:

2006-10-17T07:35:00.000-04:00

This is not a new subject - nor is it a new threat. But it is an issue that should be of growing concern. as events in Spain have shown, there is real potential for danger in allowing our prisons to become radicalized. I do not wish to overstate the ominous nature of such activities, but I dare not understate it.

See the piece below, and stay tuned - rumor has it another project focusing on this subject is in the works.

JDS

"Captive Audience" wins CP Innovation Award at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism
Original here

In their film, "Captive Audience," Columbia University graduate student producer/reporters Jamieson Clair, Mukul Devichand and Muhammed Athar Lila reveal the disturbing and growing trend of extremist Wahabbi Islamic ideology being spread trough the New York State prison system. State approved Islamic chaplains and others are converting these captive audiences to the Whabbi faith, often over the objections of Sunni and Shiite Muslims, as well as prisoners with other religious beliefs.

"I would like to save America." – Warith-Deen Umar

Wahhabism is a fundamentalist breed of Sunni Islam rooted in Saudi Arabia that teaches a literal reading of the Quran and denounces people of other faiths—even other Muslims—that do not abide by its absolutist interpretations. Its followers include the Saudi Arabian royal family, the Afghani Taliban, and an increasing number of United States prison inmates.

"Captive Audience" chronicles the rise of Wahhabism in American prisons and investigates why this particular breed of faith among the "captive audience"—both imprisoned and fascinated—is becoming a serious threat to the security of the American republic.

The main subject of the documentary is Warith-Deen Umar, largely recognized as single-handedly responsible for bringing Wahhabism to American prisons and recently banned from entering all New York State prison facilities. As the Former Head Muslim Chaplain of New York State Prisons, Umar allegedly preached anti-Western radicalism to Muslim inmates—most of whom were converted while incarcerated—and taught other Islamic chaplains to do the same.

The film also follows the story of Frankie Cancel, a former New York State inmate, who filed a lawsuit against New York prison commissioner Glenn S. Goord that claimed Islamic chaplains, who were all Wahhabi, used literature and sermons to teach followers to hate and discriminate against Shiite and others of non-Wahhabi faith, even encouraging them to support the September 11 attacks.

In a series of interviews with supporters, rivals, and historical scholars of Wahhabism both in America and Saudi Arabia, "Captive Audience" explores from all angles how an extremist sect of the Islamic faith has infiltrated prison culture. It attempts to inform and warn against the rising generation of America’s newest terrorists—trained and bred in our own correctional institutions.

Program title: Captive Audience
Director: Jamieson Clair, Mukul Devichand and Muhammed Athar Lila

Contact publicity@cameraplanet.com

So Now it Matters:

2006-10-16T06:46:00.000-04:00

Apparently, it now matters in the Middle East what other countries would or would not tolerate. As the piece below reports, Lebanese Prime Minister complained last week of the Israeli military overflights of Southern Lebanon, claiming 'nobody else would tolerate this, why must Lebanon?' (paraphrase)

Ok. So it now matters what some would tolerate viz-a-viz the actions of another state in relation to one's own. This is remarkable insofar as there is another state in this region that has been required by the international community to endure offenses to its sovereignty more severe than overflights of a conflict zone in the process of being transitioned to UN forces for monitoring. Israel.

So let's make a list of grievences Israel faces that other countries would not tolerate:

Constant threat of attack from a suicidal population hell-bent on its destruction

Forced to attempt to engender peace with organizations that call explicitly for its destruction, refuse to recognize it as a soveriegn state, and sends women and children to attack innocent civilians

Forced to demolish buildings and tunnels used to house families who act as a cover for the preparations of violent terrorist activities

Being subjected to international pressure to concede territory to aggressive terrorist groups in the hope that this will induce them to moderate their stance, soften their rhetoric, and 'play nice'

Facing unprecedented international criticism for simple acts of self defense that target those who seek to engage in violence against the state

This list goes on, but need not be continued here as I believe the point is made. However, two wrongs don't make a right, as the saying goes. (Readers should note that the author does not believe Israel's overflights to be a wrong, but used the phrase for the sake of argument). Perhaps now Lebanon will get a sense of the indignity Israel is forced to live with in part as a result of Lebanon's own unwillingness to deal effectively with Hezbollah. Perhaps, but not likely. After all, hypocrisy isn't a sin when it relates to relations with an infidel.

Please note that the emphasis below is added.

Overflights by Israel Said to Violate Truce

The Washington Post

Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora warned Wednesday that Israeli military flights over his country's territory were endangering a nearly two-month-old truce that ended this summer's war between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah movement.

Siniora, speaking in an interview, said the overflights were occurring daily. The United Nations, which considers them a violation of the Aug. 14 truce, said it recorded 10 overflights of warplanes and surveillance drones from Oct. 3 to midnight Oct. 9.

"I am willing to accept whatever any other sovereign country would accept for itself. Would they allow it?" Siniora asked at his office in the Serail, the government headquarters. "I mean, would the United States allow flyovers of Russian planes? If they would allow it, I accept it. Why do you expect me to do something more than what 195 countries would accept for themselves?"

Israel has said it will continue overflights of Lebanese territory until U.N. Resolution 1701 is, in its view, implemented fully. It says that would require the return of the two soldiers that Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shiite group, captured in a cross-border raid on July 12 and an inspection mechanism to ensure that no weapons cross the Syrian border into Lebanon to resupply Hezbollah guerrillas.

The overflights pose a delicate issue for Siniora, whose government has come under pressure from Hezbollah and followers of a powerful Christian politician, Michel Aoun, to resign in favor of a government they deem more representative.

Since 2000, when Israel ended its occupation of southernmost Lebanon, Hezbollah had represented the main armed presence in that region and had contended that the Lebanese army, vastly outgunned by its Israeli equivalent, was too weak to protect the border. After the August cease-fire, the Lebanese army was deployed to the south for the first time in a generation, a move that Siniora has hailed as one of his government's greatest achievements. Hezbollah has warned, however, that it might act if Israeli violations of the truce continue and the Lebanese army and a newly strengthened U.N. force in the area do nothing to end them.

Siniora said that, in time, the army might have to respond to Israel's actions. "It is the duty of our army to defend the country, and this is what it should do," he said.

But the prime minister acknowledged that the dispute would probably have to be resolved diplomatically. "Now we are exhausting all diplomatic channels and means, and this is how it should be done," he said. He added that even when Hezbollah was effectively guarding the border from 2000 to 2006, Israeli overflights were routine but the Shiite militia was largely powerless to stop them.

Siniora's government, which is backed by the United States and European countries, is at the center of a growing polarization in Lebanese politics that sometimes breaks along sectarian lines, sometimes along those of ideology. The tension, often most pronounced between the country's Sunni and Shiite Muslim communities, has left many here gloomy about what lies ahead.
Aoun and, to a lesser extent, Hezbollah have demanded that Siniora's cabinet resign in favor of what they call a "national unity government" that would give them more power. Corruption, rife in Lebanese public life, is one of their biggest complaints. So is what they view as the government's ineffectiveness.

At another level are two views of the war's end: Hezbollah contends its military prowess deprived Israel of a victory; Siniora said the government's diplomacy was responsible for the U.N. resolution that ended the fighting.

If Hezbollah wants "to bring the government down, this is a legitimate objective of the opposition," said Siniora, who assumed his position in July 2005. "But it is a legitimate right of the other side to defend this position and to prove to the other that they are wrong, and that is what we are doing.
"The government," he added, "is not the place for dialogue."

I Live For This:

2006-10-14T17:11:00.000-04:00

Teams of destiny are on the move. Consider the relatively improbable championships of recent memory: Detroit Pistons, Pittsburgh Steelers, Chicago White Sox, and now the ascendant Detroit Tigers.

None of these teams could be mistaken as the Bad News Bears, but each came out as the top team in their respective sport through hard nosed play, good team chemistry, and that little touch of magic that makes a
team destined for greatness. They have had that Midas touch where the net appears to pull the ball through the rim as though by magnetism, when a ground ball hits the ground and takes a very friendly (or unfriendly if you are on the other side) bounce into the outfield, or a cornerback blows his coverage and leaves the receiver open down field. And these teams have won against some daunting odds.

It is that intangible, that elusive element found in athletic competition that drives teams to tournament success - it is that touch of magic that makes sports so entertaining - but especially baseball!!

Articles of Interest - October 14:

2006-10-14T00:30:00.000-04:00

Articles of interest for October 14:

Negotiating in the bazaar

A Lack of Tolerance That Is Justified

What Will Stop North korea?

The United Nations is a Complete Failure:

2006-10-14T00:00:00.000-04:00

The UN, conceived with the greatest of ambitions and highest of hopes to create a global community capable of working out the world's problems without the use of force is a complete and utter failure. This grand experiment in international diplomacy has proven itself an ineffective, inefficient, and irrelevant exercise in futility.

The UN's complete lack of effective management of ANY program it has undertaken where the stakes were real and the price of failure more than a ripple of frustration. Whether it is the UN Human Rights Commission's offensive lack of perspective - i.e. submitting more resolutions about Israel than about Darfur, or Iran, or China (for specifics I refer you to the Eye on the U.N. website dealing with these matters); whether it is the Oil for Food scandal; UNIFIL; UNRWA; lack of action on Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda; running at first blood from any conflict zone (consider Iraq); accusations of sexual impropriety...the list goes on.

Consider the Iranian nuclear program and the UN's seeming inability to achieve consensus on how to bring it to a halt. Consider the fact that the best the UN can come up with are ambiguously worded, highly touted, and ultimately inefficient resolutions.

What is needed is a coalition of democracies - or, more to the point, a Coalition of Free States. Such a club would be based on shared values, would provide proportional voice to larger countries while maintaining the integrity of the voices of smaller states. Membership would be limited to those states that truly abide by the principles of democracy, that provide equal opportunities to minorities, women, and share a respect for human life.

There would be no room for countries like Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, China, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et al. That is, this international body would be comprised of states deserving of membership rather than states whose political or strategic value mandates coddling them and ignoring their moral shortcomings.

But whether or not a new international body is created, one thing remains clear to me: the United Nations is a failed experiment. And though the idea is a good one, this incarnation is as utter a failure as its predecessor, the League of Nations.

Social Comments:

2006-10-13T07:01:00.000-04:00

Is it just me, or does there seem to be a disconnect in our country between government and people? I grant that Watergate and subsequent revelations of powerful people behaving badly (can you say, Rep. Mark Foley?) have soured the
population's attitude towards its leaders, but I suggest that there is a growing problem here.

With the exception of now hokey super-heroes and comic book fantasies, America is captivated by the criminal hero - the guy or gal who is able to beat the system, defy the system, or declare outright war on it. Consider movies like the Godfather, the Matrix trilogy, mini-movies like the Sopranos, Bart Simpson, the list of highly recognizable pop culture icons goes on. Even Pamela Anderson's truly B-movie Barb Wire falls into this category. Sure there are shows like Law and Order, or CSI and their spin-offs and reinterpretations, but these don't serve to counter the imensity of the other point of view. (Would anyone think a Law and Order movie would do nearly as well as The Matrix?)

All of this romanitcizing about the "freedom" and "courage" of the outlaw hero creates an emnity between the protectors of actual freedoms and those they are protecting. It is now fashionable to despise the president of the United States and his entire administration - to vilify an elected official for enacting the policies we knew he would.

So what is my point in all of this? I wonder, at times, why so few people do anything about it. I wish instead of jumping on the "Bush-bashing" bandwagon more people went to the polls and voted. With the percentage of eligible voters actually voting so low, I am disgusted by the laziness of so many and the willingness (preference?) to yell and scream in righteous indignation about the ills our country faces and the failings of our political establishment when they don't do their part, their duty, to establish a government they believe will achieve the goals they deem important.

We have a Congressional election coming up. As a resident of the nation's capital, I do not have the opportunity and privilege to vote for representation in Congress. But I implore my fellow citizens to exercise this right, this power. If you are unhappy with the current political leadership, take control of your government. Help shape our future leadership, or else stop bitching when others do it for you.

On Religious Freedoms:

2006-10-13T06:42:00.000-04:00

The question of religious freedom is a relevant one today. What religious acts are considered acceptable and what others are not? A tangential question, which I raise here for rhetorical value rather than to engage in a prolonged discussion on ths object, is what religious speech should be condoned/permitted and what denied (if any)?

But to religious freedom. I raise the topic in the context of the Muslim veil - worn by most Muslim women in some form or other. There are a variety of different veils, ranging from the recognizeable hijab (headscarf covering the hair but leaving the face exposed), to the more commonly known (at least by name) burqa (which covers the entire body, as well as covering the face with a mesh so as to conceal even the facial features of the wearer). These iterations hail from different subcultures within Islam and are typical of different regions. It should be noted that there are other customary veils worn in
other parts of the Muslim world. I will leave it to the reader to explore the details of this religious practice on their own time.

For now, I wish to consider the following news from the BBC (for poignant review of the BBC as an institution, I would direct you to read some of Melanie Phillips's comments about it).

The Islamic veil across Europe
Comments by British cabinet minister Jack Straw are the latest episode
in a Europe-wide debate on the Islamic veil.

Mr Straw said he asked Muslim women visitors to his offices to remove their veils to facilitate communication.

Countries across the continent have wrestled with an issue that takes in religious freedom, female equality, secular traditions and even fears of terrorism.

The piece continues to provide a list of some European concepts of how to approach the question of the veil.

FRANCE

A ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools was introduced in 2004.

The measure received overwhelming political and public support in a country where the separation of state and religion is enshrined in law.

However, headscarves can be worn in Muslim schools, and at university level, where the law on religious signs does not apply.

TURKEY

For the past 80 years Turks have lived in a secular state founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who rejected headscarves as backward-looking in his campaign to secularise Turkish society.

Even so, it is estimated that as many as 65% of Turkish women cover their heads with a scarf.

Nonetheless, scarves are banned in civic spaces, including schools, universities - state or private - and official buildings.

In November 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled the ban was legitimate.

BRITAIN

There is no ban on Islamic dress in the UK.

However, schools are allowed to forge their own dress code.

The courts were forced to rule when a schoolgirl complained that her school sent her home for wearing a jilbab, which covers the entire body, except for hands, feet, face, and head.

The courts said the school made sufficient concessions by allowing the Islamic trousers and tunic.

GERMANY

In September 2003 the federal Constitutional Court ruled in favour of a teacher who wanted to wear an Islamic scarf to school.

However, it said states could change their laws locally if they wanted to.

At least four German states have gone on to ban teachers from wearing headscarves and in the state of Hesse the ban applies to all civil servants.

RUSSIA

Russia's Supreme Court has overturned a 1997 interior ministry ruling which forbade women from wearing headscarves in passport photos.

ITALY

In September 2004 local politicians in the north of Italy resurrected old laws against the wearing of masks, to ban women from wearing the all-over burqa.

In July 05 the Italian parliament approved anti-terrorist laws which make hiding one's features from the public - including through wearing the burqa - an offence.

BELGIUM

The city of Maaseik, on the Dutch border, has banned the niqab, which covers the whole body except for the eyes.

So why would countries impose a ban on religious garb? Is this something that the U.S. should ever consider?

This is a difficult question. In a day when individual identity is easily changed, stolen, or otherwise abused I believe it is absolutely essential that the government be able to issue ID cards and papers (think passports, driver's licenses, voter registration cards, etc.) that accurately reflect and represent the individual carrying them. Even foregoing the counter-terrorism argument, I believe that photo IDs are a necessary requirement for people inside any country as a means of facilitating the execution of State (i.e. laws of the nation in question) law. To this end, I think that the Italian approach ought to be adopted here in the USA.

But what about the question of religious freedom that is a cornerstone of our country? As a feature that has drawn wave after wave of immigrants, and allowed them to create a comfortable life here content with their own freedom to worship whatever, whomever and however they so choose, I am loathe to suggest even the smallest infraction on such liberties. Perhaps a sort of compromise could be created such that veils like the burqa or other Muslim veils or other religious garb that similarly conceal the features of the wearer could be legally worn, yet be removed in the event that identity must be established. That is, perhaps such garb could be permitted unless there is a need to identify the wearer, at which point she must legally remove the veil to the extent that her features can be identified and compared to the photo on her ID.

This seems a fair compromise, but does raise the specter of violating religious freedoms in certain instances. Is this something that we can or should accept? I am struggling to find a reason why not.

Feel free to weigh in...

~JDS

UPDATE October 24, 2006: I note that the subject of the veil has become a point of controversy elsewhere in the world - viz Egypt. It seems there does exist doubt that some of the more concealing forms of the veil worn by Muslim women is required by Islam. As previously indicated, I believe that the right to individual freedom of worship in America is one of our truly great societal innovations, but in a world facing threats of terrorism, violence from previously docile civilians motivated by ideology - the greater good must permit us to place some VERY (can I emphasize this any more?) modest restrictions on this freedom to permit those we task with maintaining our peace the ability to carry out their duty.

How to Play the Game:

2006-10-11T07:28:00.000-04:00

I often post and comment on world events, especially those involving the War on Terror (which, I think, is something of an obsolete moniker and has been since its inception - new names, anyone?). And though I am an avid White Sox fan, I found the following article about the Tigers to be terrific. Good writing is good writing, and when it is about baseball it is something everyone can appreciate, regardless of allegiances.

~JDS

MITCH ALBOM: Win one for the skipper

A rarity in pro sports, Tigers love the manager

BY MITCH ALBOM
Detroit Free Press
COLUMNIST

October 10, 2006

SKIPPER AND SLUGGER: Tigers manager Jim Leyland, left, leaves rightfielder Magglio Ordonez with a smile during batting practice during last month's pennant chase. Leyland could join Sparky Anderson as the only men to win a World Series in the American League and National League. (JULIAN H. GONZALEZ/Detroit Free Press)

Detroit's most beloved coach?
Jim Leyland has a shot to become the fifth Detroit coach to win a pro sports title since 1989. And he might be the most beloved of the lot.

Bill Laimbeer: Shock titles in '03 and '06. Carries rep as whiner from playing days to the coaching box.

Larry Brown: Pistons title in 2004. The drama was always about Larry, not his stars.

Scotty Bowman: Red Wings titles in '97, '98, '02. He intimidated players more than inspired them.

Chuck Daly: Pistons titles in 1989 and 1990. Acclaimed as the master of leaving his players alone.

The Jim Leyland file
Age: 61.

Born: Toledo, grew up in Perrysburg, Ohio.

Player: Spent parts of seven seasons as a minor-league catcher for the Tigers.

Manager: Spent 11 seasons in minors with the Tigers. Tony LaRussa's third-base coach with White Sox for four years. Hired by Pittsburgh in 1986.

Awards: Manager of the year twice in National League, three times in the minors. Won World Series with Florida in 1997.

As his team danced around the field in raucous celebration, Jim Leyland found his wife and kids and kissed them through a backstop. Then a fan raced forward and puckered up and Leyland hesitated, embarrassed, and then -- why not? -- he kissed the fan's cap. Champagne was spraying and flashbulbs were exploding and the stadium was thundering noise and suddenly Leyland was on the shoulders of his players, carried off like a sultan, the kind of ride you never forget.

A year earlier, he made a different ride. A car ride, alone, from Pittsburgh to Detroit. He was taking a new job, managing a team that had become a sad, pathetic story, a real head-shaker, the kind of story that in some ways the craggy, white-haired Leyland had become. After flaming out in Colorado, he had not seen a dugout in six years. It took that long for the frayed edges of his charred wiring to heal. I am no longer a burnout, Leyland told himself. He told his new employers, too. I have the fire again. If you believe me, hire me. If not, don't.

They hired him, and he lead-footed to Detroit like a man afraid they might change their mind. In his news conference, Leyland, who can put himself down in a league with Rodney Dangerfield, tried to be painfully honest. He said he was "rusty." He said he needed to "sharpen up on the game." Asked about the roster, he said:

"I know very little about your ballclub."

Huh? A manager doesn't know the players? Isn't that like a pilot who doesn't know the plane? A CEO who doesn't know the product line?

"I made an ass of myself in that press conference," Leyland said Saturday night, recalling the moment. "What I meant was I didn't know what made the players tick. I knew who they were. I'd seen them play some ... but you have to find out what makes each guy tick, and I didn't know anything about that."

He does now. He knows their ticks and their tocks. He knows their talents. He knows their hearts. We are witnessing something rare in sports, here, folks. In one season, Leyland, 61, has so ingratiated himself to his players that they are actually trying to win this thing for him as well as themselves.

This is Mike Illitch's payroll. This is Dave Dombrowski's roster.

But this is Jim Leyland's team.

Speaking up for the boss

"Leyland's the best," Jeremy Bonderman told the media in the aftermath of the clincher against the Yankees. This from the pitcher who was the story of the night -- who shut down the best offense in baseball? And he was crediting the manager?

Yep, and he's not alone. Player after player spoke about Leyland's influence, his leadership, his wisdom, his confidence. It is not uncommon to hear Tigers players say, "Skip is the reason we're here."

But it is uncommon.

Think about it. Players today play largely for themselves, sometimes for their teammates, but almost never for the coach or manager. Oh, sure, if they win a championship, they might douse the guy with Gatorade or throw him a compliment in a news conference. But to really play for him? To go through a wall for him? To respect his decisions when he takes the ball away from them, or platoons them, or benches them? Where do you see that in sports anymore? Maybe college? Maybe?

You didn't see it in recent Detroit championships. When the Pistons won their latest title, they didn't do it for Larry Brown -- they may have done it despite him. When the Red Wings won their Stanley Cups, they certainly gave credit to Scotty Bowman, but he scared them more than inspired them.

Loving your manager, hoisting him on your shoulders -- well, you don't see that in the professional ranks very often. But you're seeing it here. And it's happening to a guy who deserves every bump in that elevated ride, a guy who is loyal to his old friends and family first, a guy who is so non-nonsense, it's fun to see him in nonsense, a guy who is hard on himself, hard on his team, but soft enough to choke up and drop a few tears when he thinks about what his players have done in this one year under his tutelage.

"It wasn't really until the winter caravan that I could look them in the eye and pretty much tell you the ones who believed in themselves and the ones who doubted themselves ..." he recalled. "When we got to spring training, I had a pretty good idea of who was tentative and who was aggressive and ... who we had to have a change in the mind-set for. Not that I'm that smart, but when you've been around players as much as I've been around them, you get a pretty good idea."

Ninety-five victories? Best ERA in baseball? Knocked off the Yankees in four games?

Yeah. Pretty good idea.

Doing things the right way

Most baseball people, seeing Leyland on Saturday night, have been saying things like "it couldn't happen to a nicer guy." Which is a cliché, of course. But it's not "we wish him all the best." When they say "it couldn't happen to a nicer guy," that's a cliché you have to earn.

Leyland has earned it the hard way, by tasting success, then tasting failure, then tasting a life with only minimal contact with the game he loved. One reason people celebrate Leyland so much is because he's a redemption story. In his time away from the dugout, Leyland learned to appreciate things. Family. Time to think. He also learned to appreciate what he got out of the game -- and what the game gave him back. You wonder what went wrong in Colorado that led to his departure -- leaving $4 million on the table. He apologizes for his time there now and says, "I stunk."

But whatever it was, it is out of his system now. I have spent much of my life going in and out of coaches' offices and locker rooms. I can tell you that when you enter Leyland's office -- a plain and simple place, no trophies, no celebratory magazine posters of himself, no shrines to his accomplishments -- you enter a no-nonsense room dusted in honest emotion. Although he tries to keep that baritone voice at an even keel, after a loss, you can feel a whiff of his heartbreak. After a victory, you can feel a whiff of his pride.

He told a story Saturday night about getting on a team bus in New York last week and finding his customary front seat taken. So he found a seat in the middle of the bus, and then Marilyn Monroe, Craig Monroe's mother, sat down next to him and told him he was "old school" and that he "scared these guys."

"No, I don't scare anybody," he said. "No," she insisted, "you're old school and you tell 'em the way it is."

That was baseball's version of a parent-teacher conference.

And that is what this crazy season has been about. Leyland has been a fatherly (some would say grandfatherly) influence on many of the young Tigers. Alan Trammell, who preceded him, was still too close to his playing years and maybe too close to the franchise to drop a hammer when he needed. But Leyland doesn't tell players how he used to do it. He tells them how they have to do it. And they are just young enough, hungry enough and inspired enough to follow him through a wall -- or carry him through it on their shoulders.

"I think they were carrying me off to get rid of me," he joked. But it was a great ride, and it continues tonight, in Oakland, were the uniforms will be champagne-free, the expressions will be serious, and the scowl will return beneath the white mustache of Jim Leyland's wizened face.

But that scowl cannot fool us. Not anymore. We have seen the man kiss a fan's cap, seen him swig champagne, seen him hug guys such as Pudge Rodriguez without saying a word because words couldn't say any more than the embrace. We have seen the man happy, and so have his players, and it is a sight they want to fight to see again. How many skippers can say that? Not many at all.

On Moral Inversion:

2006-10-10T07:04:00.000-04:00

I would like to comment on an excerpt from Inside Politics September 27, 2006 (Washington Times).

I could not agree more with Mr. Munsil's comments. And although he is discussing an Arizona project, I think his comments speak to a larger phenomenon. As some have argued (see here and here), the 9/11 memorial being created for ground zero and the new WTC is in fact a tribute to precisely the moral confusion and relativistic inversions of world events that allowed jihadism to strike us on that fateful morning. Bear in mind, the US had been struck before - 1993 WTC, hijacked airplanes, the USS Cole, African embassies - and we treated each as nothing more than isolated incidents. Bin Laden pronounced his fatwah in 1998 - 3 years before 9-11, and yet all of this is our fault.

No, it is not our fault. It is not our fault that others hate us, it is their problem that we are in a position of power and they are not - and we should not be ashamed of where we are. After all, we got ourselves here, and to be ashamed at our strength and might is to be ashamed of our heritage, to be ashamed of the hard work and progress sought by our grandparents and great grandparents - to be ashamed of our own success. One might argue that with this power comes equal responsibility to act benevolently in the world, but we are not intentioanlly tyranical, nor truly imperialistic - and it is not for us to bear the blame for the hatred and jealousy that lies in the hearts of others.

I could mention here that many refuse our help even when it is offered without political strings - polio vaccines were refused, emergency aid passed on in the aftermath of natural disasters (for example - here and here), and I would bet there are more examples that I cannot here recount.

But the point is this: just because another is unhappy with us does not mean that we are bad and they good, no matter how convincing their argument. There are ways for human beings to work together to achieve harmony with one and other - and suicide bombings, fomenting riots, attacks on civilians, and the rest of the panoply of terrorist tactics are not productive means of achieving civil discourse and correcting problems - they are means of intimidation, conquest, and outright hatred. So let's not miss the moral truth of today's situation. Terrorists/Islamists=bad. We may not be good, but there is no mistake that they are evil.

Moral relativism
The Republican candidate for Arizona governor says the state's new September 11 memorial should be torn down, calling it an insult to America.
"It reminds us of American failings and American mistakes, real and imagined, before and after 9/11. This memorial is a tribute to moral relativism," Len Munsil said yesterday, according the Associated Press.
The memorial features such quotations as, "You don't win battles of terrorism with more battles" and "Erroneous U.S. air strike kills 46 Afghanistan civilians," among other things.
"Only in the relativistic context of left-wing protesters holding 'Bush is a terrorist' signs do such inscriptions make any sense," said Mr. Munsil, founder of the Center for Arizona Politics.
"It explains why despite the outpouring of public prayer and the bipartisan singing of 'God Bless America' on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, there is not a single mention of God in this memorial," Mr. Munsil said.
"I'm just sorry that they're trying to politicize 9/11. That's just wrong," Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano said.

A Curious Imbalance:

2006-10-06T07:32:00.000-04:00

When was the last time the Palestinian Authority, or the government of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Pakistan or any of the other Arab/Muslim states took similar action against individuals claiming intent to attack Jews or Jewish targets? Against American or Western targets?

Stumped? With good reason - this doesn't happen.

Take it as a case-in-point if you ever doubt our moral superiority in this war we are fighting.

~JDS

Israeli Held for Vowing Attack at Muslim Shrine
Published: October 5, 2006
Filed at 6:39 a.m. ET

TEL AVIV (Reuters) - An Israeli Jew has been arrested for threatening to carry out an attack at a major Muslim shrine in Jerusalem and could face criminal charges, police said on Thursday.

The suspect, described in media reports as a rabbi in his early 50s, was taken into custody on Wednesday after making the threat about al-Aqsa mosque in the lobby of a Tel Aviv hotel, national police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said.

The suspect has been sent for psychiatric evaluation. He will appear at Tel Aviv Magistrates' Court on Thursday and police are seeking an indictment against him on charges of threatening behavior.

``He was overheard at the hotel and, under interrogation, repeated his threat to carry out an attack at the Temple Mount,'' Rosenfeld said, using the Jewish term for the al-Aqsa plaza, which is known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif or Noble Sanctuary.

Rosenfeld said the suspect was not known to have been involved in criminal or political violence.

``He has a clean record so this is not something that should be blown out of proportion. We will let the courts deal with him,'' Rosenfeld said.

Al-Aqsa mosque, located in Arab East Jerusalem, has been a frequent flashpoint during decades of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel captured East Jerusalem during a 1967 war and annexed it as its capital in a move not recognized abroad.

The mosque is Islam's third holiest shrine. Jews revere the site as the last vestige of two ancient temples.

Articles of Interest - October 6:

2006-10-06T07:04:00.000-04:00

Articles of Interest for October 6, 2006:

Why Do Muslims Execute Innocent People?

Saudi Arabia Woos China and India

Fury at 'Moral Grounds' Cop-Out

At Columbia, Students Attack Minuteman Founder

End of Summer Diplomacy (PDF) - Note: This link will bring up the document itself, which is not posted to my archive.

Confronting Islamist Totalitarianism

Articles of Interest:

2006-10-05T07:29:00.000-04:00

From time to time I will simply post a smattering of links - a selection of articles of interest. I have posted the pieces listed below, as well as many others, to my Article Archive page. If for any reason you refer to the articles I provide, please give credit to the original author and/or publication. Happy reading.

Articles of Interest for October 5, 2006:

Human Rights in Iran: Women's Struggle Against Discrimination by the Regime

America is Different Because America is Free

Stay Away from Syria

Mums the word, lest we provoke a lethal tantrum

The Missing Muslim Outcry

Islamic Fascism 101

Submit or Die

Misunderstanding Islam

Permitting Radical Rage:

2006-10-03T21:01:00.000-04:00

Despite what the title of this post might suggest, I don't mean to lay specific blame on any particular party for the specific incident related below.

I do, however, wish to draw parallels between this sort of threat and the responses to those now-famous Danish Cartoons, the Pope's recent remarks, and the myriad of other examples of this sort of thing.

To make my point, we in the West must stop pandering to the Muslim world - we must stand up for our freedom of speech, we must make it abundantly clear that rather than worrying about Muslim sensitivities, Muslims must grow accustomed to our freedom of thought and expression. No more apologies for unwarranted hurt or perceived insult. I do not wish to excuse bigotry or dedicated insensitivity, but there must come a time when those who claim to be insulted should be told, simply "deal with it."

How much more of this posturing and intimidation will the civilized world take? At what point will enough people wake up and realize both that we are engrossed in a war (and not Iraq or Afghanistan) and the stakes of this war? I hope the answer is soon, for I begin to worry about what might happen if not.

Philosophers demand help for teacher on run from Islam threats
From Charles Bremner in Paris The Times (London) October 03, 2006
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2385684,00.html
INTELLECTUALS are rallying around a philosophy teacher forced into hiding after he wrote an article describing the Prophet Muhammad as a ruthless warlord and mass murderer. Robert Redeker, a writer who teaches at a lycée near Toulouse, has been under police protection, moving between secret addresses, since threats against him appeared on Islamist websites last week. His home address was published with calls to murder. “You will never feel secure on this earth. One billion, 300 million Muslims are ready to kill you,” one message said. One threat came from a contributor to al- Hesbah, an internet forum that is viewed as a channel for al-Qaeda. Despite the threats the Government has offered M Redeker, 52, only limited support.

More than 20 stars of the French intellectual world appealed yesterday to the Government to do more to help. They included the philosophers Bernard-Henri Lévy, Alain Finkielkraut and André Glucksmann. M Redeker, who is on the editorial board of Les Temps Modernes, a review founded by Jean-Paul Sartre, has said that he cannot afford to pay for his accommodation and other costs in hiding. “I cannot work, I cannot come and go. I have to hide,” he said. “So . . . the Islamists have succeeded in punishing me on the territory of the Republic as if I were guilty of a crime of opinion.” …

On Chavez:

2006-10-02T11:56:00.000-04:00

While we all spend time fretting over the threat of a nuclear Iran, the world has continued to move. And, as though there were not enough threats in the world today - from Islamist terrorism (i.e. Islamic Fascists and their war for global conquest) to nuclear proliferation to despotic regimes, to the threats of European posturing despite the continent's relative impotence and lack of leadership ability in international affairs - we are now facing an increasing threat from Hugo Chavez.

As the following article details, Venezuela's presidential madman Hugo Chavez has begun the process of producing weapons for sale to conflicted areas around the world.

"Even Africa" is interested in Venezuela-made rifles, Chávez says

President Hugo Chávez warned that "as long as imperialism exists and threatens to annihilate entire peoples and impose their views, we have to open up our plant to manufacture rifles, buy (Russian-made) Sukhoi warplanes and other military equipment."

At the closing ceremony of the first meeting of Venezuelan and Russian businesspeople, in the Presidential Palace of Miraflores, Caracas, Chávez stressed that bilateral technical military cooperation is moving forward at a steady pace.

"We have received messages from Latin American, Caribbean and even African countries asking about the production capacity of our rifle manufacturing plant. My dear Russian friends, I am sure you will agree, this is a platform for integration in other fields."

Chávez once again insisted that his US counterpart George W. Bush "smells sulfur. Nobody should have doubts about it."

Chavez, as president of an oil-rich state, poses a threat due to his global ambitions, and the regional instability he threatens to cause in our own hemisphere. There are ways we can challenge Chavez and work to introduce a radical course correction for Venezuela. We should act sooner than later, before this gets out of hand.

Articles about Chavez and the threat he poses:

•Heritage on Hugo
A couple of references on the FARC (mentioned in the article linked above):
+Narco-Terrorists Destabilize Latin America - JINSA
+Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - FAS

•The Tehran-Caracas Axis

•Chavez's Legacy

And here are a couple of cartoons depicting Chavez, I think accurately:

Chavez a new Castro

Chavez's paranoia

Gentelmen, Start Your Engines:

2006-09-29T06:42:00.000-04:00

So it seems that Iran's efforts to bum rush the Nuclear Club and lie/kick its way in have inspired another player to reconsider its longtime position regarding nuclear technology.

Let's run through a worst-case scenario if any Middle East country were to test a nuclear detonate device.

1. Most likely candidate is, I think obviously, Iran. And though experts and intelligence agencies disagree on precisely what timeline is most likely accurate for such an occurence, most agree that unless we do something soon, it will happen.

2. Saudi Arabia will feel the threat from a nuclear Iran - the two states have been competing for years to be viewed as the authoritative Islamic leader of the Muslim world - Iran, though Sunni, has bolstered its street cred through a campaign of direct and public confrontation with the United States. KSA, as keeper of Islam's holy sites, has been spreading its radical Sunni wahabi theology courtesy of its immense petro-wealth. Lacking an indigenous nuclear capability, it is not unlikely that Saudi Arabia will attempt to "lease" or otherwise "borrow" or flat out "buy" nuclear arms from Pakistan or north Korea. An alternative, though in my opinion far less likely, option would be to sign a mutual defense pact with the West, and thereby stepping underneath the Western nuclear umbrella. Professing my ignorance of KSA foreign policy, I will go out on a limb and also suggest the potential that Russia or China could be considered a partner for such a pact - especially given those states need for hard currency or energy.

3. As the excerpt from MEMRI below indicates, Egypt - once leader of secular pan-Arab nationalism, home of the Al-Azhar institution, and longtime political center of the Arab/Muslim world - will not look kindly on Saudi moves to obtain nuclear weapons (as listed above) and seek either an indigenous capability or follow similar alternative tracks to the suggested options for KSA above.

4. Will Libya continue to abide by its renunciation of nukes? I would not put it past them to consider a covert restart of its attempts to develop nuclear technologies. This would prove tough, but given Iran's success at hiding its programs, it should not be discounted.

5. Pakistan and India are unlikely to perceive a nuclear Iran as anything but an existential threat, and resume testing and beef up their respective nuclear arsenals.

6. Iran in possession of nuclear weapons is unlikely to be content with this and do nothing else. Tehran will almost certainly use this capability to become far more aggressive in Iraq, taking advantage of the chaos in Iraq to create a sort of client regime a la Syria in Lebanon. Though this is a long term prediction, in the near term, a nuclear Iran would use its resources to attempt to fuel the Iraqi insurgency until the U.S. left, then proclaim the defeat of the last super-power, bolstering its radical networks and throwing egg in the face of the West, while assuming an even larger regional role.

7. Given Iran's ties to Hezbollah (patron state), and that group's global reach - extending even into our own Western Hemisphere (see here, here, here, here, and here for a few references on the subject)- a nuclear terrorist attack would be more likely and real a possibility than ever before.

MEMRI: Special Dispatch-Egypt

September 26, 2006

No. 1299

Egyptian President Mubarak: "We Must Take Greater Advantage of New... Energy Sources, Including Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy": Renewed Debate in Egypt on Egyptian Nuclear Program for Peaceful Purposes

To view this Special Dispatch in HTML, visit: http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD129906

Statements by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and his son Gamal Mubarak at the annual conference of the ruling NDP party sparked renewed debate in Egypt on Egypt's nuclear program for peaceful purposes. Immediately following the conference, Egypt's Supreme Energy Council convened to discuss the nuclear issue.

In 2003, MEMRI published a three-part Inquiry and Analysis reviewing the public debate on the development of nuclear energy in Egypt during 1998-2003.

Ultimatum:

2006-09-29T06:36:00.000-04:00

A terrific piece below. This one goes out to all who wish to believe in the fairytale that is "Islam = Peaceful Religion being hijacked by a small vocal minority on the fringe, not accepted or adhered to by the majority of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims". Speaking of which, ever notice how these talking-heads-for-fascism never cease to remind us of their numbers? Perhaps an attempt at continued psychological warfare akin to the shows of force common when two opposing armies would meet across from each other on the field of battle and attempt to intimidate the opposition.

Think about it...

Submit or Die
Protesters are laying down the law.

By Clifford D. May
NRO, September 25, 2006

Many commentators have noted the apparent irony: The pope suggests Islam encourages violence — and Muslims riot in protest.

Many commentators have pointed out the apparent hypocrisy: Muslims are outraged by cartoons satirizing Islamic extremism while in Muslim countries Christianity and Judaism are attacked viciously and routinely.

Many commentators are missing the point: These protesters — and those who incite them — are not asking for mutual respect and equality. They are not saying: "It's wrong to speak ill of a religion." They are saying: "It's wrong to speak ill of our religion." They are not standing up for a principle. They are laying down the law. They are making it as clear as they can that they will not tolerate "infidels" criticizing Muslims. They also are making it clear that infidels should expect criticism — and much worse — from Muslims.

They are attempting nothing less than the establishment of a new world order in which the supremacy of what they call the Nation of Islam is acknowledged, and "unbelievers" submit — or die. Call it an offer you can't refuse.

If you don't understand this, listen harder. In London, Anjem Choudary — a Muslim Fascist if ever there was one — told demonstrators that Pope Benedict XVI deserves to be killed — for daring to quote a Byzantine emperor's description of Islam as a religion "spread by the sword."

"The Muslims take their religion very seriously," Choudary explained as if to a disobedient child, "and non-Muslims must appreciate that and must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the Prophet. Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment."

Iraqi insurgents — some Europeans admiringly call them "the resistance" — posted on the Internet a video of a scimitar, a symbol of Islam, slicing a cross in half. It would be a stretch to interpret this as a plea for interfaith understanding.

In Iran, the powerful imam Ahmad Khatami said the pope "should fall on his knees in front of a senior Muslim cleric." In no culture of which I am aware is that a posture from which brother addresses brother.

Imad Hamto, a Palestinian religious leader, said: "We want to use the words of the Prophet Muhammad and tell the pope: 'Aslim Taslam'" The Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh explained: "Aslim Taslam is a phrase that was taken from the letters sent by the Prophet Muhammad to the chiefs of tribes in his times in which he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam to spare their lives."

It is not only those readily identified as extremists who voice such views. The prime minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, seemed to strike a conciliatory note, saying that the Pope's expression of regret for his remarks was "acceptable." But he added: "[W]e hope there are no more statements that can anger the Muslims."

Similarly, on National Public Radio, a George Washington University professor, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, argued that statements such as those quoted by the pope — expressing sentiments some Muslims may find offensive — must be viewed as a form of violence.

Is the Western ideal of freedom of speech and of the press threatened? Of course but that's only part of what is at work here. More significantly, Americans and Europeans are being relegated to the status of a dhimmi — the Arabic word applied to those conquered by Muslim armies between the 7th and 17th centuries. Based on shari'a law, dhimmis are meant to "feel themselves subdued," to acknowledge their inferiority compared to Muslims.

In some ways, we already have done so. For example, Muslims are welcome in the Vatican, even as Christians are banned from setting foot in Mecca. We do not object to Saudis building mosques in America and Europe, even as they prohibit churches and synagogues on Arabian soil.

We pledge to abide by the Geneva Conventions when waging wars against Muslim combatants. We do expect those combatants to follow the same rules. They are engaged in a jihad and they will show no mercy to infidel soldiers or even to infidel journalists. The "international community" does not seriously protest. With our silence, we consent to inequality.

Most of the world's Muslims are neither rioting nor calling for the death of the pontiff. But quite a few may reason that if Christians and Jews haven't the confidence to reject dhimmitude and defend freedom, they would be foolish to stick their necks out. After all, a Muslim who challenges the Islamist Fascists brands himself as an apostate — as deserving of death as any uppity pope.

— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies , a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

Democracy in the Muslim World:

2006-09-25T07:08:00.000-04:00

A terrific op-ed from one of the excellent contributors on the Counterterrorism Blog, Lorenzo Vidino:

Democracy in the Muslim World

By Lorenzo Vidino

IN RECENT WEEKS, President Bush has delivered a series of major speeches outlining his strategy against terrorism. We have come a long way from the nebulous rhetoric of the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001.

The foe is no longer defined as ``terror," which is simply a tool used by a well-defined adversary. The new ``National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" acknowledges that America's enemy is a ``transnational movement of extremist organizations . . . which have in common that they exploit Islam and use terrorism for ideological ends." The report then outlines measures to confront that challenge. While short-term measures such as denying terrorists sanctuary or tracking their funds seem logical , the administration's long-term strategy is less straightforward.

The obvious cure to the problem is tackling radical Islam, the ideology that motivates terrorists. But the administration believes firmly -- almost blindly -- that democracy is the right medicine. According to the report, democracy ``diminishes the underlying conditions terrorists seek to exploit." Promotion of democracy is, therefore, the key element in the administration's long-term approach.

Yet democracy does not always have these healing powers. The administration contends that individuals who enjoy political participation and can freely express themselves are less likely to embrace fundamentalist messages. The truth is that today democratic societies are spawning terrorists no less than dictatorships are.

The core Sept. 11 hijackers grew up under autocratic Middle Eastern regimes, yet embraced radical Islam only when they went to study in Germany. The young terrorist suspects arrested in London and Toronto, the vast majority of whom were second-generation Muslim immigrants in the West, shunned the values of their native societies and planned attacks against them. A recent round of routine Al Qaeda threats against the United States were delivered on tape by Adam Gahdan, who grew up in democratic Southern California.

Aside from not guaranteeing results, spreading democracy in the Muslim world is a monumental effort that requires changing cultures and overcoming entrenched skepticisms. Some oppose the concept because it clashes with their divinely ordered vision of government. For Islamists, a small but vocal minority in the Muslim world, the only source of legislation is God and his will is set in the Sharia; parliaments and other democratic institutions are illegitimately trying to replace God's will with man's. Others look at democracy with suspicion, as a form of government imposed by foreign forces.

A word often abused by local autocrats who cloaked themselves with it, democracy is viewed as just one of the ideologies that failed the people of the Middle East. Moreover, its difficult application (see Iraq) only increases the doubts of skeptics. At this point in time democracy is far from the magic bullet against fundamentalism. Spreading democracy to the Muslim world is an extremely difficult task whose achievement does not guarantee the end of radicalism.

Confronting the enemy on its own ideological ground seems to be a better option. Rather than simply calling it brutal and tyrannical, the administration needs to directly challenge Islamist ideology. The task is not easy, but some of the enemy's ideological weaknesses can be exploited.

The main one is the intellectual poverty of its offer. Al Qaeda and other such groups are crystal clear about what they oppose, but they have made no argument to prove they could offer a better tomorrow to ordinary Muslims. If they ever achieved their lofty dreams of avenging Muslim pride and re establishing the caliphate, how would they make it work? Do they have an economic plan? And how about fixing potholes and collecting garbage? Only few in the Muslim world would sign up for a Taliban-style state that lacks everything except public executions.

Islamist ideology is powerless when confronted with the basic duties of governance. Look at the Palestinian territories, where Hamas's recent unpopularity is derived from its inability to pay salaries and deliver basic services. Promotion of democracy is an ambitious goal whose prospects for success are unclear. What can produce immediate gains is a head-on challenge of the enemy's ideological shortcomings.

Something Missing:

2006-09-24T17:38:00.000-04:00

What seems to be missing in the War on Terror? Muslim, Arab, or other non-indigenous (and I recognize that I am using that term very loosely here) Western outcry at the barbarity, inhumanity, immorality, and threat of Islamist terrorism. No more double talk condemnations of "all forms of terrorism, including Israeli and American terror" that twist and invert our natural moral sense to equate Islamist terrorism with the policies of democratic governments. No more equating our interrogation tactics, war fighting tactics or any other policy with the "grievances" and various justifications of terrorism - defined as the intentional targeting of civilian or non-combatant persons for violent death with the intent of creating fear, panic, and chaos as carried out by irregular units not serving in a recognized military body fighting on behalf of an existing state or country.

~JDS

The missing Muslim outcry

By Jeff Jacoby

As she lay dying in a Mogadishu hospital, Sister Leonella forgave her killers. She had lived in Africa for almost four decades and could speak fluent Somali, but her last words were murmured in Italian, her mother tongue. "Perdono, perdono," she whispered. I forgive, I forgive.

She was 65 and had devoted her life to the care of sick mothers and children. She was on her way to meet three other nuns for lunch on Sunday when two gunmen shot her several times in the back. "Her slaying was not a random attack," the Associated Press reported. It "raised concerns" that she was the latest victim of "growing Islamic radicalism in the country."

Raised concerns? Sister Leonella was gunned down less than two days after a prominent Somali cleric had called on Muslims to kill Pope Benedict XVI for his remarks about Islam in a scholarly lecture last week.

"We urge you, Muslims, wherever you are to hunt down the pope for his barbaric statements," Sheik Abubukar Hassan Malin had exhorted worshippers during evening prayers at a Mogadishu mosque. "Whoever offends our prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim." Sister Leonella was not the pope, but she was presumably close enough for purposes of the local jihadis.

If it weren't so sickening, it would be farcical: A line in the pope's speech suggests that Islam has a dark history of violence, and offended Muslims vent their displeasure by howling for his death, firebombing churches, and attacking innocent Christians. One of the points Benedict made in his speech at the University of Regensburg was that religious faith untethered by reason can lead to savagery. The mobs denouncing him could hardly have done a better job of proving him right.

In his lecture, Benedict quoted the late Byzantine emperor Manuel II, who had condemned Islam's militancy with these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

In the ensuing uproar, British Muslims demonstrated outside Westminster Cathedral with signs reading "Pope go to Hell" and "Islam will conquer Rome," while the head of the Society of Muslim Lawyers declared that the pope must be "subject to capital punishment." In Iraq, the radical Mujahideen's Army vowed to "smash the crosses in the house of the dog from Rome" and the Mujahideen Shura Council swore to "continue our jihad and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks." Arsonists in the West Bank set churches on fire, and a group calling itself "The Sword of Islam" opened fire on a Greek Orthodox church in Gaza and issued a warning: "If the pope does not appear on TV and apologize for his comments, we will blow up all of Gaza's churches."

In fact, the pope did apologize, more than once. He emphasized that the words he had quoted "do not in any way express my personal thought" and said he was "deeply sorry" that Muslims had taken offense. Whether the studied frenzy will now subside remains to be seen. But it is only a matter of time until the next one erupts.

This time it was a 14th-century quote from a Byzantine ruler that set off — or rather, was exploited by Islamist firebrands to ignite — the international demonstrations, death threats, and violence. Earlier this year it was cartoons about Mohammed in a Danish newspaper. Last year it was a Newsweek report, later retracted, that a Koran had been desecrated by a US interrogator in Guantanamo. Before that it was Jerry Falwell's comment on "60 Minutes" that Mohammed was a "terrorist." Back in 1989 it was the publication of Salman Rushdie's satirical novel, The Satanic Verses.

In every case, the pretext for the Muslim rage was the claim that Islam had been insulted. Freedom of speech was irrelevant: While the rioters and those inciting them routinely insult Christianity, Judaism, and other religions, they demand that no one be allowed to denigrate Islam or its prophet. It is a staggering double standard, and too many in the West seem willing to go along with it. Witness the editorials in US newspapers this week scolding the pope for his speech. Recall the State Department's condemnation of the Danish cartoons last winter.

Of course nobody's faith should be gratuitously affronted. But the real insult to Islam is not a line from a papal speech or a cartoon about Mohammed. It is the violence, terror, and bloodshed that Islamist fanatics unleash in the name of their religion — and the unwillingness of most of the world's Muslims to say or do anything to stop them.

More on Gulibility:

2006-09-24T17:34:00.000-04:00

The following piece speaks for itself.

~JDS

Mum's the word, lest we provoke a lethal tantrum
By James Lileks

Clip and save, for this may come in handy:

If you mock Islam with a drawing or a novel, you get riots and dead people. News of mishandled holy books yields riots and dead people. Insufficiently reverent short films by a Dutchman yields a dead person, specifically the Dutchman.

Now we add this detail: Quoting medieval religious colloquies is a reasonable justification for burning churches, shooting a nun and holding up signs demanding that the pope convert to Islam or saw off his own head. (There have been reports of carpal tunnel syndrome among radical Islam's enforcers, and they have requested we all help out.)

This is a new twist: Now history itself cannot be discussed. Since it's difficult to predict what else will enflame the devout, Islam has to be treated with unusual deference, like a 3-year-old child with anger management problems.

But it's not what we say that truly offends. It's what we are. The West's lack of interest in joining the Ummah is an affront in itself, and we broadcast our sins in High Infidelity. If you believed that the West's apostasy was an affront to G-d, you'd spend your leisure hours torching straw popes too.

Progressives at home and abroad seem oddly unconcerned. "Islamophobia," after all, is just a product of the BushCo junta's relentless fearmongering, and Benedict is the Nazi pope who personally swipes the condoms from people's bedroom drawers.

But it's an inconvenient truth, to coin a phrase, when the ranters show up with vibrating uvulas demanding the pope's assassination. (Would they be satisfied with a docudrama version? It would go over big at Cannes.)

It's inconvenient when glowering young men line the walk outside Westminster Cathedral with anti-pope signs, thereby showing that England's radical Muslims have sunk to the level of idiots who protest funerals with GOD HATES FAGS placards. Such images cause a momentary pang of dismay among some: That's not helpful, chaps. Not helpful at all.

See, the real problem is the West and its bluenose brigade, its Wal-Marts and Hummers and Big Gulp lifestyles. The Christianists, as some clever equivocators call them, are an impediment to Utopia as great as the terrorists. No less a philosopher than Rosie O'Donnell said so on "The View" recently, proclaiming Christian fundamentalists and Islamicists equal threats to America. They're both judgmental — boo, hiss! — and that makes them equal.

Rosie had a point, one supposes. Using the legislative process to pass faith-based initiatives, driving jets into skyscrapers: madness, everywhere.

At the risk of making a generalization: The secular right seems more tolerant of Christianity, and skeptical towards large swaths of Islam. The secular left often seems annoyed and contemptuous towards American religion — unless the pastor on the dais insists Jesus would have been a board member of Planned Parenthood — and oddly protective of Islam. Not because they believe in it; heavens, no. Some progressives are simply besotted by any civilization not their own.

Others have no vocabulary to oppose its more radical manifestations, because, well, we cannot judge other cultures. (Unless they're in the American South.) Others are less concerned by Islamicists because they have greater dislike for the people who oppose radical Islam, who are probably bigots. (Boo, hiss!) When those theo-neos get tough on radical Islam, it's just a convenient mask for their dislike of the Scary Non-Christian Dusky Hordes. Besides, what about the Crusades and the Inquisition? Huh? OK, then.

Thus the most enlightened and well-intentioned beneficiaries of the human civilization excuse or wish away the words of their most implacable opponents. It'll take something drastic to change their minds. A dirty bomb? Maybe. A demonstration in Pakistan in favor of Wal-Mart? That would certainly reorder some opinions.

In the meantime, we will learn to say less and less about more and more. As the grim cliche has it: If you say Islam isn't always a religion of peace, the Islamicists will kill you. This doesn't make them hypocrites, of course. The grave is a very peaceful place.

Gulibility:

2006-09-23T17:25:00.000-04:00

Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining:

Gazans warn pope to accept Islam
Khaled Abu Toameh, THE JERUSALEM POST
Sep. 18, 2006

Citing the words of the Prophet Muhammad, Muslim religious leaders in the Gaza Strip on Sunday warned Pope Benedict XVI that he must "accept" Islam if he wanted to live in peace.

The warning, the first of its kind, came as many Christians in the West Bank expressed anger over a spate of attacks on churches in protest against remarks made by the pope about the Muslims and the Prophet Muhammad.

Two more churches in the West Bank were targeted on Sunday in protest against the pope's remarks, bringing to seven the number of churches that have been attacked over the past three days.

In Tulkarm, arsonists set fire to the only Orthodox church in the area, causing heavy damage to the 150-year-old structure. Local residents said the attack occurred shortly after 4 a.m, when a number of assailants forced their way into the church and tossed several fire bombs into the building.

Some Christian families said they were living in fear because of the attacks and called on the Palestinian Authority to do its utmost to protect churches and Christians.

At a press conference in Gaza City, a number of Muslim clerics said the pope's statements were "the result of his hatred for Islam and not the result of ignorance."

One of them, Dr. Imad Hamto, called on the pope to "repent and ask for forgiveness." He added: "We want to use the words of the Prophet Muhammad and tell the pope: 'Aslim Taslam'" Aslim Taslam is a phrase that was taken from the letters sent by the Prophet Muhammad to the chiefs of tribes in his times in which he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam to spare their lives.

Some Muslim scholars, however, have endorsed a more moderate interpretation of the term, arguing that its real meaning was that those who surrendered to the will of God would find peace.

Hamto and his colleagues accused Christians of "resorting to the power of the sword in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine."

They also called on the pope to direct his words to the Jews who, they claimed, were "spreading corruption and destruction."

A "religion of peace and justice" would not make statements like this. This rhetoric of "convert or die" must not - and can not - be tolerated. I believe that the time has come to draw a line in the sand. If the Muslim community wants to work with the West, wants to coexist, and wants to live in peace with us, this sort of rhetoric must stop - unconditionally. Furthermore, the violent reactions to percieved insult must end - unconditionally. Any attempt to demand anything - even simply respect - must be predicated on their demonstration - not promises, not statements that we are brothers in faith - demonstrative actions. Anything less can only be understood as two-faced deception and not taken seriously.

So here is the message the West and especially reasonable American voices should send the Middle East - and their apologists and supporters here in the USA: "Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining."

Cause for Alarm:

2006-09-22T17:22:00.000-04:00

How is this not a greater cause for alarm?

When a man who, as president of an aspiring nuclear-armed country, called for the destruction of not only Israel, but the United States meets with the radical leader of a country within our hemisphere - one who has also anticipated a time without the US as a global power - I am frightened.

Chavez may be a mere blowhard, but Iran is a dangerous state, and one that ought to be dealt with sooner than later. Chavez may likely be trying to gain a potential nuclear partner to make his outspoken dream a reality.

Iran president cements anti-U.S. front with Venezuela
By Saul Hudson
Reuters
Sunday, September 17, 2006; 8:30 PM

CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shored up opposition to a U.S. drive to curb Iran's nuclear program on a visit to Venezuela on Sunday that cemented an anti-American front with President Hugo Chavez.

Ahmadinejad's first trip to Venezuela highlighted Iran's backing for the fellow OPEC country's bid for a U.N. Security Council seat that Chavez would use to challenge Washington's campaign for international sanctions against Tehran.

Chavez, who Washington calls a destabilizing, anti-democratic force, cast the visit as two countries jointly defying what he says is the imperialist aggression of the world's only superpower.

"It is a union that seeks a balance in the world and to save the future of your children, my children and our grandchildren," he told a state-owned TV network.

Buoyed by high oil prices that underpin their popularity at home and tapping into anti-American sentiment around the world, both presidents are awkward foes for the United States.

Iranian-Venezuelan ties have previously focused cooperation as major oil exporters, but the leaders emphasized their new bond in standing up to America.

"Nowadays, we have common goals and interests," said Ahmadinejad, who repeatedly called his counterpart by his first name. "We have to be united."

"I salute all the revolutionaries who oppose world hegemony," he added in an apparent reference to the United States.

Iran established an Islamic republic after a 1979 revolution that ousted a U.S.-backed leader, and Chavez says he presides over a revolution to end U.S. influence in Venezuela.

Chavez, who welcomed Ahmadinejad at the capital's airport walking with his arm across his visitor's shoulders, said: "Two revolutions are giving each other a hand."

"They (the Iranians) are threatened by the American empire. The empire does not want any nation to develop," he said.

Chavez has offered unspecified help to Iran should the United States attack its nuclear programs.

That option could loom for Washington if it fails to curb Tehran's ambitions through negotiations, according to many diplomats and atomic experts.

Chavez has expressed interest in working on technology with Iran if Venezuela ever developed a nuclear program.

But the presidents did not focus on the atomic issue on Sunday, preferring to stress economic cooperation including a joint $1.5 billion petrochemical investment. They also watched the inauguration of a training center where prayers were held at an on-site mosque.

NEXT STOP NEW YORK

Ahmadinejad's two-day stop in Venezuela is sandwiched between a trip to Cuba for the summit of Non-Aligned Movement countries, which called on developing nations to challenge U.S. dominance, and a visit to the United Nations in New York.

At the world body's general assembly, Ahmadinejad will lobby for Iran's right to develop nuclear programs it says are for power generation despite Washington's assertion Tehran is trying to build an atomic weapon.

Chavez will press for a Security Council seat against a U.S. campaign supporting Venezuela's rival, Guatemala.

Chavez accused the United States of spreading rumors that Ahmadinejad's visit was to secure Venezuela's uranium for its nuclear programs.

"They don't get tired of lying," he said.

Limiting Iran's nuclear programs and curbing the socialist influence of Cuba ally Chavez are among Washington's top foreign policy priorities.

But Larry Birns of the Washington-based thinktank the Council on Hemispheric Affairs said the United States has little to fear from the countries' closer ties.

"This is a visit that is a statement of solidarity rather than any plan for action," he said.

Get Over It:

2006-09-20T07:43:00.000-04:00

Inside Politics

By Jennifer Harper
September 18, 2006

Get over it
"Stop apologizing, already," wrote John Hinderaker of Power Line yesterday.
"Now Pope Benedict says he's 'deeply sorry' that he offended Muslims. Meanwhile, no Muslim leader has been reported apologizing, or even expressing regret over, the murder of an Italian nun in Somalia. Witnesses to the murder say it 'appeared to be linked' to Muslim hysteria over the Pope's speech; those witnesses spoke 'on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.' Reprisals? From members of the Religion of Peace? Why on earth would they be worried about reprisals?"
"The Pope has nothing to apologize for, and the last thing he should do is chase after Muslim spokesman with an ever-more-abject series of apologies. They can't be satisfied ... . There is a fundamental conflict here between many Muslim leaders, who demand that no one say anything about Islam except as approved by them, and the West, which recognizes freedom of speech. Pope Benedict serves neither himself nor the West when he appears to recognize as legitimate Muslim demands for a veto on all discussion of their religion and their place in the world. The Pope's message to Muslims should not be an apology; it should be: Get over it."

Amen.

Via Cox and Forkum

About Time:

2006-09-15T07:24:00.000-04:00

Finally! I believe we are starting to see a wave of realization sweeping the intelligentsia in the West. What Daniel Pipes and his Middle East Forum, Steve Emerson (for information about Emerson, see his bio on the Counterterrorism Blog), and several others have been writing about, talking about, and clueing the rest of us in on is finally starting to be recognized for its clarity and truth. I only hope that this trend grows and quickly, so that we might move forward with greater haste in this war we are fighting - a war which we can and must win.

~JDS

Meet the New Liberalism

New York Sun Staff Editorial
September 14, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/39692

In Britain last year a group of citizens signed a document known as the Euston Manifesto. The purpose of the document was to show that there were those on the UK left, both liberals and progressives, who supported the struggle for democracy and against tyranny. "We are democrats and progressives," it opened. "We propose here a fresh political alignment. Many of us belong to the Left, but the principles that we set out are not exclusive. We reach out, rather, beyond the socialist Left towards egalitarian liberals and others of unambiguous democratic commitment." The signers were particularly concerned with the alliances set up in the British anti-war movement with "illiberal theocrats" and defenders of suicide bombings.

Anti-Americanism was also damaging, the authors wrote: "We must define ourselves against those for whom the entire progressive-democratic agenda has been subordinated to a blanket and simplistic "anti-imperialism" and/or hostility to the current U.S. administration." The authors concluded that "the values of democracy, human rights, the continuing battle against unjustified privilege and power, solidarity with peoples fight against tyranny and oppression are what most enduringly define the shape of any Left worth belonging to."

This week a group in the U.S. announced it has created an American statement in support of Euston. The document in its entirety is visible on www.eustonmanifesto.org , but we reprint excerpts, and names of some of the signers, below. The American statement says that Cold War communism ought to be viewed in contradistinction to jihadism in respect to its attitude toward human life, an argument with which some might disagree.The signers are both unhappy with some of the Bush administration's actions and divided on the merits of the Iraq War. They assert the importance of liberal democracy and deplore anti-Americanism to an extent that seems worth noting.

We are signers or supporters in the United States of the Euston Manifesto and its reassertion of liberal values. Our views range from those of centrists and independents to liberals of varying hues on to the democratic left. We include supporters of the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003 as well as people who opposed this war from the beginning. However, we all welcome and are heartened by the decision of the writers of the Euston Manifesto in Britain to reassert and reinvigorate liberal values in the present context. Now we confront the issue of how to respond to radical Islamism. Some of us view this ideology and its political results as the third major form of totalitarian ideology of the last century, after fascism and Nazism, on the one hand, and Communism, on the other. Others regard it as having a history in the Arab and Islamic world that eludes the label of totalitarianism. We all agree however that it fosters dictatorship, terror, anti-Semitism and sexism of a most retrograde kind. We reject its subordination of politics to the dictates of religious fundamentalists as well as its contempt for the role of individual autonomy and rationality in politics, a rejection not seen on this scale in world politics since the 1940s. We understand that the United States must continue to take the lead with our allies in confronting this danger.

Our views in foreign policy are rooted in the traditions of Franklin Roosevelt as well as Harry Truman, who battled dictatorships of the right as well as the left respectively. For their generation, the key questions of international politics concerned totalitarianism in Europe and Asia. They led the country in war to defeat fascism, Nazism, and Imperial Japan and then founded the institutions that led to the peaceful victory in the Cold War over Communism. The key moral and political challenge in foreign affairs in our time stems from radical Islamism and the jihadist terrorism it has unleashed. We favor a liberalism that is as passionate about the struggle against Islamic extremism as it has been about its political, social, economic and cultural agenda at home. We reject the now ossified and unproductive political polarization of American politics rooted as it is in the conflicts of the 1960s, not the first decade of this century. We are frustrated in the choice between conservative governance that thwarts much needed reforms at home, on the one hand, and a liberalism which has great difficulty accepting the projection of American power abroad, on the other. The long era of Republican ascendancy may very well be coming to an end. If and when it does, we seek a renewed and reinvigorated American liberalism, one that is up to the task of fighting and winning the struggle of free and democratic societies against Islamic extremism and the terror it produces.

Even though we may differ on the proper response, we view the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran with alarm. Such a state with these weapons would be a grave danger for the Middle East, Europe and the United States. It would increase the danger that such weapons might wind up in the hands of radical Islamist terrorist groups immune to the calculations of nuclear deterrence. In contrast to the Communists during the Cold War, who wanted to change, not depart from this world, the cult of death and martyrdom of the terrorists inspired by Islamic fundamentalism raises deeply troubling questions about the prospects for peace and security in the future. We take very seriously and find utterly repugnant the threats of Iran's political leaders to "wipe out" the state of Israel. We will not remain silent in the face of these genocidal threats to implement what would amount to a second Holocaust.We note as well that the vast majority of victims of the jihadist fanaticism have been other Muslims. Yet the passions of too many liberals here and abroad, even in the aftermath of terrorist attacks all over the world, remain more focused on the misdeeds and errors of our own government in Iraq than on the terrorist outrages by Islamic extremists. Anger at the Bush administration, however justified, should not trump opposition to all aspects of jihadism.

We stress that the efforts of liberal and free societies to defeat the radical Islamists is not a clash of civilizations, just as the war against Nazism, Italian Fascism and Imperial Japan was not a war against the totality of the cultures and history of Germany, Italy and Japan. Each of these societies had multiple traditions other than those of dictatorship and aggression. Fundamentalist Islamists do not speak for Muslims as a whole. Yet we soberly observe that, as Arab liberals and Muslim moderates have pointed out, democratic values and critical reflection on religious belief that have long been part of Western modernity remain comparatively weak in the Arab and Muslim world.…The signers of this statement include supporters of the decision to go to war in Iraq and others who opposed this decision from the beginning. Despite our agreement about many things in this manifesto, our differences on this issue remain. Our group includes signatories who view the war as a failure and a diversion from the struggle against radical Islamists. They therefore advocate an American withdrawal at the earliest possible time, especially in light of Sunni-Shia sectarian violence enveloping that country. However others amongst us point to the fragile beginnings of democracy after dictatorship and think success there is still possible and essential. In their view an American exit before stability and security are established would be a disaster for international and national security and would be seen in many parts of the world as a victory for radical islamists and unreconstructed Baathists.

We realize that the path to a new and reinvigorated liberalism in foreign policy will be difficult. The political habits of the post-Vietnam era are hard to break. Yet we think that the terror unleashed by the radical Islamists has begun to refocus some liberal minds.We have authored this statement and urge other like-minded citizens to join us in the hopes that this rethinking will become clearer and more vigorous as a result of debate and discussion we hope to stimulate. We believe liberals have important contributions to make in the struggle against the Islamic extremists. Indeed, we believe that this struggle's successful outcome depends in part on our engagement on the basis of deeply held values and traditions.

Authors:

Jeffrey Herf - University of Maryland

Russell Berman - Stanford University

Thomas Cushman - Wellesley College

Richard Just - the New Republic

Robert Lieber - Georgetown University

Andrei Markovits - University of Michigan

Fred Siegel - Cooper Union College

Signers:

Ronald Asmus - Transatlantic Center of the German Marshall Fund of the U.S.

Daniel Bell - Harvard University

David Bell - Johns Hopkins University

Sheri Berman - Barnard College

William Chace - Emory University

Arthur Eckstein - University of Maryland

Cynthia Fuchs Epstein - CUNY Graduate Center

Gerald Feldman - University of California, Berkeley

Saul Friedlander - UCLA

Daniel Goldhagen - Harvard University

Liah Greenfield - Boston University

Alonzo Hamby - Ohio University, Athens, Ohio

Jeffrey Herf - University of Maryland

Mark Kramer - JFK School of Government, Harvard University

Walter Laqueur - Washington, DC

Joan Lowenstein - Ann Arbor City Council

Will Marshall - Progressive Policy Institute, Democratic Leadership Council

Steven Miner - Ohio University, Athens, Ohio

Stephen Morris - Johns Hopkins University

Keith Olson - University of Maryland

Stanley Payne - University of Wisconsin-Madison

Martin Peretz - the New Republic

Ronald Radosh - CUNY

Walter Reich - GWU

Steven Smith - Yale Univsersity

Vladimir Tismaneanu - University of Maryland

Gerhard Weinberg - University of North Carolina

Leon Wieseltier - the New Republic

Good Natured Fun:

2006-09-14T07:21:00.000-04:00

While reading the list below, amidst the inevitable laughter, consider the sentiments conveyed in these quotes and remarks. Ask yourself, if such a compilation were put together lampooning Islam, how many riots do you think there would be? After posting this, how many French do you think will burn down the American Embassy in Paris and demand the blood of America for the insult? In the civilized world, we are able to take a little bit of this on the chin without going ballistic - a lesson that must be learned in the Middle East, or taught to them in some form or fashion.

"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes."---Mark Twain.

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." -- General George S. Patton.

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion" -- Norman Schwartzkopf.

"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it." ---Marge Simpson

"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." -- Jacques Chirac, President of France "

France wants us to go to war only when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee." -- Regis Philbin.

"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky I don't know." -- P. J. O'Rourke (1989).

"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it." -- John McCain, U.S. Senator

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people." -- Conan O'Brien

"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get Hitler out of France either" -- Jay Leno.

"The last time the French asked for 'more proof' it came marching into Paris under a German flag." -- Letterman

"Only thing worse than a Frenchman is a Frenchman who lives in Canada." -- Ted Nugent.

"War without France would be like uh . World War II"

"The favorite bumper sticker in Washington D.C. right now is one that says 'First Iraq, then France." -- Tom Brokaw.

"What do you expect from a culture and a nation that exerted more of its national will fighting against Disney World and Big Macs than the Nazis?" -- Dennis Miller.

"It is important to remember that the French have always been there when they needed us." -- Alan Kent

"They've taken their own precautions against al-Qa'ida. To prepare for an attack, each Frenchman is urged to keep duct tape, a white flag, and a three-day supply of mistresses in the house." -- Argus Hamilton

"Somebody was telling me about the French Army rifle that was being advertised on eBay the other day -- the description was, 'Never shot. Dropped once'." -- Rep. Roy Blount (MO)

"The French will only agree to go to war when we've proven we've found truffles in Iraq." -- Dennis Miller

Q. What did the mayor of Paris say to the German Army as they entered the city in WWII?

A. Table for 100,000, monsieur?

"Do you know how many Frenchmen it takes to defend Paris? It's not known, it's never been tried." -- Rep. Roy Blount (MO)

"Do you know it only took Germany three days to conquer France in WWII? And that's because it was raining." -- John Xereas, Manager,DC Improv.

The AP and UPI reported that the French Government announced after the London bombings that it has raised its terror alert level from 'Run' to 'Hide'. The only two higher levels in France are 'Surrender' and 'Collaborate'. The rise in the alert level was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively disabling their military.

French Ban Fireworks at Euro Disney - (AP), Paris, March 5, 2003 The French Government announced today that it is imposing a ban on the use of fireworks at Euro Disney. The decision comes the day after a nightly fireworks display at the park, located just 30 miles outside of Paris, caused the soldiers at a nearby French Army garrison to surrender to a group of Czech tourists. -- Jean B.

Lesson From Across the Pond:

2006-09-14T00:00:00.000-04:00

Clarity has a name: Melanie Phillips (even if she is British).

Her writings can be found here: http://www.melaniephillips.com/. And though she has an outsider's perspective, she makes points that are relevant to our experience here in the New World. Judge for yourself:

September 11, 2006
Five years on
So where are we now, five years on?

I am reading the response by the Guardian's Readers' Representative, Ian Mayes to the comprehensive analysis on Zombietime which has cast the most serious possible doubt on the claim by the Lebanese Red Cross that Israel intentionally fired missiles at two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles. This claim was repeated by ITV News, Time Magazine, the Guardian, Boston Globe, The Age, NBC News, the New York Times and thousands of outlets around the world. Zombietime argues convincingly that this scenario is exceedingly unlikely, particularly since a direct hit by an Israeli missile would hardly have left the ambulance intact, as was shown in the photographs, with merely a hole in the roof. Mayes' response to this welter of circumstantial evidence?

The Zombietime version invites the conclusion that the Lebanese Red Cross conspired in an elaborate anti-Israel propaganda plot to dupe the world's media. I do not think that is proven at all.

Zombietime's claims are 'not proven' — so end of story. The Lebanese Red Cross claims were not only 'not proven' but, for anyone using eyes and a brain, were inherently implausible — and yet the Guardian (and many other media outlets) reported them as fact.
I am reading the remarks made by Muhammad Abdul Bari , the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, a few days ago.

'There are a few bad apples in the Muslim community who are doing terrible acts and we want to root them out,' Mr Bari told The Sunday Telegraph. 'But some police officers and sections of the media are demonising Muslims, treating them as if they're all terrorists - and that encourages other people to do the same. If that demonisation continues, then Britain will have to deal with two million Muslim terrorists - 700,000 of them in London,' he said. 'If you attack a whole community, it becomes despondent and aggressive.'

What was this 'demonisation'of Muslims? Peter Clarke, the head of the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist branch, said 'thousands' of British Muslims were being watched by police and MI5 over suspected terrorist links. Was Mr Abdul Bari's reaction to this dismaying news one of shock and shame that his community was harbouring such an enormous threat to Britain, and his earnest pledge to root this out wherever he found it? It was not. It was to threaten Britain that its entire Muslim community of two million would turn into terrorists and attack the country of which they are citizens. Mr Abdul Bari is the head of Britain's largest Muslim representative institution. What was the response of the British media or politicians to this abuse of his position by threatening violence by an entire minority community against the British state? Silence. If anyone is demonising Britain's Muslims, is it not Mr Abdul Bari?

I am reading that the US Senate Intelligence Committee has now stated conclusively that Saddam had no links with al Qaeda. Leave aside for the moment the fact that the case for war against Saddam was not that he had links with al Qaeda but that he had not complied with the UN resolutions to prove he had abandoned his WMD programme. The Committee's reported conclusions are used exultingly by the anti-war crowd to crow that Bush's rationale for war against Saddam has now been well and truly thrashed.

Uh huh. Is that so.

The Weekly Standard reports:

One of Saddam's senior intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, was questioned about his contacts with bin Laden and al Qaeda. There is a substantial body of reporting on Hijazi's ties to al Qaeda throughout the 1990s. Hijazi admitted to meeting bin Laden once in 1995, but claimed that 'this was his sole meeting with bin Ladin or a member of al Qaeda and he is not aware of any other individual following up on the initial contact.' This is not true. Hijazi's best known contact with bin Laden came in December 1998, days after the Clinton administration's Operation Desert Fox concluded. We know the meeting happened because the worldwide media reported it. The meeting took place on December 21, 1998. And just days later, Osama bin Laden warned, 'The British and the American people loudly declared their support for their leaders decision to attack Iraq. It is the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill them.'

Reports of the alliance became so prevalent that in February 1998 Richard Clarke worried in an email to Sandy Berger, President Clinton's National Security adviser, that if bin Laden were flushed from Afghanistan he would probably just 'boogie to Baghdad.' Today, Clarke has made a habit of denying that Iraq and al Qaeda were at all connected.

There is a voluminous body of evidence surrounding this December 1998 meeting between Hijazi and bin Laden–yet there is not a single mention of it in the committee's report. The Weekly Standard asked the staffers 'Why not?' They replied that there was no evidence of the meeting in the intelligence or documents they reviewed. That's hard to believe. Newspapers such as Milan's Corriere Della Sera and London's Guardian, and the New York Post reported on it. Michael Scheuer, who was the first head of the bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, approvingly cited several of these accounts (before his own flip-flop on the issue) in his 2002 book, Through Our Enemies Eyes. Scheuer wrote that Saddam made Hijazi responsible for 'nurturing Iraq's ties to [Islamic] fundamentalist warriors,' including al Qaeda. All of this obviously contradicts Hijazi's debriefing; none of it is cited in the committee's report.

We know from various previous US and UK official reports, and from the work done by Stephen Hayes (see previous posts), that there were indeed frequent contacts between Saddam's senior people and al Qaeda, although there is no evidence of any 'operational' relationship. It is clear from this and from the way much other circumstantial evidence about these links has been glossed over or totally ignored that this report was pursuing a quite different agenda. As the WS observes:

This report was never really about investigating the relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. It was about giving certain senators more ammunition against the President.

I am reading that Joseph Wilson has been totally discredited. Wilson was a former US diplomat who provoked a firestorm when, following his claim that the Bush Administration had exaggerated the Iraqi threat to justify war, a claim made after he had been sent to find out whether Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger in the late 1990s, it was further said that the Bush White House had breached national security by disclosing the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame – a former CIA agent — to reporters in an attempt to smear him.

Now it has been revealed in a new book that the source of the leak about Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage, a deputy secretary of state and a sceptic about, if not an opponent of, military action in Iraq. Yet for more than two years, the US Justice Department had investigated White House aides, and even indicted one, for providing false testimony in the Wilson affair in an apparent attempt to discover the source of the leak — even though it knew all the time that Armitage was the source.

And we also learn that Saddam was indeed trying to buy uranium, as Michael Barone observes:

He reported to the CIA that an Iraqi official had come to Niger on a trade mission in 1999 — evidence that tended to confirm rather than refute the British intelligence claim that Iraq was uranium-shopping in Africa — a claim that Britain's Lord Butler judged 'well founded.'

What do I conclude from such reports and from a welter of other similar statements and developments? That we are caught up in a religious war, both military and cultural, that has been declared upon our civilisation but which we cannot even bring ourselves to name, let alone fight properly; and that we are in acute danger of losing this fight because of the myopia, denial, craven cowardice and rank treachery by our own side.

We are told that we are creating more terror through the war in Iraq. In the desperate fight against jihadi fascism being waged against us, we are being blamed for our own potential destruction. The same people, of course, said exactly the same thing even before the Twin Towers disintegrated into ash on 9/11. Every single event that has happened on the international stage since then, every single act of self-defence on behalf of western civilisation, has been viewed through this same distorting prism. It Was All Our Fault.

But of course the war against the west did not start with Iraq. It did not start with Afghanistan. It did not start with 9/11. You could say that it actually started in the seventh century when Islam decided to conquer and rule the world, and was interrupted for a while after Islamic imperialism was repulsed at the gates of Vienna in 1683. You could certainly say that it started with the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in the 1920s, which revived the call for holy war against the non-Islamic world and whose principal thinkers, Syed Kutb and Hassan al Banna, were the ideologues behind the current war. But let us be a little more modest in our perspective, in which case we might say this particular phase of this war of religion started in 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in Iran and reignited the Muslim world to the ancient cause of jihad by two things: the simple fact of the re-emergence in the 20th century of a theocratic Islamic state governed according to the principles of the seventh century; and the explicit programme of the Islamic Republic of Iran to wage war against the west on religious grounds. Nothing to do with the many Muslim grievances around the world. The aim was to impose the rule of Islam by force on those countries which were infidel.

That is what we are up against — not just from the Iranian Shia but from their Sunni rivals al Qaeda, whose fatwas call the world to Islam, and a myriad other groups pursuing the same global jihadi objective. That is why American interests were bombed and attacked throughout the 1990s. That is why countries with no connection with Iraq or Afghanistan or Israel have been attacked all over the world. This is a war of religious conquest.

Yes of course Iraq is a recruiting sergeant, as was also Afghanistan — although we hear much less of that, because of course those shrieking about Iraq supported Afghanistan — and as is the very existence of Israel. The fact is that every single act of self-defence by the free world against Islamic conquest acts as a recruiting sergeant for more would-be Islamic conquerors. It is self-evident that if those who are attacked don't fight, the jihadis attacking them won't continue their war. That's because they won't need to because their victims will have surrendered. The defeatist whinge that Iraq has merely made us even more unsafe is a bit like if people had moaned during World War Two that the Blitz wouldn't have happened if Britain hadn't declared war upon Hitler. And those willing on the extermination of Israel, on the grounds that its very existence is the cause of Islamic rage, are in danger also of repeating the world's connivance at that other, previous Jewish extermination.

The real problem is that we are in a world war but few will acknowledge that fact. In the Times at the weekend, David Selbourne laid out the gross delusions currently undermining the defence of the west. An enormous fifth column of appeasers, quislings and defeatist whingers across the political spectrum has been willing the west to defeat ever since 9/11. And even the most apparently bullish in the US and UK adminstrations are still failing to follow the logic of their own rhetoric. If this really is a war, as President Bush has constantly told us, then why isn't it being fought like one? How could the mayhem in Iraq ever have been prevented or controlled on the cheap with so few troops? How on earth can the conflagration in Afghanistan be contained with so few troops and equipment? How can order be brought to Iraq when no action is being taken against the principal causes of the disorder, Iran and Syria?

How can we act against the continuum of Islamic extremism which is providing the sea in which the jihad swims, when we are not even prepared to acknowledge that such a continuum exists, and demonise those who try to warn against it? How can we defend the free world when we are doing our damnedest to sacrifice Israel, the front-line nation in that defence, as a scapegoat instead of coming to its own defence? How can a war to defend a civilisation be fought apologetically, with two hands tied behind our backs and with the hostile camera lenses of CNN and the BBC trained against our own troops and primed to inflate every casualty into an atrocity, against an enemy that by contrast is prepared both to slaughter and to die in vast and bloody numbers for its beliefs? How can we defend our own beliefs if we can no longer even agree what they are?

Five years on, we are only now beginning to learn what it is that we are refusing to learn. But history will not wait for us to work out what the outcome of such denial might be.

Iran - Bastion of Freedom:

2006-09-13T21:27:00.000-04:00

Anyone out there care to tell me why the former president of a country that shuts down newspapers for printing cartoons that allegedly insult the current president is granted the honor of speaking to an American university (especially an Ivy League school)?

See below.

The New York Times
Iran Shuts Top Reformist Paper, Citing Cartoon Seen as an Insult

By NAZILA FATHI
TEHRAN, Sept. 11 — Iran's conservative press watchdog shut down four publications on Monday, including a major reformist newspaper.

The reformist daily, called Shargh, or East, was shut down indefinitely because the newspaper had refused to replace its director and because it published a cartoon in a recent edition that was considered insulting to the government, state-run television said, citing a statement from the press monitoring agency.

"Shargh was banned and referred to the court because of its frequent violations and refusing to make amends in the past month, especially an insulting cartoon in a recent edition," the statement said.

The statement said that the press agency had issued 70 warnings to the popular newspaper, which has a circulation of 100,000, and had ordered it to replace its managing director, which it had not done.

The cartoon published Thursday showed two chess pieces, a white knight facing an angry black donkey, a symbol of ignorance in Iran, on a checkered board. Journalists working at the newspaper said the cartoonist had tried to make the black donkey clearer on the checkered board by making the area around it whiter.

The cartoon was believed to be a reference to Iran's negotiations over its nuclear program, The Associated Press said, and an insult to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

He had been reported to have said that he felt in the spotlight with world leaders focusing unblinkingly on him when he addressed the United Nations General Assembly last year.

The political monthly Nameh, or Letter, was also shut down Monday, the news agency ISNA reported, but no reason was announced. The journal was published by religious nationalistic opposition groups.

The press agency also revoked permits for two other journals, Hafez and Khatereh. Hafez was a literary and historical monthly that had published articles about a former monarch of Iran.

"It seems that the government is limiting the freedom at home as the international pressure is increasing on Iran over its nuclear program," said Mohsen Kadivar, a dissident cleric and an Islamic philosopher in Tehran. "Now that the threat of sanctions looms, the government does not want to hear any protest at home."

The government shut down the daily newspaper Iran in May and jailed two of its journalists after it published a cartoon that Iranian ethnic Azeris said had mocked them.

More than a hundred newspapers and journals were shut down in previous years by the conservative judiciary. But the press has come under even stronger pressure since Mr. Ahmadinejad's election a year ago. Last month, a government spokesman, Gholamhossein Elham, was reported to have sent a letter to the public prosecutor calling on him to act against newspapers that publish accusations against the government.

In addition to the crackdown on the press, two political prisoners have died recently.

One prisoner, Valiollah Feyz Mahdavi, hanged himself last Wednesday, the government said. He had been sentenced to death on charges that he had ties to an armed opposition group in exile, the Mujahedeen Khalq. Mr. Mahdavi's death sentence had recently been upheld by a supreme court.

Another political prisoner, Akbar Mohammadi, died in jail on July 30, after a hunger strike protesting prison conditions.

Human Rights Watch warned last week that the health and safety of Iranian political prisoners was in grave danger and called on the government to appoint an independent commission of Iranian lawyers and doctors to investigate the recent deaths.

Respect and Patriotism:

2006-09-12T07:16:00.000-04:00

I am appalled by what I have read, seen, heard and listened to over the last several months (and even over the last couple years).

I can understand being upset with a politician for their policies, for their statements, for their views and actions. But I am appalled at the extent and acid of the rhetoric employed by George W Bush's detractors.

I voted for Gore in 2000, and for Kerry in 2004, and count myself as a centrist Democrat. But there is such a thing as respect for the office of the presidency, and such respect demands that no matter how strongly or passionately we detest a leader (for the record, I don't detest Bush, I simply disagree with much of his policy and leadership), we do not call for his death, we do not overstate our dislike by making comparisons to the worst humanity has ever produced. To do so borders, in my opinion, on treason. Yell and scream about his decisions, the policies of his administration, of his moral, ethical, or political flaws - but don't you dare call for his death as though it meant nothing more than "hey, man, I really disagree with you and want you out of office". You want to yell about genocide - what about Darfur today, and Ruwanda a decade ago? Where were your cries then and now?

No, if he is so bad, if "W" is such an evil in the world, then surely there will be enough decent minded Americans swayed by the truth of arguments to this effect that he can be successfully ousted from office - banished from politics and cast aside to history as a president removed from office for his sins. Trouble is, there is not truth to these arguments. Those who espouse such claims would do well to be mindful of the adage: "better to remain silent and let others think you are an idiot, than to open your mouth and prove it."

Shame on you who make these calls and comparisons. Shame on you.

~JDS

A NEW LOW IN BUSH-HATRED
By Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe

Sunday, September 10, 2006

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/
oped/articles/2006/09/10/a_new_low_in_bush_hatred/

Six years into the Bush administration, are there any new depths to which the Bush-haters can sink?

George W. Bush has been smeared by the left with every insult imaginable. He has been called a segregationist who yearns to revive Jim Crow and compared ad nauseam to Adolf Hitler. His detractors have accused him of being financially entwined with Osama bin Laden. Of presiding over an American gulag. Of being a latter-day Mussolini. Howard Dean has proffered the "interesting theory" that the Saudis tipped off Bush in advance about 9/11. One US senator (Ted Kennedy) has called the war in Iraq a "fraud" that Bush "cooked up in Texas" for political gain; another (Vermont independent James Jeffords) has charged him with planning a war in Iran as a strategy to put his brother in the White House. Cindy Sheehan has called him a "lying bastard," a "filth spewer," an "evil maniac," a "fuehrer," and a "terrorist" guilty of "blatant genocide" -- and been rewarded for her invective with oceans of media attention.

What's left for them to say about Bush? That they want him killed?

They already say it.

On Air America Radio, talk show host Randi Rhodes recommended doing to Bush what Michael Corleone, in "The Godfather, Part II," does to his brother. "Like Fredo," she said, "somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw!" -- then she imitated the sound of a gunshot. In the Guardian, a leading British daily, columnist Charlie Brooker issued a plea: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr. -- where are you now that we need you?"

For the more literary Bush-hater, there is "Checkpoint," a novel by Nicholson Baker in which two characters discuss the wisdom of shooting the 43rd president. "I'm going to kill that bastard," one character fumes. Some Bush-hatred masquerades as art: At Chicago's Columbia College, a curated exhibit included a sheet of mock postage stamps bearing the words "Patriot Act" and depicting President Bush with a gun to his head. There are even Bush-assassination fashion statements, such as the "KILL BUSH" T-shirts that were on offer last year at CafePress, an online retailer.

Lurid political libels have a long history in American life. The lies told about John Adams in the campaign of 1800 were vile enough, his wife Abigail lamented, "to ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world." But has there ever been a president so hated by his enemies that they lusted openly for his death? Or tried to gratify that lust with such political pornography?

As with other kinds of porn, even the most graphic expressions of Bush-hatred tend to jade those who gorge on it, so that they crave ever more explicit material to achieve the same effect.

Which brings us to "Death of a President," a new movie about the assassination of George W. Bush.

Written and directed by British filmmaker Gabriel Range, the movie premieres this week at the Toronto Film Festival and will air next month on Britain's Channel 4. Shot in the style of a documentary, it opens with what looks like actual footage of Bush being gunned down by a sniper as he leaves a Chicago hotel in October 2007. Through the use of digital special effects, the film superimposes the president's face onto the body of the actor playing him, so that the mortally wounded man collapsing on the screen will seem, all too vividly, to be Bush himself.

Channel 4 Television
The assassination scene from "Death of a President," a television film whose subject is George W. Bush.

This is Bush-hatred as a snuff film. The fantasies it feeds are grotesque and obscene; to pander to such fantasies is to rip at boundary-markers that are indispensable to civilized society. That such a movie could not only be made but lionized at an international film festival is a mark not of sophistication, but of a sickness in modern life that should alarm conservatives and liberals alike.

Naturally that's not how the film's promoters see it. Noah Cowan, one of the Toronto festival's co-directors, high-mindedly describes "Death of a President" as "a classic cautionary tale." Well, yes, he says, Bush's assassination is "harrowing," but what the film is really about is "how the Patriot Act, especially, and how Bush's divisive partisanship and race-baiting has forever altered America."

I can't help wondering, though, whether some of those who see this film will take away rather a different message. John Hinckley, in his derangement, had the idea that shooting the president was the way to impress a movie star. After seeing "Death of a President," the next Hinckley may be taken with a more grandiose idea: that shooting the president is the way to * become* a movie star.

Update September 12, 2006: Subsequent to posting the above, I came across a wonderful parody of President Bush. It is funny, and is a good example of the sort of mockery and jest that falls within acceptable limits. Notice how Will Ferrell doesn't call for the death of the president?

Update September 13, 2006:Cheney = Hitler? I neglected to consider in the post above the name-calling directed at the Vice President. See here for the full article from which the following excerpt comes:

"Of course, Khatami would have refused to participate in such a debate. But had a debate between him and Cheney been organized, it would have been interesting to see which side the protesters outside of the Harvard Club in Boston would have supported. Expressing the view of his 200 fellow demonstrators, Nick Giannone told the Crimson that having Cheney speak at the Harvard Club was, "the equivalent of Hitler coming back to life and coming to Boston." Giannone continued, "This guy's a straight-up fascist. I also find it pretty appalling that someone would pay… to sit in a room with a war criminal.""

Again, I fail to see the comparisson between a twice-democratically elected leader (albeit a Vice President) and a fascist dictator who, upon gaining power proceeded to consolidate his control of the state, eliminate political and social enemies, turn a republic into a police state and then get to work killing 12 million civilians all while waging one of the deadliest wars in human history. But I guess, I didn't go to Harvard, so I wouldn't know about all of Dick Cheney's analogous actions, policies, and perpetrations.

You will pardon me if I am more than content with my non-ivy league college experience at this point.

The Waiting Game:

2006-09-04T22:00:00.000-04:00

(Disclaimer: This information may be a little bit dated, but I thought it worth posting all the same.)

The article below is excellent. What scares me is that even among some of the often clear voices (such as the author below) there is, sadly, an assumption that we can't prevent a nuclear Iran - and as long as the US (and Israel) is alone (relatively) in recognizing the threat, they are correct. In conversations with some, I find that there is a willingness to allow this sort of thing to continue simply to prove the point that Iraq was a mistake, even if this comes as a result of the conclusion that Iraq has stretched us too thin to bother attacking Iran.

Unfortunately, with today's passing of the UN deadline, and the "threat" of UN Sanctions looming -ha! - (sorry, I can't speak about UN sanctions without laughing a little...) I am coming to grips with a sense of impending danger as I anticipate the continuing calls for a diplomatic solution when the situation suggests that such a thing is impossible.

But the pressing question to my mind is what, exactly, will it take for people to realize the danger? European powers continue to seek energy resources from Iran even as they condemn its bellicosity. Russia, China, France, Germany and others seem content with Tehran's hostile rhetoric so long as the gas keeps coming and no bombs go off, as well as to smugly sit back and smile that the US is balanced and proves not to be omnipotent.

For any real, non-military solution, there needs to be both a total boycott of Iran economically, as well as complete isolation politically. In other words, for a non-violent solution to be feasible, Iran must be hermetically sealed from the rest of the world - and I don't see that happening.

~JDS

National Review Online
September 01, 2006, 4:32 a.m.

The Waiting Game
Do we really need further convincing of the threat we face?

By Victor Davis Hanson

Hezbollah's black-clad legions goose-step and stiff-arm salute in parade, apparently eager to convey both the zeal and militarism of their religious fascism. Meanwhile, consider Hezbollah's "spiritual" head, Hassan Nasrallah — the current celebrity of an unhinged Western media that tried to reinvent the man's own self-confessed defeat as a victory. Long before he hid in the Iranian embassy Nasrallah was on record boasting: "The Jews love life, so that is what we shall take away from them. We are going to win because they love life and we love death."

Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad trumps that Hitlerian nihilism by reassuring the poor, maltreated Germans that there was no real Holocaust. Perhaps he is concerned that greater credit might still go to Hitler for Round One than to the mullahs for their hoped-for Round Two, in which the promise is to "wipe" Israel off the map.

The only surprise about the edition of Hitler's Mein Kampf that has become a best seller in Middle Eastern bookstores is its emboldened title translated as "Jihadi" — as in "My Jihad" — confirming in ironic fashion the "moderate" Islamic claim that Jihad just means "struggle," as in an "inner struggle" — as in a Kampf perhaps.

Meanwhile, we in the West who worry about all this are told to fret instead about being "Islamophobes." Indeed, a debate rages over the very use of "Islamic fascism" to describe the creed of terrorist killers — as if those authoritarians who call for a return of the ancient caliphate, who wish to impose 7 th-century sharia law, promise death to the Western "crusader" and "Jew," and long to retreat into a mythical alternate universe of religious purity and harsh discipline, untainted by a "decadent" liberal West, are not fascists. It is almost as if Alfred Rosenberg has returned in a kaffiyeh to explain why Jews really are apes and pigs, and why we must recapture the spirit of our primitive ancestors.

Next, in the manner that Hitler was to be understood as victimized by the Versailles Treaty, so too we hear the litany of perceived grievances against the Islamic fascists — George Bush, the West Bank, Gaza, or now Lebanon. But does anyone remember that bin Laden quip, four years before 9/11, when Mr. Bush was still governor of Texas: "Mentioning the name of Clinton or the American government provokes disgust and revulsion."

Even as we split hairs over whether terrorists flocked to, or were created by, Iraq, the jihadists make no such distinctions between their theaters of operation. Listen to al Qaeda's Aymin al-Zawahiri: "The Jihad movement is growing and rising. It reached its peak with the two blessed raids on New York and Washington. And now it is waging a great heroic battle in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, and even within the Crusaders' own homes."

"Even within the Crusaders' own homes" would include, I think, the planned attacks against opponents of the Iraq war, such as Canada and Germany. Their often shrill, and sometimes blatantly anti-American, antagonism to the 2003 war still earned them no exemption from efforts to chop off the head of the Canadian prime minister or to blow up hundreds of Germans on passenger trains.

Here at home we witness "al-Qaedism" — fanatics shooting Jews in Seattle, murder at the Los Angeles airport, an SUV running over innocent pedestrians in San Francisco or driving over students in North Carolina, sniping in Maryland. And we shrug them all off. Surely such incidents can be explained, are not connected, occur at random — anything other than the truth that the constant harangues of the Islamic fascists really do filter down, even if randomly and spontaneously, to a number of angry and alienated young Muslim males in the West.

Some cling to the notion that Islamic rage is not the manifestation of an elemental hatred, but is merely about land. That's about what bin Laden said in 1998 when he urged all Muslims to murder all the Americans: "to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an obligation incumbent upon every Muslim who can do it and in any country — this until the Asqa Mosque (Jerusalem) and the Holy Mosque (Mecca) are liberated from their grip."

But the long overdue withdrawal of soldiers from Saudi Arabia (who were out in a godforsaken desert and nowhere near the "Holy Mosque") had no more effect on al Qaeda than did the Israeli departure from Gaza and Lebanon on Hamas and Hezbollah. As in the case of Hitler's serial demands for return of the "stolen" German Sudetenland and then Czechoslovakia, land was never the real issue. Perceived loss of pride and status, hatred of the Jews, and unbridled contempt for a liberal West were.

The truth is that we are in a pause, a lull in a great storm that broke upon us five years ago on September 11. We are waiting to see when and where and how — not really if — the Iranians test their envisioned bomb. "Another 9/11" is now part of the lexicon, suggesting that most Americans accept that an amorphous enemy that tries to knock down the Sears Tower, to blow up the Holland tunnel, to explode airliners over the Atlantic, and to slaughter commuters from London to Madrid to the Rhine may finally get lucky once — and that once could be a death warrant for thousands of Westerners.

After 9/11 we were at war with a fascist creed that had trumped any damage to the homeland wrought by all earlier enemies, whether Germans, Italians, Japanese, or Russians. But now, five years later, we are in a holding pattern, waiting in a classic bellum interruptum — whether in exhaustion from this long war in Afghanistan and Iraq, or complacent due to our very success hitherto in preventing jihadists from enacting mass murder in the United States.

So we are in limbo — a sort of war, a sort of peace. Lulls of this nature are not such rare things in history. The Athenians and the Spartans between 421-415, or the Western Europeans between October 1939 and May 1940, likewise thought the squall had passed — the respite a sign that the enemy was satiated, or was occupied elsewhere, or had had a change of heart, or that times of transient calm might mean permanent peace

We all wish it were so, but in private also fear that the worst — whether from al Qaeda, Iran, or their epigones — is to come.

Our pundits and experts scoff at all this concern over Islamic fascism — as crude propaganda, neo-conservative war mongering, a veiled agenda to do Israel's bidding, conspiracies to finish turning America from a republic into an empire, or just old-fashioned paranoia.

Their argument for thinking the danger is slight is that either we have already won, or we don't really have a credible enemy to defeat other than a few thugs better left to the FBI and federal attorneys: the jihadists may sound like Nazis; but they lack a nation-state and thus the means to harm the West to any great degree. Intent is irrelevant, if the means are absent. Sure, there is a Mein Kampf, but no Wehrmacht in the Middle East.

There are three rejoinders to this notion that the Islamic fascists are hardly serious enemies, and cannot be compared to the old-time fascists who once started a war that led to 50 million deaths.

First, Islamic fascism is already the creed of the government of an oil-rich and soon to be nuclear Iran. Secular authoritarians like Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf could easily fall, and the nation's nuclear arsenal with him, into the hands of the madrassa Islamists. It is not inconceivable to envision several nuclear bombs among one or more theocratic governments in the years to come.

Second, in an age of weapons of mass destruction, global terrorism, and culpable deniability, authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes can, without being traced, subsidize and sanction killers, who in turn, with the right weapons, can kill and maim tens of thousands.

Third, in an interconnected and often fragile world, the mere attempt to blow up trains, jets, and iconic buildings results anyway in millions of dollars in damage to the West: ever more expensive airline security, cancelled flights, and money-losing delays and interruptions in a general climate of fear.

Each time Mr. Ahmadinejad opens his mouth, or Mr. Nasrallah shoots off a primitive rocket, the global stock market can dip, and the price of petroleum spikes. A good dissertation is needed to ascertain how many billions of dollars Ahmadinejad has conned for his theocracy by means of his creepy rhetoric alone, through price hikes on the daily export of his oil. Since this war has progressed, oil has gone up from $25 a barrel to over $70, now adding an additional $500 billion per annum to the coffers of Middle East dictatorships.

Given Iraq, Afghanistan, and the acrimony at home — so similar to the debate right before Pearl Harbor over the earlier discounted fascist threat to the United States — we apparently are waiting for the enemy to strike again, before renewing the offensive.

So while we keep our defenses up at home, foster democracy in the heart of the Middle East in Afghanistan and Iraq, and hope the globalized march of modernity undermines jihadism faster than it can disrupt the 21 st century, we also wait — for the next blow that we know will come.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.

Public Education:

2006-08-31T22:00:00.000-04:00

While I have long thought that a serious overhaul of our (U.S.) public education system is needed, I take issue with blowhard John Stossel.

Competition might prove to be a valuable component to revitalizing and reinventing education in this country as a success story across the board - but this must be done carefully. Competition is not necessarily a categorical good in this case. For one, it would be nearly impossible to achieve the type of entrepreanurial spirit within public education that would necessarily achieve Mr. Stossel's vision. I, for one, would be more than hesitant to send my children to a school run by, say, McDonalds or Disney or Wal*Mart - or any other profit-based organization. I would like to ask Mr. Stossel if he would consider sending his children (or, if he has none, he can pretend he does for the sake of answering my question) to a school free to teach children that french fries, though not the healthiest option on the menu, provide a good source of valuable starches and salts making them a part of any balanced wholesome meal?

More concretely, public schools need government control to regulate what is taught, how it is taught, and when it is taught. This is not something that private entities (that is, any entity not accoutnable to a public standard) should be permitted to determine. What sort of national consciousness would we have in the United States if in California, PETA (or insert similarly crazy or far-left wing group) ran the most successful schools while the American Enterprise Institute (or insert any similarly conservative or far-right group) runs the best schools on the East Coast?

Private schools accountable to a public standard might appear to be a reasonable approach to Mr. Stossel's much pined for competition in education, but paying for a quality private education is difficult for many well-to-do families. Oh, and government vouchers not covering the complete costs of private education would simply privilege the rich to the severe disadvantage of the poor. Furthermore, if the government were to agree to pay for private schooling in lieu of public schools, who would determine the yearly costs? The salaries of the teachers and administrators? Who would be accountable for the ultimate use of this public money? How would this avoid ending up as precisely the sort of 'government monopoly' Mr. Stossel is so against?

No, competition sounds like a good idea, but the nuts and bolts of it are far from clear. So instead of evicerating our public school systems as ineffective, overly bureaucratic and otherwise undesireable, I wish people like Mr. Stossel would propose some practical, implementable means of fixing the problems (or similarly realistic alternatives to the current system).

~JDS

Another School Year Without Competition

BY JOHN STOSSEL - JFS Productions Inc.
August 31, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/38927

This week's back-to-school ads offer amazing bargains on lightweight backpacks and nifty school supplies. All those businesses scramble to offer us good stuff at low prices. It's amazing what competition does for consumers. The power to say no to one business and yes to another is awesome.

Too bad we don't apply that idea to schools themselves.

Education bureaucrats and teachers unions are against it. They insist they must dictate where kids go to school, what they study, and when. When I went on TV to say that it's a myth that a government monopoly can educate kids effectively, hundreds of union teachers demonstrated outside my office demanding that I apologize and "re-educate" myself by teaching for a week. (I'll show you the demonstration and what happened next this Friday night, when ABC updates my "Stupid in America" TV special.)

The teachers union didn't like my "government monopoly" comment, but even the late Albert Shanker, once president of the American Federation of Teachers, admitted that our schools are virtual monopolies of the state — run pretty much like Cuban and North Korean schools. He said, "It's time to admit that the public education system operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve. It more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."

When a government monopoly limits competition, we can't know what ideas would bloom if competition were allowed. Surveys show that most American parents are satisfied with their kids' public schools, but that's only because they don't know what their kids might have had!

As Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek wrote, "competition is valuable only because, and so far as, its results are unpredictable and on the whole different from those which anyone has, or could have, deliberately aimed at."

What Hayek means is that no mortal being can imagine what improvements a competitive market would bring.

But I'll try anyway: I bet we'd see cheap and efficient Costco-like schools, virtual schools where you learn at home on your computer, sports schools, music schools, schools that go all year, schools with uniforms, schools that open early and keep kids later, and, who knows what?

Every economics textbook says monopolies are bad because they charge high prices for shoddy goods. But it's government that gives us monopolies. So why do we entrust something as important as our children's education to a government monopoly?

The monopoly fails so many kids that more than a million parents now make big sacrifices to homeschool their kids. 2% of school-aged kids are homeschooled now. If parents weren't taxed to pay for lousy government schools, more might teach their kids at home.

Some parents choose to homeschool for religious reasons, but homeschooling has been increasing by 10% a year because so many parents are just fed up with the government's schools.

Homeschooled students blow past their public-school counterparts in terms of achievement. Brian Ray, who taught in both public and private schools before becoming president of the National Home Education Research Institute, says, "In study after study, children who learn at home consistently score 15-30 percentile points above the national averages," he says. Homeschooled kids also score almost 10% higher than the average American high school student on the ACT.

I don't know how these homeschooling parents do it. I couldn't do it. I'd get impatient and fight with my kids too much.

But it works for lots of kids and parents. So do private schools. It's time to give parents more options.

Instead of pouring more money into the failed government monopoly, let's free parents to control their own education money. Competition is a lot smarter than bureaucrats.

Mr. Stossel is co-anchor of ABC News' "20/20" and the author of "Myth, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know is Wrong."

On Life:

2006-08-22T22:47:00.000-04:00

I will be taking a short break from this space, and plan to return to it within a week or so.

Cheers,

JDS

On Art:

2006-08-22T08:24:00.000-04:00

The significance of a piece of art is truly in the eye of the beholder. I for one rarely see a piece of art as representative of me - and on such rare occasions where I feel a connection to the expressed feeling or idea, or to the message being articulated by the artist, I still would not consider that work to be of such profundity that it could encapsulate the world as I know it.

Rather, I prefer to appreciate art for its intrinsic value, and not to extrapolate meanings from so many colors or lines on a page (this goes for sculpture and other mediums) with one exception: writing.

Writing, both fiction and prose, does have the ability to encapsulate an age or a generation - to truly represent an idea in such a full way as to cause real people (rather than the hordes so frequently invoked by art critics) to rally behind it, to live and die for it. Potery I lump in with the other fanciful disciplines, for it is expressive of the writer, not the reader.

So the enxt time you visit a museum or see a painting or photograph, before you open your ears and opinions to the lavish praise or viscious critique of an art critic or teacher (or even a museum tour giude or curator) - ask yourself, what was the last painting that so inspired a people that they rose up and shed the heavy blanket of tyranny? What painting or sculpture or image last motivated an exodus of millions? Started wars? Produced peace?

Feel free to disagree, but in my opinion the pen remains ever superior to the brush.

~JDS

On France:

2006-08-22T08:20:00.000-04:00

It strikes me as odd that I continue to be surprised by France's inability to muster the resolve and integrity to lead a mouse into an open Cheese shop. Anyone holding a French passport is right to be ashamed at this utter failure of their government (and indeed their nation) which should bring France from medium-shot with big-shot ambitions to the laughing stock of the international community.

~JDS

U.N. Is Scrambling to Rescue Mission as France Falters

BY BENNY AVNI - Staff Reporter of the Sun
August 18, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/38135

UNITED NATIONS — Officials here are scrambling to rescue a proposed peacekeeping force designed to enforce a truce in Lebanon, after France stunned Turtle Bay by retreating from its role as leader and would-be "backbone" of the U.N.-led force.

As the Lebanese army yesterday began to deploy in areas in southern Lebanon that were gradually evacuated by Israel, 49 countries, considered candidates to contribute to the enhanced, more "robust" U.N. force, debated how to deploy troops meant to support Beirut. They also hashed out the rules of engagement that would guide their presence there.

The discussion was conducted under a cloud created by President Chirac's announcement in Paris that at this stage his country was willing to commit no more than 200 troops to the proposed U.N. force.

Diplomats said that Paris defense officials were much more timid about contributing troops than their foreign policy counterparts. Defense Ministry officials said the mandate of the proposed force was unclear, although Security Council resolution 1701, which defined that mandate when it was unanimously adopted a week ago, was largely written by French diplomats.

Mr. Chirac had to consider all the conflicting interests raised by his aides, as well as the political situation in Lebanon, before making a decision, a French official speaking on condition of anonymity told The New York Sun.

A day after a quick visit to urge Secretary-General Annan to hasten the force's deployment, the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, was considering a similar trip to Paris, to urge Mr. Chirac to enhance the French contribution, another diplomat said.

"We were disappointed," said the U.N. deputy secretary-general, Mark Malloch Brown, who presided over yesterday's troop-donor meeting. "We had hoped France would do more."

He nevertheless added that "it did not deter others from coming forward with offers" for supporting the force, which according to the council resolution should boost the current 2000-troop U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon to as many as 15,000 troops.

But when pressed to say whether it would be possible to meet a call he had made at the conference for deploying as many as 3,500 troops within 10 days, to secure an uneasy truce on the Israeli-Lebanese border, Mr. Malloch Brown could not cite any concrete commitments, and at best, he said that a third of the 23 countries that spoke yesterday made a "relatively firm commitment" to join the force.

Early yesterday President Chirac released a statement, saying that France at this stage would contribute only 200 engineers to support the 200 French troops already serving as part of UNIFIL, which has been in Lebanon as an interim force since 1978.

According to the statement, 1700 French troops on ships off the Lebanese coast remain ready to assist UNIFIL, although not necessarily under the U.N. flag, as required by the council resolution. It wasn't clear when, or even if, those troops would go on Lebanese soil. No decision has yet been made, and it was not clear when Mr. Chirac would make it, the French official said.

Many potential troop contributors shied from commitment due to a growing sense that the task of disarming Hezbollah, a central demand of relevant Security Council resolutions, would be more foreboding than first envisioned. The unease intensified amid several belligerent statements made by Hezbollah leaders and their sponsors in Tehran and Damascus in recent days.

The confusion about the role of the force was not made easier by Mr. Malloch Brown, who tried to describe what he called "prudently designed rules of engagement." The force, he said, would be "non-offensive in character," but the rules would allow troops "to robustly use force, if it's necessary."

There would be "no large scale disarmament of Hezbollah," he said, but rather "policing a political agreement."

Italy was said by diplomats who participated in Thursday's meeting to conditionally pledge troops for the early "rapid" deployment.

Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, and Denmark also spoke of joining the force.

Britain pledged a frigate, reconnaissance planes, and helicopters, as well as an air base it controls in neighboring Cyprus.

Germany assumed a leadership role in one of the most crucial tasks: assuring Hezbollah would not rearm.

The German U.N. ambassador, Thomas Matussek, said once the parliament authorizes it, his country was ready to supply "a rather substantive maritime component" to enforce the arms embargo, as well as policing troops to patrol the border with Syria.

Mr. Matussek told the Sun that some in his country question the heavy burden on the military, as 8,000 German soldiers already serve in posts around the world. In addition, he said, there is Germany's "history and the special responsibility for Israel." It is therefore trying to "tailor our contribution in a way that the situation cannot arise where a German soldier would have to confront an Israeli soldier."

Other diplomats said Israeli concerns about troops from countries that do not have relations with the Jewish state would not be taken into account.

UPDATE August 22, 2006: The incomparable Cox & Forkum (whose cartoon graces this and several other posts) have some additional thoughts on this subject that I would like to share here.

From the Boston Herald: With doublespeaking France, honor gets lost in translation. (via InstaPundit)

In recent weeks, France stepped forward to act as a broker of peace in Lebanon. "Act" is the key verb in that last sentence, as it now would seem that the only other verifiable part of the sentence is "in recent weeks."

To correctly parse that sentence, one must understand that when France suggested it wanted to broker peace in Lebanon, it did not necessarily mean "broker" or "peace" or "Lebanon" in the way we might understand those words. The same is true when France further suggested it wanted to "lead" a "strong" "multinational" "force" there.

I don't speak French, so I have no idea what the actual French words are for those concepts or what possible nuances there may be. I've been relying on news reports in English, which now inform me that the French do not intend to send any significant number of troops to what is supposed to be a force of 15,000 in Lebanon, like everyone thought they said they would.

The heady moment of peace brokering having passed, uponsober reflection, the French now say they already have a general and some staff in south Lebanon ordering about UNIFIL, the U.N. monitoring entity there. That's plenty of leadership, the French suggested: All France needs to contribute now is another 200 combat engineers.

In tactical terms, when it comes to securing a Middle East conflict zone, that can be referred to as "squat."

On the U.N.:

2006-08-21T22:00:00.000-04:00

Consider the following:

A document sent from UN Headquarters to the Italian Defense Ministry regarding the jurisdiction of the multinational force in Lebanon was published in the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera. It was written that the main objective of the soldiers will not be disarming Hizballah, but rehabilitating Lebanon from the war's damage and keeping order. The soldiers will only be permitted to open fire "in a manner befitting of the need in response to an emergency situation." ( Ynet News)
See also UNIFIL Troops Permitted to Open Fire on Armed Hizballah Militants - Shlomo Shamir and Yoav Stern (Ha'aretz)

Taken with several reports of the unwillingness of European countries to place their troops in a situation where they might endure anything approaching a splinter (let alone violent encounters with a blood-thirsty Islamist terrorist group like Hezbollah), is it any wonder that the United Nations cease-fire is likely to vanish like a fart in the wind? If you disagree, have your head checked.

~JDS

Announcement:

2006-08-21T21:50:00.000-04:00

As an articulation of my dismay at the unprecedented decline in the quality of the product of the mainstream media, I am removing links to the Washington Post and New York Times from this blog. These sources ought no longer be considered paradigms of journalistic objectivity - though the reality is this has been the case for some time.

Both fortunately and unfortunately, we the people can no longer rely on the mainstream media to provide a complete, objective picture of world events. This is unfortunate for what it says about the media and our nation's future, and yet we are fortunate to have the ability - primarily via internet, though also via public libraries - to seek out the truth from amongst the muck of invented reporting.

~JDS

Unbelieveable:

2006-08-21T08:11:00.000-04:00

This article (see below) should speak for itself. That the FBI, CBP, ICE and Pentagon are even speaking to an organization such as CAIR is baffling. Before or after reading the following item, please spend some time here, here (this page includes an extensive bibliography of excellent information about CAIR), and here reading up on this insidious group. I have previously posted about this group here and here.

~JDS

Controversial Muslim group gets VIP airport security tour
Feds show CAIR latest screening steps,
sensitive counterterrorism procedures
Posted: August 18, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
The Department of Homeland Security took a Muslim group with known past ties to terror organizations on a VIP tour of security operations at the nation's busiest airport at the same time British authorities were working to break up a plot to blow up U.S. airlines.
On June 21, a senior DHS official from Washington personally guided Muslim officials from the Council on American-Islamic Relations on a behind-the-scenes tour of Customs screening operations at O'Hare International Airport in response to CAIR complaints that Muslim travelers were being unfairly delayed as they entered the U.S. from abroad.

CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.

During the airport tour, CAIR was taken on a walk through the point-of-entry, Customs stations, secondary screening and interview rooms. In addition, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents were asked to describe for CAIR representatives various features of the high-risk passenger lookout system.

In a meeting, Brian Humphrey, Customs and Border Patrol's executive director of field operations, assured CAIR officials that agents do not single out Muslim passengers for special screening and that they must undergo a mandatory course in Muslim sensitivity training. The course teaches agents that Muslims believe jihad is an "internal struggle against sin" and not holy warfare.

Customs agents involved in the CAIR tour at O'Hare tell WorldNetDaily they were outraged that headquarters would reveal sensitive counterterrorism procedures to an organization that has seen several of its own officials convicted of terror-related charges since 9-11.
"Isn't that nice of CBP," one agent said, to provide a "group like CAIR with a guided, behind-the-scenes tour of our customs facilities, explaining how programs designed to catch Muslim terrorists work."

CAIR says the tour allayed its concerns about profiling and that it "looks forward to continuing the relationship with U.S. Customs and Border Protection offices in the region, and to furthering understanding between the organizations as well as facilitating future communication in order to eliminate problems for Muslim travelers before they even arise."

The Muslim-sensitivity training course at O'Hare is taught by Margaret Nydell, an Arabic professor at Georgetown University, home to a large Saudi-financed center on Islamic studies.

A Customs and Border Protection supervisor described Nydell's instruction, along with CBP's companion training manual and video, as "politically correct drivel."

"It's all about how Islam means peace and tolerance," he told WorldNetDaily. "We're told how to deal with Arabs and Muslims, that they are loving people and not terrorists. That jihad is struggle with sin and has nothing to do with violence."

The Department of Homeland Security invites CAIR itself to conduct sensitivity training for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and supervisors (CBP's counterparts) in Chicago. The course is taught by local CAIR officials Christina Abraham and Mariyam Hussain. More than 30 ICE staffers have gone through the CAIR awareness program so far.

CAIR – which is bankrolled by the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates, two countries that formally recognized the Taliban – also offers religious and cultural sensitivity training about Islam and Muslims to the military. In June, for example, CAIR trained more than 300 military personnel at the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Ariz.

Also in June, CAIR was invited by the Pentagon to a ceremony dedicating the first Islamic center in Marine Corps history at Quantico headquarters outside of Washington.

Washington-based CAIR also has regular meetings with the FBI and Justice Department. In fact, FBI case agents complain the bureau rarely can make a move in the Muslim community without first consulting with CAIR, which sits on its advisory board. CAIR in the past has cried racism and bigotry when the bureau has moved unilaterally with investigations and raids in the community.

Lost in Translation:

2006-08-18T22:30:00.000-04:00

These are not people who "long for peace" and I am dismayed at how frequently Western media makes this claim.

Let's consider a recent column describing Islamically sanctioned, and indeed encouraged, infanticide:

(excerpted)
The act of infanticide, the practice of intentionally causing the death of an infant, is rarely practiced today. Yet in the Middle East, it has taken on a new form. Under the direction of some leading Muslim religious figures, some parents in the region are encouraging their children to commit suicide as a religious act — then celebrating it...

...Sheik Nasrallah's 18 year-old son became a "martyr" after battling Israeli forces. The Hezbollah leader appeared on Al-Manar TV and thanked Allah for his son's "martyrdom," saying it brought him "the greatest feeling of joy that a father can know."
Many Lebanese Shiites were inspired by his words and to this day they want the same for their children. Sanaa Younes told the San Jose Mercury News on August 3, "He gave his son to Islam. … It's what every parent would want."

"It's what every parent would want"?????!!!!

Call me crazy, but this does not sound like an individual who yearns for a long and lasting peace, nor for a coexistence with anything considered to be 'other', meaning of course the West and those who ascribe to western values. And what is sad is that there seems to be a not-so-silent majority of Arabs and Muslims who echo this sentiment.

Consider this recent piece by Barry Rubin:

Bashar Goes Ballistic
Barry Rubin
August 15, 2006

Speaking to a journalists' association and in several other recent talks or interviews, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has claimed victory over Israel as well as America, whose plan for a "new Middle East," he says, has been defeated by Hizballah's success in fighting Israel. In the U.S. view--and that of Arab reformers--the American plan was for democracy, human rights, peace, an end to terrorism, and economic progress. Assad claims it meant that America and Israel would dominate the Arab world to destroy Arabism and Islam. More Arabs, to their own detriment, believe Bashar's view.

Speaking to a journalists' association, Bashar said the region had changed due to Hizballah's achievements. He's right, though trends were already clear in the failure of the 1990s' peace process, Hamas' election, violence in Iraq, the Arab regimes' defeat of reform movements, advances by Hizballah and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood in elections, and other developments.

One feature of this new era is the death of any hope for Arab-Israeli peace. The conflict will likely continue many years, producing politically useful Palestinian suffering. For these developments mean that since most Arabs believe Israel is totally evil and can be destroyed by armed struggle, they see no reason or need for a diplomatic compromise solution.

The question, though, is whether this change is good or bad for the Arabs. Thanks to such victories they can continue living under the same rulers, with lots of violence and corruption accompanied by low levels in living standards and rights.

Also visible through the meeting is the style that has so long characterized Arab politics and has been fully renovated for a new generation. This kind of stuff is both orchestrated and yet takes on a life of its own.

During the speech, members of the audience who claimed to be Lebanese--and apparently hired for the purpose since the security people let them do it--stood to thank Bashar loudly for all the things he has done for their country. With no sense of the irony of the performance, one woman screamed, "Without the support of our sister country Syria, we would not be able to achieve what we have achieved." Given the country's wreckage, refugees, economic setbacks, ethnic strife, and the return of Syrian hegemony, it is hard to figure out what any positive achievements might be.

The audience then broke into applause, shouting, "With our blood, with our soul, we redeem you, Oh Bashar!" They needn't worry. Bashar and his allies will make sure they have plenty of opportunities to spill their blood and sell their souls.

The world would do well to read Bashar's speech carefully and take it seriously. Syria is not a country that can be negotiated with or bought off. It is not taking a militant role because it is aggrieved or bargaining toughly, but because war, unrest, and extremism really do suit the regime's interests. A CIA report from exactly forty years ago is startlingly timely in explaining this pattern: "The question in regard to Syria's future then is not whether it will be moderate or radical, but what will be the kind and intensity of its radicalism."

Examples such as the two above abound, I need not recount them all here. For more, please visit some of the links I provide on these pages. I assure you your mouse won't even break a sweat.

~JDS

UPDATE August 18, 2006: Explain to me how a nation at war is full of citizens who desperately want peace? Furthermore, Israel does not have laws on the books prohibiting contact between Israelis and Lebanese - and yet Lebanon does. How is this the posture of a nation seeking peace and stability? Lebanon refuses to this day to recognize Israel. Consider the following article another prime example.

Lebanese general arrested for drinking tea with IDF

Associated Press,
THE JERUSALEM POST
Aug. 16, 2006

A Lebanese general was ordered arrested Wednesday for appearing in a videotape drinking tea with IDF soldiers who had occupied his south Lebanon barracks during their incursion of the country.

Adnan Daoud was summoned and ordered held for questioning, Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat said in a statement. Daoud is commanding officer of the 1,000-strong joint police-army force that had positions in southern Lebanon and was based in Marjayoun.

IDF troops seized the barracks there last week and held him and 350 soldiers for a day before allowing them to leave the occupied zone. The Lebanese garrison, which is lightly armed, did not resist the Israeli force which moved in armor into the base.

In the videotape, aired on Israeli television and carried by a Lebanese TV station Wednesday, Daoud was shown having tea with smiling Israeli soldiers and walking with them in the base courtyard.

"He was very polite with me," Daoud said of his first encounter with an Israeli colonel in this conflict or any other. It most likely will be the last.

Daoud commands a joint police-army force of about 1,000 men, based in Marjayoun, a Christian town about 10 kilometers (6 miles) from the Israeli border. Israeli troops, part of an armored column that punctured deep into Lebanon last week, ended up on Daoud's doorstep and took over his base last Thursday - 4 days before a cease-fire took hold.

"They came peacefully up to our gate, asking to speak with me by name," he said.

Daoud described the encounter on the eve of his and other Lebanese forces and others taking up a peacekeeping role in the south of the country. He said his experience with the Israelis was pleasant and professional meeting and even touched on the possibility of future Israeli-Lebanese military relations in the south.

"For four hours, I took him on a tour of our base," Daoud said of an Israeli official who introduced himself as Col. Ashaya. "It's the name of someone who guided the Jews in the Bible."

"He was probably on an intelligence mission, and wanted to see if we had any Hezbollah in here," Daoud added.

After their meeting, Ashaya left, Daoud said. An hour later, the bombs started falling.

Four Israeli tanks rolled up to the entrance of the Lebanese barracks, Daoud said, blowing holes in a steel gate and shattering glass in guard houses. Lebanese soldiers did not fire back, and no one was hurt, he said.

Daoud said he wasn't sure whether his counterpart's friendliness was a ruse, or whether the Israelis got their signals crossed and opened fire not knowing Ashaya had been there.

Israeli troops seized the barracks and held Daoud and 350 soldiers for a day before allowing them to leave the occupied zone. Israeli warplanes fired missiles at their convoy as it headed north, killing 7 people. Israel said it was investigating as an accident.

Israel left the base on Tuesday, part of a withdrawal from positions taken in a month of heavy ground fighting.

Daoud's said his forces were only lightly armed, and surrendered their weapons when the Israelis demanded. Israeli troops locked the weapons in a room and later blew it up, Daoud said, pointing to the gaping hole and pile of concrete wreckage that used to be a wing of the military base.

"They said, `We are an occupying army and now you are occupied,"' Daoud recalled another Israeli commander telling him, once he was taken captive and separated from lower-ranking soldiers. "I tried to refuse because they were Israelis and I am Lebanese and they are supposed to be the enemy."

Lebanon considers itself in a state of war with Israel although it signed an armistice in 1949. To this day, Lebanon does not recognize the State of Israel.

Lebanese law forbids any dealings with Israel. A Lebanese citizen faces arrest and prosecution. In 2000, after Israel withdrew its army from southern Lebanon, those who worked for the Israelis were arrested tried and given jail terms ranging from a few months to several years. Those civilians who fled to Israel and later returned were also arrested and given prison terms.

To this day, Lebanon refuses entry to any foreigner who has an Israeli entry or exit stamp on his passport.

This article can also be read here.

UPDATE August 18, 2006(afternoon): Although I said I would not list all the examples of Arab or Muslim peoples cheering and promoting violence, I am compelled to provide some of the more poignant examples as I come across them. This latest features Iranian school books which, to no one's surprise, promote violence against the West in general, and America in particular. I provide an excerpt below, the full text of this article can be found here.

Infanticide - Mullah Style
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 17, 2006

A new study of 115 Iranian school textbooks concludes that Iran is preparing its children for war, and is willing to risk massive casualties for the opportunity to defeat America in a world-wide cataclysmic confrontation.

"Iran's is a war curriculum," the study said. "Iran prepares its school children to fight the West – America in particular – as an indispensable complementary phase of the Islamic Revolution."

From the Fifth grade on, Iran's revolutionary regime portrays itself in government textbooks "as the champion of all non-Western nations, Muslim and non-Muslim, in a fateful struggle against Western hegemony in the world," the study concluded.

In the vision of Iran's leaders that is indoctrinated into young Iranians from an early age, "the Muslims, and the world oppressed nations in general, should wage a global war against the infidel oppressors, especially America," the study reports, using language drawn directly from the Iranian textbooks.

UPDATE October 10, 2006: Yet another example of this trend from the indispensable MEMRI is below.

Saudi Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abd Al-'Aziz: We Will Cut Off Tongues of Those Who Try to Distort Islam With Reform and Progress - They Are Serving the West

Prince Nayef bin Abd Al-'Aziz: "Brothers, we are not alone in this world. We are not living on a planet of our own. We are living in the center of this world, with all its good and evil. I say clearly that the evil of this generation is far worse than that of other generations. Everybody should know that our country - because it is the country of Islam, and because it is a country that implements the Koran and the Sunna - is the primary target for the things that are happening in the world."

[...]

"We are being targeted from many directions. I say, with the utmost pain and sorrow, that we are being targeted by those who claim to be Muslims. These people have become preachers, instruments, and implementers of the will of the enemies of Islam, whether knowingly or unknowingly."

[...]

"Jihad is here. We must wage jihad against the enemies of Allah here. The enemies of Allah are in our midst. They claim to be Muslims, although they are as far as can be from Islam. They call themselves 'reformists' or 'preachers,' and say that we support the West. They are hostile to us on these grounds. Yet at the same time, the Westerners and others claim that we are the birthplace of these people. Where are we? Why don't we tell these people who we are? Why don't we argue with them, discuss things with them? Why don't we respond to everything they say? Why don't we restrict the ignorant among us, or even those who think they are Islamic scholars?"

[...]

"The enemies of the Muslims have used Muslims and Arabs to corrupt Islam and the Arabs. I don't think any of you present denies this fact."

[...]

"Is it not an insult to Islam in general that someone so plain and worthless like Osama bin Laden is considered important? Does anyone accept this? Not only is he worthless, but he is an agent. He was an agent of foreign intelligence agencies, and he still is - him and those who support him. Who established Al-Qaeda?"

[...]

"Al-Qaeda has taken advantage of bin Laden's money, and they put him in the forefront, because he is affiliated with the Saudi kingdom. Even though he is from another country, he received Saudi citizenship. Who is Al-Zawahiri? We must ask ourselves, Who is Abdallah 'Azzam, the spiritual father of these people?"

[...]

"My brothers, the danger is even greater. Even those people have become tools in the hands of the enemies. Unless we face reality with truth, courage, and evidence, and if we do not stop all the transgressors who are trying to distort Islam with their claims of reform and their corrupt progress - this will be dangerous. These people have been tempted by the West, and have been employed in its service. We are familiar with their relations with foreign elements. We are fighting them and will continue to fight them, and we will cut off their tongues."

Ain't no sunshine for Loren B. Thompson:

2006-08-18T07:57:00.000-04:00

What a downright cynical view of the world, and talk about not giving us enough credit. My apologies to Loren B. Thompson who clearly woke up on the wrong side of the bed today -- perhaps tomorrow will bring a sunnier disposition, and a more accurate view of the world, where we are and where might go. What an awful, depressed, defeatist article. Better luck next time, Thompson.

~JDS

Op-Ed: Crusade In Arabia: The Hard Lessons

(Source: The Lexington Institute; issued Aug. 17, 2006)

(© The Lexington Institute; reproduced by permission)

By Loren B. Thompson

As the fifth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks approaches, the Bush Administration's "global war on terror" is not going well. Key Al Qaeda leaders are still at large. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. Hezbollah guerrillas have fought Israel to a standstill in Lebanon. Hezbollah's backers in Iran are five years closer to acquiring nuclear weapons. And America's plans to transform Iraq into a democratic model for the region are on the verge of collapse.

In the face of so many reverses, the administration has taken to calling its campaign against terror "the long war." But if current patterns persist, it may soon come to be called "the lost war." Perhaps it is time to put aside our hopes for the region and speak honestly about what we have learned over the last five years.

1. Iraq isn't likely to remain a democracy.
At least, not once we leave. The current wisdom on why democracy won't work focuses on borders drawn by British occupiers nearly a century ago. Largely for their own convenience, the British kluged together three polyglot provinces of the defeated Ottoman Empire into an imaginary country called Iraq. Because the borders did not conform with the loyalties of people living within them, a series of dictators has been required to hold the place together. The Bush Administration's notion of "liberating" Iraqis isn't compatible with their desire to finally be free of each other, so many Iraqis have come to regard America as just the latest oppressor.

2. We aren't going to understand the region.
It's a safe bet that if you show up in a region not knowing the language or the history of the place, you're probably not going to understand what's going on around you. That is part of the reason why U.S. policy in Iraq has been a litany of errors. Unfortunately, the problem of misunderstanding goes much deeper, because the Arab world managed to miss a few events en route to the modern age -- namely the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. As a result, many Arabs have a worldview that strikes westerners as primitive and superstitious. We can learn to speak the language, but we can't learn to think like them.

3. Islamic terror may not look "asymmetric" for long.
Once you grasp the gulf in values between America and the Middle East, it becomes clear how the Bush Administration has managed to avert new attacks on the U.S. homeland even as it made continuous mistakes in Iraq. The simple truth is that Islamic radicals don't understand America any better than we understand the Middle East. We both operate at a distinct disadvantage on the other side's turf. But failing to comprehend the subtleties of enemy motivation and culture, the two sides are constantly tempted to resort to indiscriminate violence. The more successful extremists are at harming our society, the more inclined we will be to respond in kind. Asymmetric aggression thus spawns an all-too-symmetric response.

4. We empowered the extremists.
Every generation spawns its share of disaffected radicals. What makes Islamic extremists so dangerous today isn't their beliefs or our ignorance, but access to modern technologies. Since their own societies missed the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, virtually every one of the technologies the extremists are exploiting -- from the internet where they attract recruits to the cellphones they use to direct suicide bombings -- originated in the West. We created the tools with which they threaten our civilization, and then gave them the petrodollars to afford them.

Perhaps we need to rethink our rosy views about economic globalization.

Loren, take a deep breath, have a nice strong drink, maybe smoke a cigarette, and relax. The world is not going to hell in a hand basket unless we let it, so rather than rethink our global perspectives, perhaps you should rethink your own world view and look for that silver lining on your cloudy day.

Engageing the Enemy:

2006-08-18T07:53:00.000-04:00

There have been many calls from diplomats and concerned individuals for the United States and Europe to engage countries like Syria and Iran. I couldn't agree more. I think engaging these states will likely prove the most effective way to achieve regional peace and stability over the long term.

Oh, and by engagement I mean military engagement, not diplomatic pandering.

To be perfectly clear - I do not wish to enter into armed conflict immediately, certainly this should be a last resort if economic and political sanctions don't work, and diplomatic efforts to encourage internal change and reform fail. But it is high time these states and the rest of the world be presented with a single choice: you play ball, or you will be ejected from the game.

Sanctions, enforcing resolutions and laws, and making it abundantly clear to states like Syria and Iran - specifically Syria, Iran, and North Korea at the moment - that their attitudes and behaviors will not be tolerated are esssential and must be implemented now.

There are those who claim that it is not our place to meddle in the affairs of these states, a sentiment I find ridiculous. These people do not share our values, they do not share our world view, and so we cannot and should not apply our logic and our systems of understanding state-behavior to them. This isn't about imperial designs, and this isn't about dominating the globe - this is about being very honest with ourselves first, and our enemies second. We, the West, cannot deal with states that don't play by the rules. If they don't want to play, that's their choice, but then we must kick them out of the game. There can be no middle ground. We cannot deal with Syria, Iran, or North Korea in any manner - even if it means gas prices reach $10 per gallon. We must do everything in our power to demonstrate the importance of playing by the rules. Part of this could be, and I think this would prove a most useful tool, kicking out of the United Nations organization those nations that do not abide by its rules, do not implement key elements of its charter, and who mock the Western ideals and principles that it was founded upon. So long Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, North Korea, Sudan, Algeria, Palestinian Authority, (Russia and China - you are on thin ice, so play nice and be careful), and Libya.

No oppressing dissidents, no torturing political prisoners, transparent governance, clear citizen rights, responsible government, no military aggression unless in defense against an existential threat (proportionate responses to attack are of course acceptable), participation in economic treaties and agreements, recognition of all sovereign states and renouncing calls for the destruction of another state (note this does not preclude criticism of others, simply bans calls for the anihilation of others), etc. In other words, if you want a seat at the table and you want to have a voice in the international community (ie UN or similar organization) you MUST sign on and swear to play by the rules.

So yes, let's engage our enemies and our adversaries - but let's engage them in a frank discussion about what need to change for them to be allowed back to the table, to be allowed back in the game (note, I believe these states must first be kicked out of all international organizations). And if you won't play, or you form a competing organization with the intent to destroy us, well, you just opened up a can of whoop-ass on yourselves, and we will defeat you - no matter the cost.

~JDS

Touché:

2006-08-16T20:01:00.000-04:00

This is called doing your homework.

BBC: How come so many more Lebanese have been killed in this conflict than Israelis?

Netanyahu: Are you sure that you want to start asking in that direction?

BBC: Why not?

Netanyahu: Because in World War II more Germans were killed than British and Americans combined, but there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the war was caused by Germany 's aggression. And in response to the German blitz on London, the British wiped out the entire city of Dresden, burning to death more German civilians than the number of people killed in Hiroshima. Moreover, I could remind you that in 1944, when the R.A.F. tried to bomb the Gestapo Headquarters in Copenhagen, some of the bombs missed their target and fell on a Danish children's hospital, killing 83 little children. Perhaps you have another question?

Missing the point:

2006-08-07T16:28:00.000-04:00

While I appreciate that Mr. Nasr's background and academic credentials make him a far more authoritative source of comentary on the Middle East than I in the eyes of many, I must lodge here my disagreement with his conclusions (as stated in the WSJ piece below).

I believe that his analysis is flawed from the outset by one detail, one that proves critical to any approach seeking to understand and effectively act in the Middle East. Namely, his analysis appear to be based on the erroneous estimation that Iran can be dealt with rationally. Unfortunately, Mr. Nasr and many others believe, in my opinion erroneously, that Tehran approaches geopolitics rationally - and while there may be logic and reason present, it certainly is not rooted in a system of thinking similar enough to our own (in the West) to trust, or be able to interpret accurately.

Judge for yourself. Can we trust Iran? I, for one, believe not.

~JDS

Ancient Rift: Rising Academic Sees Sectarian Split Inflaming Mideast

Vali Nasr Says 'Shiite Revival' Is Met by Sunni Backlash; Resurgent Iran Leads Way Can Mullahs be Moderated?

By PETER WALDMAN
August 4, 2006; The Wall Street Journal Page A1

WASHINGTON -- As Vali Nasr dashed for the airport last week after briefing a small group of academics and policy makers here, a hand pulled the political scientist aside.

"That was the most coherent, in-depth and incisive discussion of the religious situation in the Middle East that I've heard in any setting," said Richard Land, a Southern Baptist leader and influential conservative.

Sen. Joseph Biden, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, heaped similar praise on Mr. Nasr in May for giving what Mr. Biden called the most "concise and coherent" testimony on Iran he had ever heard.

From the violence in the Mideast, new realities are emerging -- and a new generation of experts to interpret them. Shiite Muslims are asserting themselves as never before. Followers of this branch of Islam, generally backbenchers in the region's power game, are central players in Lebanon, Iran and Iraq -- often acting out against traditional powers such as Israel, the U.S., and Sunni Arab states.

Mr. Nasr, a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., calls this a historic "Shiite revival" and has gone further than most in identifying it as a central force in Mideast politics. He also frames a possible U.S. response: Engage Iran, especially over the issue of reducing violence in Iraq, and try to manage Tehran's rise as a regional power rather than isolating it.

The issues are more than academic for the 46-year-old professor. He was raised in Tehran and hails from a prominent intellectual and literary family in Iran that traces its lineage to the prophet Muhammad. His father was once president of Iran's top science university and chief of staff for the shah's wife.

In 1979, after the Iranian revolution, the Nasrs "started from zero" in the U.S., says Mr. Nasr. He received a doctorate in political science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, writing his thesis on the political dimensions of radical Islam, while his father, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, became a renowned professor of Islamic studies at George Washington University.

The younger Mr. Nasr has laid out his views in a series of speeches and articles, as well as a new book. He is gaining a wide hearing in Washington. "The problem with the current Middle East debate is it's completely stuck. Nobody knows what to do," says political economist Francis Fukuyama of Johns Hopkins University, who attended Mr. Nasr's private briefing last week. "Vali Nasr offers a plausible alternative that may gain traction."

Mr. Nasr's analysis begins with the idea that the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq has transformed the Mideast, but not in the ways promised by President Bush. By replacing Iraq's Sunni-led dictatorship with an elected government dominated by the country's Shiite majority, the U.S. destroyed the Sunni wall that had contained the restless Shiite power to the east, Iran. The clerical regime in Tehran was immeasurably strengthened.

Reopening a Fault Line

This power shift, Mr. Nasr argues, has reopened an ancient fault line between Shiites and Sunnis that crosses the entire region. The schism dates back to the prophet Muhammad's death in 632, when his companions -- the forebears of the Sunnis -- chose Muhammad's close friend and father-in-law, Abu Bakr, to succeed him and become Islam's first caliph. Shiites believe Muhammad's son-in-law, Ali, was more deserving.

Ali managed to become Islam's fourth caliph, only to face multiple rebellions. He was ultimately murdered while at prayer at a shrine in what is now Iraq. His son, Hussein, refused to accept his father's Sunni usurpers and was slain 19 years later.

Shiites commemorate Hussein's murder in the holiday called Ashura, a 10-day period of mourning and self-flagellation. Their reverence for Hussein's stand against tyranny is the touchstone of Shiite political passions -- often invoked during the Iranian revolution, the ensuing war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and even recently by the leader of the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah in its war against Israel. Traditional Sunnis view Shiites as heretics, led astray by Persian Zoroastrianism and other pagan beliefs.

Today, the conflict is most visible in Iraq, where foreign and local Sunni insurgents refuse to accede to the country's Shiite majority. But Mr. Nasr sees the backlash in Iraq as auguring a wave of similar sectarian battles in a broad swath of Asia from Lebanon to Pakistan where the populations of the two sects are roughly even.

"In the coming years, Shiites and Sunnis will compete over power, first in Iraq but ultimately across the entire region," Mr. Nasr writes in his new book, "The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future," published by W.W. Norton & Co. "The overall Sunni-Shiite conflict will play a large role in defining the Middle East as a whole and shaping its relations with the outside world."

For the U.S., the Sunni-Shiite divide is fraught with challenges -- and opportunities. By creating in Iraq the first Shiite-led state in the Arab world since the rise of Islam (Iran is mostly ethnic Persian), the U.S. ignited aspirations among some 150 million Shiites in the region, Mr. Nasr says. Many live under Sunni rule, such as in Saudi Arabia, where they have long been persecuted. Yet U.S. foreign policy still operates under the "old paradigm" of Sunni dominance, he contends.

Take the current crisis in Lebanon. The U.S. has long relied on its traditional Sunni Arab allies -- Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- to keep the Arab-Israeli conflict in check. But now the Sunni axis is failing, says Mr. Nasr, because these nations are incapable of containing a resurgent Iran and its radical clients on the front lines against Israel -- Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas.

To adapt, the U.S. must "recalibrate" its diplomacy and re-establish contacts with Iran, he says. That would require disavowing any interest in "regime change" in Tehran -- an unrealistic aim anyway, Mr. Nasr argues -- but would offer the best hope of moderating Iran's growing influence.

"The Iranian genie isn't going back in the bottle," he says. "If we deny these changes have happened -- that Cairo, Amman and Riyadh have lost control of the region -- and we continue to exclude Iran, we'd better be prepared to spend a lot of money on troops in the region for a long time," Mr. Nasr says.

The Bush administration is listening to Mr. Nasr, but his influence on U.S. policy is unclear. Two White House foreign-policy aides attended his talk here last week. And last year, Mr. Nasr briefed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Since last year the influence of neoconservatives who championed the invasion of Iraq has ebbed at the White House, and Mr. Bush recently held a roundtable discussion at Camp David with other analysts critical of his Iraq policy.

One White House official points out that Mr. Nasr's prescription assumes the U.S., by recognizing and engaging Iran as a regional power, could moderate its behavior. But that outcome, the official adds, doesn't inevitably flow from Mr. Nasr's core argument about the Shiite revival. Many Republican foreign-policy specialists, including some who opposed the Iraq war, believe Iran is a threat and may have to be confronted militarily if diplomatic efforts fail.

In the Lebanon crisis, the U.S. has so far ruled out talking to Syria or Iran, Hezbollah's main suppliers of money and missiles. "Frankly, there is nothing to negotiate," White House spokesman Tony Snow has said.

Mr. Nasr sees it differently. Hezbollah's brazen attack on Israel July 12, and its heady self-confidence from parrying Israel's onslaught since then, illustrate why the U.S. needs a new policy toward Iran and the region's Shiites, he says. Immediately after the fighting stops in Lebanon, he says, the U.S. should convene a conference with all of the interested parties -- including Syria and Iran -- to redraw Lebanon's political map. In 1989, Saudi Arabia convened a similar conference in the Saudi city of Taif that helped end Lebanon's civil war by redistributing political power among the country's four main religious groups.

Lebanon's Sunnis emerged from Taif much stronger, particularly under Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a Sunni construction magnate who helped rebuild Beirut after the civil war. Mr. Nasr sees the Shiites, who he estimates make up 40% to 50% of Lebanon's population, as relatively disenfranchised. Shiites hold just 35 of 128 seats in Lebanon's Parliament, largely because the country hasn't held a census since 1932. Lebanon's system assigns the nonexecutive post of parliamentary speaker to a Shiite but bars Shiites from becoming president or prime minister.

Mr. Nasr says the crisis in Lebanon underscores the importance of engaging Iran as the U.S. did after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. At a conference in Bonn, Germany, the U.S. and Iran negotiated extensively, giving rise to the relatively stable government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. In Lebanon, America's Sunni Arab allies are likely to oppose apportioning rival Shiites greater political power. Mr. Nasr argues that is the only way to give Lebanon's Shiites -- and Iran -- a stake in stability.

"You can beat Hezbollah to a pulp, but you can't change the fact that around 45% of Lebanese are Shiites," Mr. Nasr says.

Mr. Nasr also sees room for engagement with Tehran over Iraq. Prior to the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003, the Bush administration argued change in Iraq would help spawn democracy in the region. At a seminar in Toronto around the start of the war, historian Bernard Lewis, who was instrumental in advising Vice President Dick Cheney and other top U.S. officials on the Iraq invasion, said: "The Iranian regime won't last very long after an overthrow of the regime in Iraq, and many other regimes in the region will feel threatened."

This prediction was based on a pivotal misunderstanding about Iraq's Shiites, Mr. Nasr says: that their Iraqi and Arab identity would supersede their Shiite affinity with Iran. As it turned out, as soon as Shiites took power in Iraq, they eagerly threw open the gates to Iranian influence and support. Now, Iran operates a vast network of allies and clients in Iraq, Mr. Nasr says, ranging from intelligence agents and militias to top politicians in Iraq's Shiite parties.

"Ethnic antagonism [between Arabs and Persians] cannot possibly be all-important when Iraq's supreme religious leader is Iranian and Iran's chief justice is Iraqi," writes Mr. Nasr in the current edition of Foreign Affairs magazine. The references are to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the Iranian-born Iraqi religious leader, and the Iraqi-born head of Iran's judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmoud Shahroudi.

Mr. Lewis, in a phone interview, says he still believes the "tyrannies" neighboring Iraq feel threatened by the prospect of a stable democracy in Baghdad. He says Iran's activities in its neighbor are a sign of its fears.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, quipped about Iran's influence in a recent speech in Washington. When he met his Iranian counterpart in Afghanistan, Mr. Khalilzad said, "I used to joke with him that 'you guys ought to be much more helpful to us, because look, you couldn't deal with the Taliban problem, you couldn't deal with the Saddam problem, and we've dealt with both. That's a big deal. We'll send you a bill one day for that.' "

Two Main Threats

Mr. Nasr sees two main threats arising from today's Shiite revival. The first is Iranian nationalism, fueled by perceptions in Iran that a Sunni Arab-U.S. nexus wants to stifle its rise as a regional power. That explains the widespread support among Iranians for their country's nuclear program, he says. It also explains why some Iranian leaders have been sounding less like Islamic revolutionaries and more like the late shah, a Persian nationalist who extended Iran's influence into Shiite and Farsi-speaking areas beyond its borders.

The second major threat, he says, is the Sunni reaction to the Shiite revival. As Iraq's insurgents have shown, hatred of Shiites is ingrained in Sunni militancy, Mr. Nasr says. He worries about a replay of the 1980s and 1990s, when Saudi money poured into Sunni extremist groups throughout the region to counter the Shiite fervor coming out of Iran after the revolution. The same groups became the backbone of al Qaeda, Mr. Nasr says.

In a speech last year in New York, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said it "seems out of this world" that U.S. forces would protect allies of Iran who are building a power base in Iraq. "Now we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason," the prince said.

But Mr. Nasr says U.S. and Iranian interests in Iraq may converge because both want lasting stability there. Comparing Iran to 19th-century Prussia and Japan of the 1930s, he says it is important to manage the rise of regional powers. "You can't regulate them by isolating them," he says.

URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115465508239526549.html

Copyright 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Presidential Humor:

2006-08-07T16:15:00.000-04:00

Four United States Presidents get caught up in a tornado and off they're whirled to the land of OZ...

They finally made it to the Emerald City and went to find the Great Wizard.

"What brings the four of you before the great Wizard of Oz?"

Jimmy Carter stepped forward timidly:

"I've come for some courage."

"No Problem!" said the Wizard. "Who 's next? "

Richard Nixon stepped forward, "Well, I think I need a heart."

"Done!" says the Wizard. "Who comes next before the Great and Powerful Oz?"

Up stepped Bush and said,

"The American people say that I need a brain."

"No problem!" said the Wizard. Consider it done."

Then there is a great silence in the hall. Bill Clinton is just standing there, looking around, but he doesn't say a word.

Irritated, the Wizard finally asks,

"Well, what do you want?"

"IS DOROTHY HERE?"

On President Carter:

2006-08-07T16:00:00.000-04:00

I am ashamed for President Carter, and a little embarrassed. Why a former U.S. President continues to produce articles and columns marred by repeated factual errors and misstatements/misrepresentations is beyond me. Futhermore, I am confused as to how so many, including a former President, could miss the fact that the concatenation leading up to the violence had created an untenable status quo. I wonder what President Carter's response would be if an insurgent tribe of Native Americans began kidnapping police and holding them hostage while demanding that fellow tribesmen be released.

Below is the report from the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America illustrating Carter's mistakes, followed by Carter's piece from the Washington Post.

~JDS

www.CAMERA.org

He's Back - Washington Post prints Carter's latest error-filled Op-Ed

Jimmy Carter's latest newspaper commentary, "Stop the Band-Aid Treatment; We Need Policies for a Real, Lasting Middle East Peace" (Washington Post, August 1) features repeated errors of fact. It echoes his "Israel's new plan: A land grab" ( USA Today, May 16) and March 20 and March 17 commentaries in The Guardian (U.K.) and Ha'aretz, respectively. Only Carter's "celebrity" status as an ex-president can account for their publication.

Mistakes

1) Carter claims "incremental unilateral withdrawals" by Israel would leave Palestinian Arabs with "their remnant territories reduced to little more than human dumping grounds ...." In fact, if Israel, having already left the Gaza Strip, withdraws inside the planned route of its West Bank security barrier, the Arabs would retain 100 percent of the Strip and 92 percent of Judea and Samaria - about what the United States, Europeans, Egyptians and Saudis criticized the Palestinian Authority for rejecting when it was offered at Camp David in 2000.

2) Carter alleges that the security barrier is "provocative" and "fails to bring safety or stability." In truth, the barrier has contributed to a dramatic drop in "successful" terrorist attacks from the West Bank, provokes mostly those - including Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement), Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades of Fatah - who'd rather Israel didn't defend itself effectively. It contributes directly to the stability of Israel and (by undercutting radical Palestinian groups) of Jordan and indirectly to stability for West Bank Arabs.

3) He refers, as in his USA Today screed, to "Israel's official pre-1967 borders ...." Israel's pre-'67 West Bank boundary was not an "official border" but the temporary 1949 armistice lines. Israel had offered to make them official, but the Arab states refused so as not to imply recognition of Israel's legitimacy in any borders. The need for permanent borders was acknowledged in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), which does not call for Israeli withdrawal from all the land gained in the Six-Day War but rather new, "secure and recognized boundaries ...." Carter, challenged on this point after his USA Today commentary, claimed - contrary to the diplomatic record - that this was a subjective "difference of opinion."

4) The ex-president declares that "Israel should withdraw from all Lebanese territory, including Shebaa Farms ...." The United Nations confirmed in June, 2000 that Israel had withdrawn from all Lebanese territory. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan declared Lebanon's claim to the area as "not valid." U.N. Security Council Resolution 1583 (2005), among other things, reiterated that Israel's withdrawal from Lebanese territory was complete. In April, 2006, the United Nations noted that Shebaa Farms was part of the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, taken from Syria, not Lebanon. The United Nations implicitly recognized that Hezbollah used the claim that Shebaa Farms was "Israeli-occupied Lebanon" as a pretext to continue "armed resistance."

5) Carter claims "Israel belatedly announced, but did not carry out, a two-day cessation in bombing Lebanon ...." This is pure misrepresentation. Israel announced, and implemented as far as possible, a bombing halt to permit civilians to flee battle zones and to allow easier entry for humanitarian aid shipments, but said it would continue air support for ground attacks against Hezbollah, as well as to stop an imminent attack from Hezbollah.

6) Carter charges that "there will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key U.N. resolutions, official American policy and the international 'road map' for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians." Whew, so it really is all Israel's fault - at least, according to Carter. There's Holocaust revisionism and Middle East revisionism, and Carter wallows in the latter.

But Israel doesn't oppress the Palestinian Arabs (the standard of living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip grew markedly from 1967 until the first intifada in 1987, and again after the 1993 start of the Oslo process until the second intifada in 2000); it's been seeking to separate from them, yet they follow it with suicide bombs and rockets; Israel has reiterated its readiness to implement the "road map" - just as soon as the Palestinians fulfill their requirement to begin to halt terrorism.

7) Carter claims that "leaders on both sides ignore strong majorities that crave peace, allowing extremist-led violence to preempt all opportunities for building a political consensus." Here he tars Israel with the Arabs' brush. Israeli majorities supported their leaders attempts to negotiate peace, including at the Madrid conference in 1991, in the Oslo process after 1993, and attempts to reach peace unilaterally, including the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's 2006 campaign pledge to begin withdrawing from much of the West Bank. The extremism - rejectionism - has come from the Arab side, and includes the Palestinians' election of Hamas to a legislative majority last January. There is no solid evidence of a Palestinian Arab majority for a West Bank and Gaza Strip state, at peace with Israel as a Jewish state, without a so-called "right of return" for millions of Arabs to Israel rather than their new Palestinian state.

Stop the Band-Aid Treatment
We Need Policies for a Real, Lasting Middle East Peace
By Jimmy Carter

The Washington Post
Tuesday, August 1, 2006; A17

The Middle East is a tinderbox, with some key players on all sides waiting for every opportunity to destroy their enemies with bullets, bombs and missiles. One of the special vulnerabilities of Israel, and a repetitive cause of violence, is the holding of prisoners. Militant Palestinians and Lebanese know that a captured Israeli soldier or civilian is either a cause of conflict or a valuable bargaining chip for prisoner exchange. This assumption is based on a number of such trades, including 1,150 Arabs, mostly Palestinians, for three Israeli soldiers in 1985; 123 Lebanese for the remains of two Israeli soldiers in 1996; and 433 Palestinians and others for an Israeli businessman and the bodies of three soldiers in 2004.

This stratagem precipitated the renewed violence that erupted in June when Palestinians dug a tunnel under the barrier that surrounds Gaza and assaulted some Israeli soldiers, killing two and capturing one. They offered to exchange the soldier for the release of 95 women and 313 children who are among almost 10,000 Arabs in Israeli prisons, but this time Israel rejected a swap and attacked Gaza in an attempt to free the soldier and stop rocket fire into Israel. The resulting destruction brought reconciliation between warring Palestinian factions and support for them throughout the Arab world.

Hezbollah militants then killed three Israeli soldiers and captured two others, and insisted on Israel's withdrawal from disputed territory and an exchange for some of the several thousand incarcerated Lebanese. With American backing, Israeli bombs and missiles rained down on Lebanon. Hezbollah rockets from Syria and Iran struck northern Israel.

It is inarguable that Israel has a right to defend itself against attacks on its citizens, but it is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response. The result instead has been that broad Arab and worldwide support has been rallied for these groups, while condemnation of both Israel and the United States has intensified.

Israel belatedly announced, but did not carry out, a two-day cessation in bombing Lebanon, responding to the global condemnation of an air attack on the Lebanese village of Qana, where 57 civilians were killed this past weekend and where 106 died from the same cause 10 years ago. As before there were expressions of "deep regret," a promise of "immediate investigation" and the explanation that dropped leaflets had warned families in the region to leave their homes. The urgent need in Lebanon is that Israeli attacks stop, the nation's regular military forces control the southern region, Hezbollah cease as a separate fighting force, and future attacks against Israel be prevented. Israel should withdraw from all Lebanese territory, including Shebaa Farms, and release the Lebanese prisoners. Yet yesterday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert rejected a cease-fire.

These are ambitious hopes, but even if the U.N. Security Council adopts and implements a resolution that would lead to such an eventual solution, it will provide just another band-aid and temporary relief. Tragically, the current conflict is part of the inevitably repetitive cycle of violence that results from the absence of a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, exacerbated by the almost unprecedented six-year absence of any real effort to achieve such a goal.

Leaders on both sides ignore strong majorities that crave peace, allowing extremist-led violence to preempt all opportunities for building a political consensus. Traumatized Israelis cling to the false hope that their lives will be made safer by incremental unilateral withdrawals from occupied areas, while Palestinians see their remnant territories reduced to little more than human dumping grounds surrounded by a provocative "security barrier" that embarrasses Israel's friends and that fails to bring safety or stability.

The general parameters of a long-term, two-state agreement are well known. There will be no substantive and permanent peace for any peoples in this troubled region as long as Israel is violating key U.N. resolutions, official American policy and the international "road map" for peace by occupying Arab lands and oppressing the Palestinians. Except for mutually agreeable negotiated modifications, Israel's official pre-1967 borders must be honored. As were all previous administrations since the founding of Israel, U.S. government leaders must be in the forefront of achieving this long-delayed goal.

A major impediment to progress is Washington's strange policy that dialogue on controversial issues will be extended only as a reward for subservient behavior and will be withheld from those who reject U.S. assertions. Direct engagement with the Palestine Liberation Organization or the Palestinian Authority and the government in Damascus will be necessary if secure negotiated settlements are to be achieved. Failure to address the issues and leaders involved risks the creation of an arc of even greater instability running from Jerusalem through Beirut, Damascus, Baghdad and Tehran.

The people of the Middle East deserve peace and justice, and we in the international community owe them our strong leadership and support.

Former president Carter is the founder of the nonprofit Carter Center in Atlanta.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Alternative Energy:

2006-04-25T21:10:00.000-04:00

Solar power seems to be the most logical 'alternative energy' source. Why? Oh, I don't know, might have something to do with that part of the 24 hour cycle known as 'day.'

But the technology has been more difficult to harness than may be expected. Between the high cost of the technology and the relatively low energy output, solar power just hasn't given us enough bang for our buck.

Now, however, there appears to be a ray of sunshine in this otherwise gloomy field: holographic solar panels. This technology has real potential, as it could bring the cost of solar energy down enough to actually compete with conventional, fossil fuel-generated electricity.

I don't know about you, but it sounds like a bright idea.

For information about solar energy, please see here, here, here, here, and here, here (an industry run page).

Yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater:

2006-04-24T21:22:00.000-04:00

You know what is ironic? Islamists are livid when we exercise our right to free speech. Don't believe me? I have two words for you - 'Danish Cartoons'. That is the point being made in the cartoon above.

But why is that ironic? Because then you turn around and see the West tolerating incitement and openly violent rhetoric, allowing Islamists to scream "FIRE!" in the proverbial crowded theater time after time, after time.

If we are to win this war of ideas, this cannot continue.

~JDS

Standing firm:

2006-03-08T19:30:00.000-05:00

Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American woman from L.A., has come under attack after she challenged commonly held Islamist views on Al-Jazeera.

But more importantly, in the transcripts (here and here) of the programs (there were two) I think we see a very interesting framing of the debate between West and East. Ms. Sultan articulates clearly some of the problems facing the Muslim world and some of the core issues that form the basis of the ideological conflict currently being waged. Furthermore, we see the shrill arguments and tired lamentations of self-defined victimhood that are the standard rubbish espoused by opressive regimes and Islamists alike throughout the Middle East.

Here is an excerpt from the transcript provided by MEMRI:

Wafa Sultan: "Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up? How and why does he blow himself up in a bus full of innocent passengers?

"In our countries, religion is the sole source of education, and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched. He was not born a terrorist, and did not become a terrorist overnight. Islamic teachings played a role in weaving his ideological fabric, thread by thread, and did not allow other sources - I am referring to scientific sources - to play a role. It was these teachings that distorted this terrorist and killed his humanity. It was not [the terrorist] who distorted the religious teachings and misunderstood them, as some ignorant people claim.

"When you recite to a child still in his early years the verse 'They will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off,' - regardless of this verse's interpretation, and regardless of the reasons it was conveyed or its time - you have made the first step towards creating a great terrorist..."

[...]

Bin Muhammad: "The guest from America asked how a young man could blow up a bus. If only she had asked how a president could blow up a peaceful nation in Iraq. How does a president help the arch-killer of occupied Palestine? Why doesn't she ask where Hitler was brought up - Hitler, who murdered 50 million innocent people? Why doesn't she ask where the people who dropped two atom bombs on Japan were educated? Who killed three million innocent Vietnamese? Who annihilated the Indians? Who has maintained imperialism to this day? Who waged the Spanish civil war, which exacted a toll of 600,000 in 36 months? Why don't we ask these questions? Who has over 15,000 nuclear warheads - Muslims or the non-Muslims? The Muslims or the Americans? The Muslims or the Europeans? We want an answer. Where was Bush educated - if education is really what makes a person a criminal?..."

[...]

Wafa Sultan: "Murder is terrorism regardless of time or place, but when it is committed as a decree from Allah, this is another matter..."

[...]

"The Crusader wars about which the professor is talking - these wars came after the Islamic religious teachings, and as a response to these teachings. This is the law of action and reaction. The Islamic religious teachings have incited to the rejection of the other, to the denial of the other, and to the killing of the other. Have they not incited to the killing of Jews and Christians? If we had heard that a tribe in a distant corner of China has a holy book and religious teachings calling to kill Muslims - would the Muslims stand idly by in the face of such teachings?

"The Crusader wars came after these Islamic religious teachings. When these Islamic teachings were delivered, America did not exist on the face of the earth, nor was Israel in Palestine...

"Why doesn't he talk about the Muslim conquests that preceded all the wars he is talking about? Why doesn't he mention that when Tariq bin Ziyyad entered Andalusia with his armies, he said to his people: 'The sea is behind you, and the enemy is in front?' How can you storm a peaceful country, and consider all its peaceful inhabitants to be your enemies, merely because you have the right to spread your religion? Should the religion be spread by the sword and through fighting?..."

[...]

Bin Muhammad: "Who invented slavery in recent centuries? Who colonized the other - us or them? Did Algeria colonize France, or vice versa? Did Egypt colonize England, or vice versa? We are the victims..."

[...]

"I am not saying that killing innocent people is nice. I say that all innocent people should be protected. But at the same time, we must start with the innocent among the Muslims. There are millions of innocent people among us, while the innocent among you - and innocent they are - number only dozens, hundreds, or thousands, at the most..."

[...]

Wafa Sultan: "Can you explain to me the killing of 100,000 children, women, and men in Algeria, using the most abominable killing methods? Can you explain to me the killing of 15,000 Syrian civilians? Can you explain to me the abominable crime in the military artillery school in Aleppo? Can you explain the crime in Al-Asbaqiya neighborhood of Damascus, Syria? Can you explain the attack of the terrorists on the peaceful village of Al-Kisheh in Upper Egypt, and the massacre of 21 Coptic peasants? Can you explain to me what is going on in Indonesia, Turkey, and Egypt, even though these are Islamic countries which opposed the American intervention in Iraq, and which don't have armies in Iraq, yet were not spared by the terrorists? Can you explain these phenomena, which took place in Arab countries? Was all this revenge on America or Israel? Or were they merely to satisfy bestial wild instincts aroused in them by religious teachings, which incite to rejection of the other, to the killing of the other, and to the denial of the other. When Saddam Hussein buried 300,000 Shiites and Kurds alive, we did not hear a single Muslim protesting. Your silence served to acknowledge the legitimacy of these killings, didn't it?..."

[...]

"What do you want from me? To speak evil of American society? I've never said that America is the eternal city of Plato, but I did say it was the eternal city of Wafa Sultan. The idealism of American society was enough to allow me to realize my humanity. I came to this country with fear."

This world needs more reasoned voices willing to name names and to point fingers within the Muslim world. While Ms. Sultan appears to claim atheism, her points resonate in part because they come through in Arabic from a native-speaker. But what we really need is for her perspective to resonate within the Middle East, to strengthen the determination and resolve of true reformers, and to errode the vice like grip the various authoritarian regimes have on the throat of free thinking.

(Special thanks to the Middle East Media Research Institute, MEMRI, for their continued and invaluable services to us all. Please click here for the MEMRI special dispatch)

Sick and tired:

2006-02-18T15:28:00.000-05:00

Is anybody else sick and tired of this?

I personally find this to be disgusting, and at the end of the day, I see no reason for any Western newspaper or government to apologize for editorial cartoons.

I will admit that knowingly working on a sensitive nerve is neither smart nor polite, but it does not excuse death and violence as a reaction. Any who say otherwise are ignorant, misguided, or just plain stupid. There is no excuse for the reactions we have seen to these cartoons in the Arab Muslim world. None.

What is at issue here is an ideological confrontation between totalitarianism and individual liberty. On one side, the protests represent a totalitarianism where the accepted world view is untouchable - intellectual challenge is impossible and criminal. The other side accepts that ideas must compete in the intellectual marketplace, and that there is nothing that cannot be said (within the bounds of socially accepted decency). These protests and the resultant violence are unacceptable, and challenge the fundamental freedoms upon which the West's liberal democracies have been built. Excusing the violence in the Arab/Muslim world is tantamount to accepting the supremacy of totalitarianism over western liberalism.

I am sick and tired of the protests. I am furious with apologists. It is time the Middle East and its despotic regimes (including the peoples living under them) understands this: we are here to stay, and our liberties will not be subjected to your ruthless sensitivities. If you don't like it, tough luck.

~JDS

What lies behind the wink and hint:

2006-02-02T22:16:00.000-05:00

History lesson today kids.

Our topic this evening will be a particular element of Islamic history that remains relevant today. Specifically, the hudna. What is a hudna you ask? The hudna is a temporary cease fire between a Muslim force and a non-muslim force. What seperates a hudna from a truce or a lasting peace agreement is the simple fact that the muslim force, under Islamic tradition, is only tied to this agreement for as long as is necessary for the muslim force to gain enough strength to anihilate the enemy, non-muslim force. In other words, a hudna is nothing more than a temporary settlement that allows the Muslim army to regenerate its strength under the guise of a lasting agreement.

By the way, for documentation of the above explanation, please see here, here, here and here (note that in this last, the relevant portion is that Muhammad established a hudna with Mecca until he had the strength in arms to conquer it, thus establishing the precedent of which I spoke).

So why is the hudna relevant to today's world? Well, I am glad that you asked. Because it has come up in two not so different settings.

Hudna 1:
Al-Qaeda's leaders, bin Laden and zl-Zawahiri have offered truces to the United States and the West, and the latest "offers" were not the first time. I contend that these truces, based on an understanding of the hudna are nothing more than an attempt to lull the West into a sense of security with the intent that it let its guard down and call off the dogs. Give them 10 or fewer years and you will see a revitalized organization with the ability to weild enormous destructive power. No, they don't want peace with us, they don't believe we can coexist.

Hudna 2:
Hamas, Fatah, and the PLO have, in the past, declared a cease fire agreement. Now, often times this is contingent upon Israel's ceasing to exist, but even in those rare situations where that is not a condition for temporary stoppage of violence, it is at best nothing more than a hudna. That's right, they don't really want peace. Hamas and Fatah, the two parties that won nearly all of the seats in the recent Palestinian parlimentary elections, both exhibit the same goal, but have different styles and strategies for achieving it.

So what have we learned? That when dealing with radical Islamist terror, there is no truce that we can accept as legitimate. After all, a hudna by any other name, would still be unacceptable.

Terror at the polls:

2006-01-31T23:35:00.000-05:00

Recent Palestinian elections have resulted in the overwhelming victory of Hamas, a deisgnated terrorist organization responsible for numerous suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.

There has been some debate over whether or not the United States and Israel should deal with a Palestinian government controled by Hamas. On one side is the argument that to work with a Hamas government would be to legitimate terrorism, and on the other is the argument that Hamas must be dealt with and recognized as the legitimately elected power in the Palestinian territories.

In the middle of these two extremes are President Bush's conditions under which Hamas would be engaged. These conditions were clearly articulated in tonight's State of the Union address: recoginition of Israel; disarmament; and renunciation of violence as a means of achieving Palestinian goals.

Here is a statement from Hamas regarding its position on these demands:

February 1, 2006

No.1083

Hamas Leader Mahmoud Zahar on Al-Manar TV: "Palestine Means Palestine in its Entirety – From the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River… We Cannot Give Up a Single Inch of it… Why Should We Recognize Condoleezza Rice… or Israel's Right to Exist?"
The following are excerpts from an interview with Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Zahar, which aired on Al-Manar TV on January 25, 2006.

*TO VIEW THIS CLIP, VISIT: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1014.

*TO VIEW MORE HAMAS, CLIPS VISIT: http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S5&P1=151.

Mahmoud Al-Zahar: "We will not give up the resistance in the sense of jihad, martyrdom-seeking, sacrifices, arrests, the demolition of homes, and the uprooting of trees, at the same time, nor the shattering of the Israeli enemy's honor in all the confrontations - the war of tunnels and of security against the Israeli enemy, which ultimately led to its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank.

"We will not give up this plan for the kind of plan that people associate with the Legislative Council - luxury cars, VIP permits, investments, and pockets full of millions, while 30-40% of the Palestinian people is writhing with hunger."

[...]

"We will not allow a situation in which a person who is wounded cannot be treated anywhere, unless he goes to the Israeli enemy, or is transferred across the border. Our education system will not represent Palestine as a coastal strip stretching from Rafah to Beit Hanoun. We will teach them their history and the geography of Palestine. Our Ministry of Culture will teach them how the martyr is turned into prose, literature, and poetry, and how a woman who used to cook and do the laundry turns into one of the heroes of Palestine.

"In addition, we will teach them how we can have an industry that is independent of the Israeli enemy. We will gradually get all the laborers back [from Israel], after supplying them with job opportunities in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, where they will work in small and very small factories which will be independent of the Israeli enemy."

[...]

"Palestine means Palestine in its entirety - from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River, from Ras Al-Naqura to Rafah. We cannot give up a single inch of it. Therefore, we will not recognize the Israeli enemy's [right] to a single inch. That is one thing.

"The second thing is that if the right of return is an individual right, neither Mahmoud Al-Zahar nor 'Abbas Zaki can relinquish it, because all these concessions will constitute a national catastrophe.

"The third point is that we can found a state on any piece of the land, and this will not mean we give up on any other part of the land."

[...]

Interviewer: "Condoleezza Rice has demanded that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist. How do you respond?"

Mahmoud Al-Zahar: "Why should we recognize Condoleezza Rice... or Israel's right to exist? In this region we have faced Roman occupation, Persian occupation, Crusader occupation, British occupation - they are all gone. The Israeli enemy does not belong to the region. It does not belong to the region's history, geography, or faith. When you enter the land occupied in 1948, it is like entering an enclave. But when you go to Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt, you feel at home. It is your homeland."

[...]

"If at present we cannot bring about a decisive victory, which will restore all our rights - and there is a difference between a peaceful solution of surrender, which is temporary and is referred to as 'settlements,' and a peaceful solution which is based on justice, and means the return of all the land and all the refugees. We are saying that we may agree to found a state on any part of the land, but this must never be at the expense of the other parts.

"If today we are unable to win the conflict decisively, for reasons known to all, we must not pass on to our sons a disgraceful defeat by recognizing the Israeli enemy's right to exist, where it has no such right.

"If they claim that the right of return applies - even after 2,000, 3,000, or 10,000 years - to the Jews who used to be in Palestine, we say: Apply the same principle [to us]. We left Palestine only in 1948."

(Thanks to MEMRI for that translation)

Well folks, it doesn't get much clearer than that.

To accept Hamas as the legitimate leadership of the Palestinians is to court disaster and violence. These people, elected or otherwise, are terrorists, and recognizing them creates precedent for Al Qaeda to achieve its goal of conquest of the Muslim world. To deal with terrorists, to foolishly believe that political responsibility will moderate their stance, and to accept them simply because they were elected is unacceptable. Any who believe that the United States, Israel, or any country should rightfully deal with a Hamas controled government are the worst kind of fools and do not deserve the time of day.

A little Saturday fun:

2006-01-07T12:20:00.000-05:00

Take a look at the image below:

If you have seen this before, good for you. If not, follow these simple steps and enjoy!

watch the teaser for Apocalypto at www.apple.com/trailers -- when you get to the pregnant woman pause the movie (maybe 1 minute into it). THEN (and this is very important) use your arrow keys to watch it frame by frame. When you get to the monkey you've gone too far. It's just after the net.

It seems Mel Gibson has not lost his sense of humour. (Thanks to ED for pointing this out)

Happy New Year:

2006-01-04T22:58:00.000-05:00

Happy New Year to one and all.

Playground politics:

2005-12-24T10:35:00.000-05:00

Most Americans have heard of the Scopes Monkey trial in the state of Kansass, and many Americans are aware that the issue of evolution v. creationism as curricula has recently returned to the foreground of American educational politics.

The argument as it has more frequently been heard today claims that, because the theory of evolution is a mere theory and cannot explain everything without leaving a few questions unanswered, students should be taught alternative theories of life origin. Namely, creationism. Intelligent Design is another 'competing' explanation of the origin of life that argues evolution to be possible, but only as part of an intelligent design by a higher being, or a being of vastly superior knowledge. In other words, god.

My own sentiments and opinions on the issue of the genesis of life aside, I would like to discuss the following event and surrounding commentary relating to this debate in American society.

On December 20, 2005 Judge John Jones in the Middle District of Pennsylvania had this to say about the teaching of intelligent design (ID) in the Dover (PA) Area School District:

"[W]e hold that the ID Policy is unconstitutional pursuant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution."

The ruling has caused quite a stir (yeilding over 1,000 News hits from around the world), and elicited some interesting comments from its critics.

An article in the Washington Post caught my attention:

Some politically influential backers of intelligent design warned that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, who was appointed by President Bush, so overreached that his ruling will outrage and inflame millions of conservative and religiously observant Americans.

"This decision is a poster child for a half-century secularist reign of terror that's coming to a rapid end with Justice Roberts and soon-to-be Justice Alito," said Richard Land, who is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and is a political ally of White House adviser Karl Rove. "This was an extremely injudicious judge who went way, way beyond his boundaries -- if he had any eyes on advancing up the judicial ladder, he just sawed off the bottom rung."

The fact that Mr. Land and his ilk (other like-minded, anti-progressive, (religious) conservatives) don't get it is amazing to me. Pardon me, but a 'secularist reign of terror'? Please. Such statements bely the radcialism that sits at the heart of such people and perspectives. A judicial opinion that denies them their triumph over rationality and scientific progress is labeled as overreaching hudicial authority; judges who do not conform to a religion-centered world-view are considered to be 'activist judges'; and proponents of science and reason are blasted as 'aetheist'.

This is precisely the sort of modus operandi used by Islamist propoganda organizations in the US, i.e. CAIR. That strategy is, quite simply, when you don't like what you hear, or don't get your way on an issue or court ruling, stomp your feet and call the other guy the dirtiest names you can think of that won't be so obviously juvenile as to effect a backlash against you. Then articulate your position as being victimzed by a long standing conspiratorial/hate filled cabal of people with a differing perspective, citing events and cases out of context and blowing minor infractions out of proportion.

For example, in the same Wasington Post article:

Still, few advocates of intelligent design tried to hide their dismay with the judge's decision. The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, wrote that the judge has a "pernicious understanding of what intellectual and religious freedom in America means." Some acknowledged that the decision foreshadows a much longer and more complicated battle for public acceptance.

Again, this sort of nonsense vilification of any who oppose their way of thinking should be understood for what it is: simple bullying. To argue that a judge, in ruling that a thinly veiled attempt to introduce creationism into public school science curricula is unconstitutional, has a "pernicious understanding of what intellectual and religious freedom in America means" is a bully tactic. From the playground to politics, if you don't like what someone is doing, but recognize that they are justified in doing so, you attack them through efforts to smear them, beat them over the head with vicious language, or you call them names until they shut up.

That is, lacking any real or constructive objection beyond simply disagreeing, religious fanatics use insults and name calling to convince the mainstream that they (the fanatics) are being somehow targeted or victimised. Sorry ID proponents. Your ideas are welcome in the 'market place of ideas,' but your insults and slander are not. ID proponents and people who want prayer in schools are free to argue and to attempt to persuade, but when they launch a salvo of pure vitriol at their intellectual opponents, let's call it what it is. If they cannot convince the mainstream of the validity of their position, then perhaps their position is the one in need of rethinking.

To Judge Jones who rendered the decision, and to all who stand firm in the face of all forms of religious fanaticism refusing to cave to their incredible demands, I salute you. Stand strong, you are not alone.

~JDS

How bad is bad enough?

2005-12-06T21:45:00.000-05:00

I have previously posted (here and here) about former professor Sami al-Arian.

Today, after days of deliberation jurrors have found Al-Arian to be not guilty on 8 of the 17 counts against him.

Having followed the trial in the news, I find this verdict amazing. How bad is bad enough? To anyone that misunderstands this verdict as an absolute vindication of Mr. al-Arian, or a substantiation of his claims that the charges against him were politically motivated, I say 'wake up!' Sami was no angel. Mr. al-Arian and his co-defendants were actively involved in supporting the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (see here, here, and here for more information on PIJ).

Still not convinced? I point you, then, to the following items:

*No Mea Culpas
*Arian Lied to the Press and Immigration Authorities, Lawyer Concedes
*Tampa PIJ Defendant Sentenced in Separate Fraud Case
*Contributing Expert Matthew Levitt Testifies at Sami Al-Arian Trial
*PIJ profile
*Steven Emerson on the Sami Al-Arian case: "Islamic Jihad on Trial"
*Al Arian & co defendents ran Palestinian Islamic Jihad communications center & directed suicide bombings from Tampa
*Statement of Richard A. Clarke Before the United States Senate Banking Committee(PDF)
*this affadavit (PDF) names Al-Arian as North American leader of PIJ.
*Saudi Support for Islamic Extremism in the United States

And if you are still not convinced by the words and analysis of experts, then I challenge anyone to review the indictment (below) and dispute the charges. Comments to this regard are welcome and sought.
*Criminal indictment against Al-Arian(PDF)

So how bad is bad enough?

Fun, etc.:

2005-11-14T10:45:00.000-05:00

A couple of entertaining images for you. Enjoy.

~JDS

Riddle me this:

2005-11-14T09:00:00.000-05:00

Dave Wallace/AP Photo found here

What do college football, psychology, and the color pink have to do with one and other?

If your answer had something to do with the visitor's locker room at the University of Iowa, then you either went to Iowa or you likely saw the same Sports Center segment that I did. (Also see here).

According to an ESPN report there are some complaints about the color scheme. "Critics say the use of pink demeans women, perpetuates offensive stereotypes about women and homosexuality, and puts the university in the uncomfortable position of tacitly supporting those messages."

Now, I for one do not agree with this charge, and would like to pose a question to critics of Iowa's aesthetic choices. Is the color pink really an automatic, guarenteed association with weakness-as-a-feminine-trait? What do those who answer yes have to say to the businessmen who sport pink shirts? (Doubters may see here, here (see 'brick'), here (see 'picante'), here (second row, on the left), and here for examples of men's fashion making use of the color pink.)

Now, do the stereotypes discussed really persist because of the visitor's locker room at Iowa? More to the point, does the locker room at Iowa really perpetuate negative sterotypes about women? Is it not possible that it is the calming affect, the mood pacification that Iowa seeks to utilize against its opponents, rather than passively calling them girls? I for one think that those critics who argue that the decor promotes negative stereotypes about weakness in women are doing more to promote the stereotype themselves than the pink locker room does.

By coming down so hard on Iowa's color choices, opponents of the pink are, no pun intended, painting the locker room with their own negative images of the color pink. It would be different if Iowa hung signs in the locker room that said 'we painted the room for you, sissies!' or 'we knoiw you women like pink, so we thought we would make you feel at home!', as this would clearly be playing to the negative stereotypes. But to suggest that a color choice is indicative of a latent bias against women simply because pink is not the first color a young male wears is, in my opinion, overly sensitive and downright silly.

While I don't disagree that there are subliminal associations made with pink in American culture, I do not think that there is any need to be offended in this case. I wonder whether or not the same uproar would have resulted from a women's athletics team painting their oppoenent's locker room pink. Would the girls be guilty of hating on themselves, or is this merely an impotent outrage fueled by the percieved injustice of a men's program? I do not mean to sound unsympathetic to the plight of Women, as sexism is a pervasive force in society. However, I do not think that the case of the Iowa locker room falls into this category.

I will leave it to readers, though, to decide. Should the visitor's locker room at the University of Iowa be re-painted, or should these various law professors get back to what they are being paid to do?

New Blogger tool:

2005-10-30T12:04:00.000-05:00

I just discovered the ability to upload images to my Blog. While there are far better pictures out there, some of magnificent scenery, some of current events, I decided I would start things off with this.

Why, you may be asking yourself, would he make such a grotesque image the first to adorn his blog?

The answer is simply because it is just plain funny. I mean, it's Captain Hook...he deserves it.

~JDS

Addendum:

2005-10-30T11:48:00.000-05:00

I would like to add the following editorial to the discussion served in my last post. Today I read an editorial in the Jerusalem Post discussing the implications of the Iranain President's recent remarks. Below is an excerpt and a link. Highlights include the precise reasoning that Iran's nuclear ambitions, unbridled support for radical Islamist terrorism, and what amount to death threats against Israel and the West are not simply isolated qualities, but are part of a larger Iranian world view that sees the outside world as a threat to be eliminated. As I mentioned, such an attitude should not be tolerated.

~JDS

Beyond Condemnation
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1129540627392&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

It is not every day that all 15 members of the United Nations Security Council rally to Israel's defense. The wider context of the unanimous vote on Friday condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's calls to "wipe Israel off the map," however, must be concern that condemnations, in this case, are not enough.

Iran's Foreign Ministry has since sought to downplay Ahmadinejad's embarrassing remarks, but only compounded them with a pack of lies, namely that Iran is "committed to its UN charter commitments" and has "never used force against a second country or threatened the use of force." Last we checked, the UN charter does not permit turning the fomenting of terrorism against a range of countries into a staple of a nation's foreign policy. We also fail to see how Iran's repeated - the most recent were not the first - calls to destroy Israel are not "threats of force."

Nor was the Iranian president's call some offhand remark taken out of context. The context was a speech at a conference of students majoring in "world without Zionism" studies, showing that the desire to destroy Israel is being actively developed as a part of a comprehensive ideology by the regime.

Moreover, unlike his diplomats Ahmadinejad seems eager to dispel any ambiguities. On Friday, this time fanning emotions at the anyway virulently anti-Israel "Jerusalem Day" rallies, Ahmadinejad repeated his assertions that Israel is "a blot which must be erased from the map." He seemed to go out of his way to disprove Western delusions that his bark may be worse than his bite. Ahmadinejad in fact keeps barking, as if to underscore that he didn't misspeak and wasn't just carried away by the volatile crowds and the occasion.

As to his bite, Iran is the chief sponsor of Islamic Jihad, the terrorist organization that just murdered five Israelis in Hadera. There is, in addition, no doubt that Iran is involved in the terrorist onslaught that has taken the lives of so many Iraqis, Americans, and others in Iraq...

For the remainder of this piece, please see http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1129540627392&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

A word to all those nay-sayers:

2005-10-29T16:49:00.000-04:00

Below is a recent item put out by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). Below the MEMRI clip is a brief comment.

Iranian President at Tehran Conference: "Very Soon, This Stain of Disgrace [i.e. Israel] Will Vanish from the Center of the Islamic World - and This is Attainable"
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD101305

In advance of Iran's Jerusalem Day, which was established by Ayatollah Khomeini and is marked annually on the fourth Friday of the month of Ramadan, the "World without Zionism" conference was held in Tehran.

At the conference, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke to the representatives of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, members of the Society for the Defense of the Palestinian Nation, and members of the Islamic Students Union, and an audience of hundreds of students.

In his speech, he described his vision of an age-old confrontation between the world of Islam and the "World of Arrogance," i.e. the West; he portrayed Israel and Zionism as the spearhead of the West against the Islamic nation; and he emphasized the need to eliminate Israel – which, he claimed, was a goal that was attainable.

Speeches were also delivered by representatives of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas leader Khaled Mash'al.

The Iranian Students News Agency (ISNA), published the full text of Ahmadinejad's speech. The following is a translation of excerpts from ISNA's report and from the speech. [1]

"Prior to his statement, Ahmadinejad said that if you plan to chant the slogan 'Death to Israel,' say it in the right and complete way.

"The president warned the leaders of the Islamic world that they should be wary of Fitna [civil strife]: 'If someone is under the pressure of hegemonic power [i.e. the West] and understands that something is wrong, or he is naïve, or he is an egotist and his hedonism leads him to recognize the Zionist regime – he should know that he will burn in the fire of the Islamic Ummah [nation]…'

"Ahmadinejad articulated the real meaning of Zionism: '...We must see what the real story of Palestine is... The establishment of the regime that is occupying Jerusalem was a very grave move by the hegemonic and arrogant system [i.e. the West] against the Islamic world. We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years.

"'In this historical war, the situation at the fronts has changed many times. During some periods, the Muslims were the victors and were very active, and looked forward, and the World of Arrogance was in retreat.

"'Unfortunately, in the past 300 years, the Islamic world has been in retreat vis-à-vis the World of Arrogance… During the period of the last 100 years, the [walls of the] world of Islam were destroyed and the World of Arrogance turned the regime occupying Jerusalem into a bridge for its dominance over the Islamic world...

"'This occupying country [i.e. Israel ] is in fact a front of the World of Arrogance in the heart of the Islamic world. They have in fact built a bastion [ Israel ] from which they can expand their rule to the entire Islamic world... This means that the current war in Palestine is the front line of the Islamic world against the World of Arrogance, and will determine the fate of Palestine for centuries to come.

"'Today the Palestinian nation stands against the hegemonic system as the representative of the Islamic Ummah [nation]. Thanks to God, since the Palestinian people adopted the Islamic war and the Islamic goals, and since their struggle has become Islamic in its attitude and orientation, we have been witnessing the progress and success of the Palestinian people.'

"Ahmadinejad said: 'The issue of this [World without Zionism] conference is very valuable. In this very grave war, many people are trying to scatter grains of desperation and hopelessness regarding the struggle between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels, and in their hearts they want to empty the Islamic world.

"'... They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved…

"'When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah's regime can be toppled]?'

"'That day, when Imam [Khomeini] began his movement, all the powers supported [the Shah's] corrupt regime… and said it was not possible. However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [ U.S. ] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it.

"'Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it.

"'Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country...

"'Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [ Jerusalem ] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise.

"'Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e. country] to arise in its [own] heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime [i.e. Israel ] in fact signs the defeat of the Islamic world.

"'In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam [Khomeini] set the regime occupying Qods [ Jerusalem ] as the target of his fight.

"'I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in our dear Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world. Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel ] will vanish from the center of the Islamic world – and this is attainable.

"'But we must be wary of Fitna. For more than 50 years, the World of Arrogance has tried to give recognition to the existence of this falsified regime [ Israel ]. With its first steps, and then with further steps, it has tried hard in this direction to stabilize it.

"'Regrettably, 27 or 28 years ago... one of the countries of the first line [i.e. Egypt ] made this failure [of recognizing Israel ] – and we still hope that they will correct it.

"'Lately we have new Fitna underway… With the forced evacuation [of Gaza ] that was imposed by the Palestinian people, they [the Israelis] evacuated only a corner. [ Israel ] declared this as the final victory and, on the pretext of evacuating Gaza and establishing a Palestinian government, tried to put an end to the hopes of the Palestinians.

"'Today, [ Israel ] seeks, satanically and deceitfully, to gain control of the front of war. It is trying to influence the Palestinian groups in Palestine so as to preoccupy them with political issues and jobs – so that they relinquish the Palestinian cause that determines their destiny, and come into conflict with each other.

"'On the pretext of goodwill, they [ Israel ] intended, by evacuating the Gaza strip, to gain recognition of its corrupt regime by some Islamic states. I very much hope, and ask God, that the Palestinian people and the dear Palestinian groups will be wary of this Fitna.

"'The issue of Palestine is by no means over, and will end only when all of Palestine will have a government belonging to the Palestinian people. The refugees must return to their homes, and there must be a government that has come to power by the will of the [Palestinian] people. And, of course those [i.e. the Jews] who came to this country from far away to plunder it have no right to decide anything for the [Palestinian] people.

"'I hope that the Palestinians will maintain their wariness and intelligence, much as they have pursued their battles in the past 10 years. This will be a short period, and if we pass through it successfully, the process of the elimination of the Zionist regime will be smooth and simple.

"'I warn all the leaders of the Islamic world to be wary of Fitna: If someone is under the pressure of hegemonic power [i.e. the West] and understands that something is wrong, or he is naïve, or he is an egotist and his hedonism leads him to recognize the Zionist regime – he should know that he will burn in the fire of the Islamic Ummah [nation]…

"'The people who sit in closed rooms cannot decide on this matter. The Islamic people cannot allow this historical enemy to exist in the heart of the Islamic world.

"'Oh dear people, look at this global arena. By whom are we confronted? We must understand the depth of the disgrace imposed on us by the enemy, until our holy hatred expands continuously and strikes like a wave.'"

[1] Iranian Students News Agency (Iran), October 26, 2005, http://www.isna.ir/Main/NewsView.aspx?ID=News-603386

Now, whoever still thinks that Iran is a country to be codled, or to be placated, please, think again. This is not a state that desires inclusion in our world. I do not mean to suggest a military option as the only choice we have, but we certainly should not rule this out. but regardless of strategy, there should be no confusion as to the true nature of this regime. Remember, this is a state who's former supreme leader called for the death of an author.

So, to recap, the recently elected Iranian president has called for a recognized, sovereign state to be erased from existence. Now, I don't know about anyone else out there, but when a country declares it's desire that another state should no longer exist, and that country is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, I see a serious problem.

Furthermore, the Iranian president's statements appear to claim the West as an enemy. Again, here is a country that on one occasion declares it is in compliance with a treaty it signed with the West, and on another occasion declares that it is engaged in a "... historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world...". The United States would be well advised to respond that Iran and her president ought to watch themselves and be careful, as their words are not being ignored and will ultimately carry consequences; military economic or otherwise. But this reaction should come from the entire Western world, not only the United States. A nuclear Iran is untenable, and Europe must get involved in communicating the severity of this conviction.