So you thought the Cold War was over, did you? Welcome to Vladimir Putin's new Russian Empire.
.
.
.
Russian revanchism for the supposed humiliations of the Yeltsin era in the 1990s drives this agenda. President Putin calls the collapse of the Soviet Union the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the twentieth century, and the suggestion is that everything that has happened since 1991, or even 1989, should now be reversed. Oslo accords?
David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change. At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. Though a spokesman said yesterday the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally, Dr. Suzuki reportedly made similar remarks in an address at the University of Toronto last month.
Why not, the Canadians are already set to jug people for 'insulting' others ...
The proposal has lit up many conservative blogs since it was first reported by the McGill Daily on Monday.
Addressing the McGill Business Conference on Sustainability, hosted by the Faculty of Management, Dr. Suzuki's wide-ranging speech warned against favouring the economy to the detriment of the ecology -- the tarsands in Northern Alberta being his prime example. "You have lived your entire lives in a completely unsustainable period," he told students and fans. "You all think growth and [climate] change is normal. It's not."
Toward the end of his speech, Dr. Suzuki said that "we can no longer tolerate what's going on in Ottawa and Edmonton" and then encouraged attendees to hold politicians to a greater green standard. "What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there's a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they're doing is a criminal act," said Dr. Suzuki, a former board member of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. "It's an intergenerational crime in the face of all the knowledge and science from over 20 years."
The statement elicited rounds of applause.
"He sounded serious," said McGill Tribune news editor Vincci Tsui, who covered the event. "I think he wanted to send home the message that this is very crucial issue."
When asked for further comment, Dan Maceluch, a spokesman for Dr. Suzuki, said that he did not mean the statement to be taken literally. "He's not advocating locking people up, but he is pulling his hair out..." When you repeatedly call for something, trying to pretend you aren't is duplicitous. However, sauce for the gander: If MMGW is proven to be hooey, then its advocates should be imprisoned as well.
#1
Let me reiterate that. If MMGW is shown to be just lies used in an effort to steal political power, then those who advocated those lies should be put in prison for criminal fraud.
Let's see, that would include Al Gore, John Kerry, and a whole slew of other offenders.
#2
Which is why, just like the Catholic Church and Galileo, those in power will do everything they can to make sure truth is never known. It is also why those in power must, must suppress free speech and flow of ideas. Those who call for such draconian actions are revealing the real truth in their threats and tyrannies. The counter proposal is in response to those actions. Just remember if they raise the stake high and if they lose, show no mercy, accept no excuse for they would do on to you exactly what they then fear will befall them.
#3
Suzuki is the worst kind of watermelon Green. Always has been. And like Gore he has made an awful lot of money from peddling this rubbish to the guilt-ridden middle classes. I loathe the man.
#4
Yup, when Mao Zedong said the same things in the 30s, it was whitewashed out by the Western press as "he really didn't mean that, he was just throwing red meat to his supporters". Turns out, he wasn't kidding, and millions died.
Hat tip, instapundit I'm copying the content below to save a trip to this link that may crash your browser
Inspiration is nice. But some folks seem to be getting out of hand.
It's as if Tom Daschle descended from on high saying, "Be not afraid; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people: for there is born to you this day in the city of Chicago a Savior, who is Barack the Democrat."
Obama supporter Kathleen Geier writes that she's "getting increasingly weirded out by some of Obama's supporters. On listservs I'm on, some people who should know better hard-bitten, not-so-young cynics, even are gushing about Barack
Describing various encounters with Obama supporters, she writes, "Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign. The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity the Obama volunteers speak of 'coming to Obama' in the same way born-again Christians talk about 'coming to Jesus.'...So I say, we should all get a grip, stop all this unseemly mooning over Barack, see him and the political landscape he is a part of in a cooler, clearer, and more realistic light, and get to work."
Joe Klein, writing at Time, notes "something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism" he sees in Obama's Super Tuesday speech.
"We are the ones we've been waiting for," Obama said. "This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you."
Says Klein: "That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause other than an amorphous desire for change the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is.
The always interesting James Wolcott writes that "(p)erhaps it's my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria. I can picture President Hillary in the White House dealing with a recalcitrant Republican faction; I can't picture President Obama in the same role because his summons to history and call to hope seems to transcend legislative maneuvers and horse-trading; his charisma is on a more ethereal plane, and I don't look to politics for transcendence and self-certification."
Then there's MSNBC's Chris Matthews who tells Felix Gillette in the New York Observer, Ive been following politics since I was about 5. Ive never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."
And behold, Obama met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him.
The Holy Season of Lent is upon us. Can Obama worshippers try to give up their Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities for a few weeks?
At least until Easter, or the Pennsylvania primary, whichever comes first...
- jpt
UPDATE: Let me be clear: I'm not saying there shouldn't be enthusiasm in politics. I'm merely touching on the fact that some Obama supporters' exhuberance seems to be getting a little out of hand. Obama himself joked about this at a Hollywood fundraiser, as noted in Men's Vogue:
When Morgan Freeman comes over to greet Obama, the senator begins bowing down both hands in worship. This guy was president before I was, says Obama, referring to Freeman's turn in Deep Impact and, clearly, getting a little ahead of his own bio. Next, a nod to Bruce Almighty: This guy was God before I was.
The director of national intelligence is backing away from his agency's assessment late last year that Iran had halted its nuclear program, saying he wishes he had written the unclassified version of the document in a different manner.
At a hearing yesterday of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the intelligence director, Michael McConnell, said, "If I had 'til now to think about it, I probably would change a few things." He later added, "I would change the way we describe the Iranian nuclear program. I would have included that there are the component parts, that the portion of it, maybe the least significant, had halted."
Mr. McConnell was referring to the specific Iranian program to design potential nuclear warheads, which the December estimate said had halted in 2003. But in his opening testimony, Mr. McConnell noted that two other components of the nuclear program were moving ahead the enrichment of uranium, which he said was the most difficult part of making a bomb, and the development of long-range missiles capable of hitting North Africa and Europe.
The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program released on December 3 distinguished Iran's enrichment of uranium at Natanz and Arak from its formal nuclear weapons program, which it said had halted in 2003 after the American invasion of Iraq.
Yesterday, Mr. McConnell struck a different tone. "Declared uranium enrichment efforts, which will enable the production of fissile material, continue. This is the most difficult challenge in nuclear production. Iran's efforts to perfect ballistic missiles that can reach North Africa and Europe also continue."
He went on, "We remain concerned about Iran's intentions and assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons."
The release of the declassified estimate also contradicted Mr. McConnell's own stated policy of keeping intelligence estimates secret. On Tuesday he said that on November 27, when his analysts presented him with the new Iran estimate, he decided he had to make the conclusions public because both he and his predecessor had been on record warning of Iran's nuclear weapons program and the new intelligence in part contradicted that.
The timing of Mr. McConnell's pivot is also significant. On January 22 in Berlin, all five permanent veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council plus the Germans agreed on a draft third resolution against Iran. Mr. McConnell predicted that it would pass the council this month. At the same time, other members of the Security Council, such as South Africa have recently warned against a third resolution. The Russians last month completed a deal to provide Iran with nuclear fuel for a separate reactor in Bushehr.
#3
WTF? Jeebus...we are well and royally screwed. We should just shut the whole thing down and outsource our intel to Israel while we clean house from the ground up.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/07/2008 14:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The damage is done. You petty D.C. game players made your nuclear ground zero, and lookie, you're living in it.
Posted by: ed ||
02/07/2008 15:37 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Who needs enemies when you have friends like this? If I were boss, there'd be no begging for forgiveness after an act like this.
#8
Close D.C. down completely and turn the place into parks and museums. Move the nations capitol to the center of the country. Outlaw all forms of lobbying and institute term limits.
Get ready, and hold on, it's going to be a bumpy ride for the next few years, no matter who gets elected.
1) Every 8 years (staggered per division) move government departments to different areas of the nation. Do not encourage workers to move with the departments with moving allowances or anything like that. That should provide a %90 or better clean slate renewing government departments.
2) Move the house and senate with no transfer of aides. Of course this would impoverish a certain Virgina Suburb but those folks could discover the joy of a real job.
3) Outlaw paid lobbyists.
4) Outlaw foreign lobbyists.
5) Require congress-critters to actually write their own laws. Maybe do automated authorship studies on bills to make sure an aide didn't write it. After all if we wanted the aide's opinion and views we would have elected them instead.
#11
I would define a finite limit of laws, i.e.: you write one, you propose two that should be removed to balance. There are surely enough obscure and single-lobbyist-assisting laws that the legislators can't resist, but, sooner or later, they run up against a limit...heh
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/07/2008 21:48 Comments ||
Top||
India's traditionally friendly relations with Iran have come under unprecedented strain because of the launching of an Israeli spy satellite by an Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) rocket a fortnight ago. This comes on top of recent tensions caused by India's refusal to attend talks to complete a commercial deal on a proposed Iran-India-Pakistan gas pipeline.
The satellite is equipped with a synthetic aperture radar, which captures images of small as well as large objects day and night while penetrating cloud cover. It is widely believed to be designed to enable Israel to track activities in its neighbourhood, in particular, activities pertaining to Iran's nuclear programme.
On Tuesday, Seyed Mahdi Nabizadeh, Iran's ambassador in New Delhi, publicly regretted India's assistance in lifting off the TECSAR satellite in a hush-hush manner from a launching pad in southern Andhra Pradesh state on Jan. 21.
The Indian government justified the launch on technical and commercial grounds. But Nabizadeh said: "We hope the issue could be considered from the political point of view also. Our relationship with India is very strong and good. Many are trying to destroy (that) relationship We hope that wise and independent countries such as India would not give their space technology to other countries to launch instruments for spying against friendly countries like Iran."
Nabizadeh added: "The United States continues to be hostile (to Iran), and even today is trying to create problems between Iran and its friendly countries. We expect friendly countries to realise this..."
The tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto was merely the coup de grâce for a U.S. strategy that was already doomed to failure. When Pervez Musharraf falls, too, will American leaders finally wake up and see Pakistan for what it is, not for what they wish it to be?
American officials always seem to hit it off with their Pakistani counterparts. Typically well-educated, articulate, affable, apparently liberal, and averse to confrontation, they appear to share U.S. goals and values. But the personal bonhomie can lead to dangerous illusions. It tends to obscure key facts of Pakistani political history, half of which has been dominated by military governments who usurped the constitution. And it blinds U.S. leaders to the reality that Pakistani leaders pursue strategic national interests that are inimical to American goalsbe it containing nuclear proliferation, promoting peace on the subcontinent, fighting terrorism and extremism, or spreading democracy in the Muslim world.
Take Benazir Bhutto, a U.S. favorite before her Dec. 27 assassination. As prime minister, she spurred Pakistans aggressive nuclear weapons program, acquired missile and aircraft delivery systems from China and North Korea, and supported the Taliban to provide strategic depth against India. Pervez Musharraf, another U.S. favorite, executed those programs first as chief of the Army staff and later as president. In the October 2002 general elections, Musharrafs chief political ally was the pro-Taliban MMA, the Islamist political coalition that won control of two of Pakistans four provincial governments. It would be a mistake to view this military-mosque alliance as one of mere convenience. Far from simply being infiltrated by Islamist sympathizers, the Army rank and file is largely composed of them. In other words, Pakistans military is an agent of extremist views, not a bulwark against terrorism.
Nor do U.S. policymakers fathom the depths of Pakistans ethnic fissures. Successful countries usually have a common national narrative or sense of self. Pakistans national identity, in contrast, is based on not being Hindua thin reed on which to hang a unified state. We all know about the restiveness of the Baluchis and Pashtuns who populate Pakistans tribal areas. But the countrys tribalism extends east of the Indus River, which Americans tend to see as the dividing line between civilization and the wild. Bhutto, for instance, was a secular Sindhi politician in a country where Punjabis dominate the armed forces and the government. Mobs have rioted in Sindh province over Bhuttos murder, chanting anti-Punjabi slogans. In fact, Pakistan is one huge tribal areaa fundamentally unstable country that is not committed to the rule of law or elected government.
So, before desperate U.S. policymakers tried to arrange a shotgun wedding between Musharraf and Bhutto, they might have examined the interest groups the two leaders represent, the distance and issues that separate them, and the nature of the interaction between Pakistans military, Islamist, and secular political players. Instead, U.S. officials liked them both, so they promoted cooperation between two viscerally hostile interest groups. As a result, Pakistan is much more unstable than it was before Bhutto returned on October 18 and was subsequently killed. She will not be the last to die in this bout of political instability.
If anything, the situation will probably get worse. Government leaders are always under some degree of stress. But stress becomes a threat to national stability when governments are unwilling or unable to satisfy the needs and wants of their people, or when they anger specific, powerful groups. Thats when governments usually blunder in judgment, timing, and crisis managementand Musharraf has proven himself to be quite the blunderer indeed.
Until recently, the effects of his chronic bad judgment have been mitigated by good advisors, lavish U.S. aid, and a buoyant economy. But in 2007, Musharrafs luck began to run out. His first big mistake was attacking the Pakistan judiciary in March, when he suspended the chief justice for trivial reasons, mostly personal pique. (We know this was a blunder because he was forced to retract it. One of the key signs of a stable government is that it can enforce its orders.) In June and July, Musharraf mishandled the Red Mosque insurrection in Islamabad. The storming of the mosque led Baitullah Mehsud, the Pashtun tribal leader allegedly behind the Bhutto assassination, to declare war against the government. Al Qaeda followed suit in September. (A stable government does not expand the ranks of its enemies.) Then in November, Musharraf imposed a state of emergency to perpetuate his political power, showing how out of touch he is with the political scene. (Pakistani polls rate him the least-popular politician in Pakistan.) His latest blunder, failing to protect Bhutto, may be the one that ultimately threatens his regime.
There are only two possible outcomes for Pakistan now, both of which involve Musharraf taking action that brings about his own death or overthrow. One is a praetorian coup from within the military; the other is a popular uprising. Either can result from his mishandling of an important national issue, such as secession by a district or province. You can bet the corps commanders of the Pakistani Army are already calculating the costs and benefits of five more years of Musharraf.
Despite the riots in Sindh, there are no signs of a widespread uprising. The most likely scenario is for popular unrest to prompt the Army to oust Musharraf to stabilize the country. (This is how Suharto was overthrown in Indonesia in 1998.) Musharraf has poor judgment and is prone to be more dictatorial and capricious than Pakistanis accept. He will blunder again and thus become the agent of his own political or physical demise. The only question is, will the United States see it coming?
John McCreary was a senior intelligence expert at the Defense Intelligence Agency for 38 years. Currently vice president for intelligence applications of dNovus RDI, a San Antonio-based defense contractor, he writes the nightly executive commentary NightWatch.
Posted by: john frum ||
02/07/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
A few days old, but I just couldn't pass the occasion to highlight excerpts of the "Arab Charter on Human Rights"...
Council of the League of Arab States, Cairo
Arab Charter on Human Rights
adopted on 15 September 1994 (not yet ratified as of 30 June 1997), full text (1), translated from Arabic (2)
" The Governments of the member States of the League of Arab States (3)
Preamble
Given the Arab nation's belief in human dignity since God honoured it by making the Arab World the cradle of religions and the birthplace of civilizations which confirmed its right to a life of dignity based on freedom, justice and peace,
Pursuant to the eternal principles of brotherhood and equality among all human beings which were firmly established by the Islamic Shari'a and the other divinely-revealed religions,
Being proud of the humanitarian values and principles which it firmly established in the course of its long history and which played a major role in disseminating centres of learning between the East and the West, thereby making it an international focal point for seekers of knowledge, culture and wisdom,
Conscious of the fact that the entire Arab World has always worked together to preserve its faith, believing in its unity, struggling to protect its freedom, defending the right of nations to self-determination and to safeguard their resources, believing in the rule of law and that every individual's enjoyment of freedom, justice and equality of opportunity is the yardstick by which the merits of any society are gauged, Because arabo-muslims never invaded anyone. Never, ever.
Rejecting racism and zionism, which constitute a violation of human rights and pose a threat to world peace,
Acknowledging the close interrelationship between human rights and world peace, See above.
(b) Racism, zionism, occupation and foreign domination pose a challenge to human dignity and constitute a fundamental obstacle to the realization of the basic rights of peoples. There is a need to condemn and endeavour to eliminate all such practices.
No citizen shall be expelled from his country or prevented from returning thereto.
No citizen shall be arbitrarily deprived of his original nationality, nor shall his right to acquire another nationality be denied without a legally valid reason.
Adherents of every religion have the right to practise their religious observances and to manifest their views through expression. practice or teaching, without prejudice to the rights of others. No restrictions shall be imposed on the exercise of freedom of belief, thought and opinion except as provided by law.
The State guarantees every citizen's right to work in order to secure for himself a standard of living that meets the basic requirements of life. The State also guarantees every citizen's right to comprehensive social security.
Citizens have a right to live in an intellectual and cultural environment in which Arab nationalism is a source of pride, in which human rights are sanctified and in which racial, religious and other forms of discrimination are rejected and international cooperation and the cause of world peace are supported.
Minorities shall not be deprived of their right to enjoy their culture or to follow the teachings of their religions. Yes. Of course.
#2
UN Watch welcomed the new clarification issued today by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour, in response to its Jan. 28, 2008 letter protesting her endorsement of the Arab Charter on Human Rights, which contains anti-Semitic provisions.
Last week the High Commissioner endorsed the Arab Charter, but today she has shown courage in criticizing its incompatibility with international norms and standards, and thats a step forward, said Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director. We welcome Ms. Arbours recognition today that the Arab Charter includes inconsistencies in regard to its approach to the death penalty for children, the rights of women and non-citizens, and anti-Zionism.
Oooh, I'l bet Louise popped a friggin vein when she got called on this...
#1
AFP: Egypt threatens to break the legs of Gaza border crossers
Abul Gheit also reproached Hamas for firing rockets into Israel, describing the standoff as a "laughable caricature." The minister said some rockets misfire and hit the Gaza Strip itself, wounding Palestinians and merely providing Israel with a pretext to attack.
I believe Cairo has decided the Palestinians are not worth open war with Israel, just like Jordon, Syria and Lebanon.
The Arab-Israeli conflict definitely holds the record for the most bizarrely treated issue in modern history. It is easy to forget just how strange this situation is and the extent to which it is understood and handled so totally different from other, more rationally, perceived problems.
Lets take a very simple example and examine the surrealistic, bizarre way in which normally sensible people and institutions respond. On February 4, 2008, two terrorists attacked the quiet town of Dimona in southern Israel. One blew himself up near a toy store in a marketplace, killing an elderly woman and wounding forty people. The other was injured in the first blast and, before he could detonate his own bomb, was killed by a policeman.
At first, some Fatah officials claimed that one of the men was theirs, from that groups al-Aqsa Brigades; the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) said the second belonged to them. Such are the bare facts. But from here it gets far stranger. Apparently, Fatah and the PFLP did dispatch a two-man terrorist team, but they were caught before crossing into Israel. At the exact same time, Hamas sent another duo, and they succeeded in reaching Dimona. Thus, through no fault of their own, Fatah and the PFLP did not actually commit the attack. But they tried and would have preferred to have carried out the terrorist assault. From here, a number of conclusions should be obvious:
1. The nature of Fatah. Why is Fatah, the organization routinely described as moderate by Western governments and media, involved in constant terrorism attemptsand sometimes successesagainst Israel?
The al-Aqsa Brigades are an integral part of Fatah. The Brigades founder and leader is Marwan Barghouti who has been head of Fatah on the West Bank. Many of the Brigades gunmen are on the Fatah payroll in various ways, often as members of security forces which are supposed to prevent terrorism.
Of course, the leader of the Palestinian Authority (PA) and in effect Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas condemned the attack. That is, he said he didnt like it. But no member of Fatah has ever been expelled from the organization or fired from the security forces for involvement in terrorism. The PAs media regularly broadcasts incitement to commit terrorism. It does not transmit television, radio, and newspaper demands on its members not to attack Israeli civilians.
So is Fatah a terrorist organization? Well, apparently not. Granted, Abbas personally would prefer these attacks not occur. In the Fatah spectrum he is at the moderate end. Nevertheless, he presides over a group that is terrorist and which regards itself as fighting a war against Israel whose main tactic is deliberately murdering civilians. It uses its funds for this purpose and encourages such behavior through program and propaganda.
A Reuters dispatch about the attack, when it was thought to be perpetrated by Fatah, said it was a challenge for Abbas to control rebels within his own Fatah faction. The point, however, is that they arent rebels at all but rather members in good standing who probably have more support in Fatah than does Abbas himself.
2. International policy toward Fatah. Therefore, if Fatah, and the PA, should not be shunned at least they should be subjected to serious international pressure, right? If only for their own good since presumably the world believes that they are better off if they abandon terrorism? Again, apparently not.
Fatah is the group which is being given well about $7 billion by international donors. And there are no strings attached to that aid: no measure of whether Fatah uses or advocates terrorism whatsoever. It gets the money no matter what it does. There are good reasons for the West to work with, and even aid, the PA and Fatah but there are no good reasons for that support and aid to be unconditional.
3. Motive. Fatah officials said the reason for the attack was to protest Israeli aggression against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. To begin with, of course, Israel is merely responding to rocket and mortar attacks on its territory. If these were to cease, Israel would never attack the Gaza Strip and continue to supply itdirectly and indirectlywith its electricity. But if Israel were never to attack the Gaza Strip, the Hamas regime and its junior partners in the Gaza Strip would continue to attack Israel. By definition, then, they are the ones who are aggressive.
Incidentally, there are no sanctions whatsoever against the West Bank, which Fatah rules. Thus, Fatah is at war with Israel while Israel, despite periodic raids against individuals directly involved in terrorism, treats Fatah as a partner and urges countries to give it financial aid.
But theres more. Fatah is essentially coming to the aid of a Hamas regime which threw it out of Gaza and killed, sometimes in cold blood, and represses its own people. Why? Because Fatah and the PA are competing for Palestinian popular support in the Gaza Strip and the way that one does this is to murder Israeli civilians. This is a very telling definition of Palestinian politics, ideology, and public opinion.
4. The other terrorist killed was initially claimed by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a radical Arab nationalist group, which also tried to kill Israeli civilians on that day. Recently, the founder and long-time head of the PFLP, George Habash, died. Habash was a veteran terrorist who practically invented airplane hijacking and international terrorism. Habash was lauded by the PA and Fatah at his funeral as a great hero of the movement.
Riyad al-Malki, the PAs Minister of Information and Foreign Affairs of the moderate PA is a PFLP member and ran the organization on the West Bank for many years. So when Western politicians and diplomats deal with the moderate PA they are talking directly to a man who played a leading role in a terrorist group which continues to makeand proudly claim responsibility forterrorist attacks.
Arab members of Israels parliament went to the funeral and joined in the accolades for a terrorist whose group continues to murder their fellow citizens.
5. When the second terrorist fell as a result of the first explosion, Israeli medical personnel did not hesitate from rushing to help a man they thought was an Arab victim of the attack. Then the nurse saw the explosives belt and realized the man she was trying to save was about to murder her. She had to run for her life, pulling along another wounded person, and yell for help from the police.
To summarize: Fatah acts as a terrorist group; the PA facilitates terrorism and includes people leading terrorist groups; Fatah views itself as an ally of a group that attacks it and murders its own members; the West aids Fatah and the PA with no attempt to discourage their behavior; Israeli Arab politicians side with terrorism; and Israelis, at the risk of their lives, try to save Arab lives, and would like to have a two-state solution if the other side is every able to make and implement such a deal. Oh, yes, and guess who much of the world blames for the conflict. As I said, uniquely bizarre.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan) and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley).
Posted by: Fred ||
02/07/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under: Palestinian Authority
#1
It really is like a Marx Brothers movie, isn't it. Except they are killing each other rather than tormenting Margaret Dumont.
#2
I thought one of those Taliban-types had a thing for Christina Aguilera. Or maybe it was Britney. Something about a tape found in a house of his we had raided.
Last October, I participated in a debate in London, hosted by Intelligence Squared, to consider the motion, We should not be reluctant to assert the superiority of Western values. Muslim intellectual Tariq Ramadan, among others, spoke against the motion; I spoke in favor, focusing on the vast disparities in freedom, human rights, and tolerance between Western and Islamic societies. Here, condensed somewhat, is the case that I made.
The great ideas of the Westrationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracyare superior to any others devised by humankind. It was the West that took steps to abolish slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in Africa, where rival tribes sold black prisoners into slavery. The West has secured freedoms for women and racial and other minorities to an extent unimaginable 60 years ago. The West recognizes and defends the rights of the individual: we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live lives of our choosing.
In short, the glory of the West, as philosopher Roger Scruton puts it, is that life here is an open book. Under Islam, the book is closed. In many non-Western countries, especially Islamic ones, citizens are not free to read what they wish. In Saudi Arabia, Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity, and Christians are not free to practice their faithclear violations of Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In contrast with the mind-numbing enforced certainties and rules of Islam, Western civilization offers what Bertrand Russell once called liberating doubt, which encourages the methodological principle of scientific skepticism. Western politics, like science, proceeds through tentative steps of trial and error, open discussion, criticism, and self-correction.
One could characterize the difference between the West and the Rest as a difference in epistemological principles. The desire for knowledge, no matter where it leads, inherited from the Greeks, has led to an institution unequaledor very rarely equaledoutside the West: the university. Along with research institutes and libraries, universities are, at least ideally, independent academies that enshrine these epistemological norms, where we can pursue truth in a spirit of disinterested inquiry, free from political pressures. In other words, behind the success of modern Western societies, with their science and technology and open institutions, lies a distinct way of looking at the world, interpreting it, and recognizing and rectifying problems.
The edifice of modern science and scientific method is one of Western mans greatest gifts to the world. The West has given us not only nearly every scientific discovery of the last 500 yearsfrom electricity to computersbut also, thanks to its humanitarian impulses, the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. The West provides the bulk of aid to beleaguered Darfur; Islamic countries are conspicuous by their lack of assistance.
Moreover, other parts of the world recognize Western superiority. When other societies such as South Korea and Japan have adopted Western political principles, their citizens have flourished. It is to the West, not to Saudi Arabia or Iran, that millions of refugees from theocratic or other totalitarian regimes flee, seeking tolerance and political freedom. Nor would any Western politician be able to get away with the anti-Semitic remarks that former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad made in 2003. Our excusing Mahathirs diatribe indicates not only a double standard but also a tacit acknowledgment that we apply higher ethical standards to Western leaders.
A culture that gave the world the novel; the music of Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert; and the paintings of Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Rembrandt does not need lessons from societies whose idea of heaven, peopled with female virgins, resembles a cosmic brothel. Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine; societies that deny the rights of supposedly lower castes; societies that execute homosexuals and apostates. The West has no use for sanctimonious homilies from societies that cannot provide clean drinking water or sewage systems, that make no provisions for the handicapped, and that leave 40 to 50 percent of their citizens illiterate.
As Ayatollah Khomeini once famously said, there are no jokes in Islam. The West is able to look at its foibles and laugh, to make fun of its fundamental principles: but there is no equivalent as yet to Monty Pythons Life of Brian in Islam. Can we look forward, someday, to a Life of Mo? Probably notone more small sign that Western values remain the best, and perhaps the only, means for all people, no matter of what race or creed, to reach their full potential and live in freedom.
Love of country must always be qualified these days, lest anyone think you are unaware of slavery, insufficiently regulated railroad stock offerings, Lester Maddox or the attempt by Philip Morris to conceal the addictive nature of cigarettes. Say I love this country at a dinner table with strangers, and its like shave and a haircut without the two bits. But? But? We are an exceptional nation, to be sure, but you cant leave it at that. We are exceptionally misguided, exceptionally lazy and xenophobic, shot through to the pith with bilious perfidy, and our sole redeeming quality is our ability to constantly remake ourselves. Well either perfect society so we can perfect human nature, or do it the other way around. Eithers fine. Whatever works.
And what, you might wonder, caused me to prop that straw man up and jerk his jaw up and down? The Freakonomics blog on the NYT site has a contest: a six-word motto for the US. It was no doubt tendered in good faith, but reading the suggestions is like licking a corroded battery. The latter-day sub-Menckens will always get off the sharpest lines, of course; you cant draw a laugh with something Grandma might knit on a pillow, and drawing a laugh or a mirthless snort of appreciation, which counts as a laugh nowadays is the prime objective. Go on: read. Its not just a lefty thing; the hard-core Ron Paulites are there as well, luxuriously immersed in simon-pure certainties.
Hundreds of snippets of derisive snark. You can picture the satisfied little grins on the authors faces; you can imagine the whole tableau the computer (which most people in the world will never touch, let alone use, let alone own) the TV in the corner connected to a network that has channels catering to every taste, the iPod stocked with music hoovered up free of charge without consequence, the fridge stocked with food the light comes on when you open the door, too, unless its burned out, and then you go to the store and get another one; they always have another one. The soft bed, the coffee machine, the well-fed pet, the vast panoply of free information and unfettered opinion flowing 24/7 from the internet. You can drink alcohol without being sentenced to death; you can be a girl alone in a room with a man without earning a public stoning; you can stand up in a room and argue for the candidate of your choice without being arrested; you stand in a society that allows for astonishing amounts of freedom, comfort and opportunity. But.
But. Someone somewhere is a practicing Baptist and someone somewhere else is eating a hamburger larger than youd prefer, and other people are watching cars go around a track at high speed. As your skinny unhappy friend said the other night: people are just too fat and happy. He bites his nails and plays WoW six hours a night, but he has a point. It doesnt matter that these fascists-in-fetal-form never quite seem to accomplish anything; its not like they drove the gay Teletubbies off the air or had Tony Kushner drawn and quartered in the public square. But theyre preventing something. Something wonderful. And theyre driving large cars to Wal-Mart and putting 18-roll packs of Charmin in the back and they have three kids. Earth has withstood a lot in its four billion years, but it cannot withstand them. And even if it does, who wants to live in a world where these people dont care that theyre being mocked by small, underfunded theaters in honest, gritty neighborhoods? (Which are being gentrified by upwardly-mobile poseurs who have decided its a great place to live because the theater is good and the restaurants are cheap. F*#*$ing interlopers. But well deal with them later.)
ANYWAY. Bottom line: we will never be a great nation until we all realize how much we suck, and then we will also realize it is wrong to be a great nation. For that matter, nationhood are overrated. (The only nation that gets to be a nation is France.) Nations are bad enough, but were something else: the only nation that has ever fought a war, acted in self-interest, had a good opinion of itself, permitted slavery, elected leaders who lacked a certain Olympian quality, had a popular culture that included simple catchy melodies and bright pictures, harbored racist attitudes, had a strong religious element, and contained a sizable amount of stupid people.
(Side note: the existence of stupid people in America is a touchy subject, and not easily explained away. It would seem to suggest that some people are smarter than other people, which could conceivably have an impact on their ability to succeed but there are so many stupid people living in comfort that this almost implies that the bounty and opportunity of the country are sufficient to lift the leakiest dinghies if the occupants bail and plug, and that cant be true. It is also unacceptable to suggest that some people do not succeed because they arent smart, since that suggests that merit is rewarded, and that cant be true. Merit has nothing to do with America; its all about white male privilege. Do not be fooled by the rise of Hillary and Obama; put them together, and what do you have? White. Male.)
Anyway, America sucks except for a few parts of some cities if you ignore the Starbucks, and people in other countries are basically okay but no one in America knows it because they dont have passports, and Dubya wants you to hate Islam which is ridiculous because I was backpacking in Tunisia for a few days and people seemed pretty cool. Hey, look at this, someone posted a video on YouTube that makes it seem like Huckabee is supported by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Whats for supper? Thai? Again?
Posted by: Mike ||
02/07/2008 06:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Instapundit points out the best of the suggested six-word slogans:
Luckily, our parents left your country.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/07/2008 7:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Not a motto, and more than six words...
"Men did not love Rome because she was great, Rome was great because men loved her."
Posted by: moody blues ||
02/07/2008 8:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
people are just too fat and happy
A mere hundred years ago, only the rich in America could be fat and happy and lazy. Just google up some black and whites of the time. The 'fat cats' sitting around the dinning table in their suits, with a cigar and loads of food on the table. Then the classic images of the hard working down trodden 'working class', thin and sunburned, that hungry look. Well America applied itself to rectify that 'injustice'. So, today its the rich who are thin and sunburned and the poor who are fat, happy, and laid back. And everyone is bitchin' that this so bad. Make up your mind people :)
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change. At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime. Though a spokesman said yesterday the call for imprisonment was not meant to be taken literally, Dr. Suzuki reportedly made similar remarks in an address at the University of Toronto last month.
