WSJ, subscription
In life, Ilan Halimi sold cellular phones on a boulevard named after Voltaire, off a square dedicated to la République. He was an ordinary young Frenchman, except for one thing; he was Jewish, which got him killed. So in death, after 25 days of torture, Ilan Halimi became a symbol of this Continent's failures in dealing with its poor and maladjusted Muslims.
His story is shaking France in a deeper, possibly more lasting, way than the recent riots or the ongoing fracas over the Muhammad cartoons. Last week, on a Monday morning, Ilan was found naked, handcuffed, with burns and bruises over 80% of his body, stumbling on train tracks in Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois, south of Paris. He died in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. Each detail of his kidnapping and ordeal that emerged in the past week fed widespread popular outrage.
On Jan. 20, the 23-year-old Ilan, depicted here, went for a rendezvous with a young woman he met at his store and fell right into the hands of his kidnappers. In the previous month, this group tried to entrap six other men, four of them Jewish, using women as bait. Ilan was whisked to the cité de la Pierre-plate, a large housing project in Bagneux, a Paris suburb (or banlieue) that's home to immigrant and French lower-middle-class families. In an empty third-floor apartment and later a basement utility room, he was tortured to death. Several times, as Nidra Poller this week reported in the Journal's European editorial pages, the kidnappers called Ilan's family and read them verses from the Quran while their son screamed in agony in the background. Their demands for ransom from Ilan's modest parents never turned out to be serious.
Once unmasked, the identity of these barbarians came as no surprise. The police believe that up to 15 young men and women from the banlieue, maybe more, took part. These "youths," a French euphemism, grew up together in Bagneux. The gang is a mixed lot. Most, but not all, are Muslims born in France to Arab or African parents of limited means. In their raids, police found Islamist literature and documents supporting a Palestinian aid group. But last year's bonfires of cars set by similar "youths" showed that the bonds formed among the delinquents of the projects often transcend religion or ethnicity. That doesn't make the "gangrene" in French society, in the acid words of the left-leaning Libération yesterday, any less difficult to live with.
As it happens, the gang that murdered Ilan Halimi calls itself the "Barbarians." The crime was orchestrated by their leader Youssouf Fofana, a 26-year-old Muslim with a criminal past who refers to himself as the "brains of the Barbarians." On the run for a week, he was arrested late Wednesday in the Ivory Coast, the birthplace of his parents. Fofana told the Ivorian police that Ilan Halimi was kidnapped because Jews "have money"; he denies that he or his accomplices were motivated by hatred for Jews, specifically. By all accounts, Fofana is a vicious thief, and now admitted killer, who could never keep a job and, according to one acquaintance quoted in the French press, "spent all his time with kids of 16-17, around whom he could feel superior."
Posted by: Captain America ||
02/25/2006 11:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That doesn't make the "gangrene" in French society, in the acid words of the left-leaning Libération yesterday, any less difficult to live with.
whew. Liberals calling the "youths" gangrene? Color me surprised.
So there are "moderate" muslims out there. This is the Letter to the Editor I've been hoping would appear from our silent muslims. Go Amir!
As a practising Muslim, I was saddened and angered by the cartoons that depicted the Prophet Muhammad in a negative way. My anger is directed, not at the Danish cartoonists, but instead at fellow Muslims worldwide who have darkened the image of my beloved Prophet by their atrocities.
I saw a group of Canadian Muslim leaders congratulating Canadian Muslims for their calm reaction to the cartoons. But it is quite easy to remain calm when only a few outlets with small circulations have dared to publish some of those images. This is hardly a show of tolerance and peaceful coexistence; rather it shows a nation willing to sacrifice its freedom of speech because it is terrified of a possible reaction by a small minority in its midst.
Meanwhile, Muslim student groups at Saint Mary's University in Halifax are demanding the expulsion of a professor who posted some of the cartoons on his office door, while Mohamed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress, is threatening to take the Western Standard to court for publishing the cartoon. So much for calm reactions, but thanks for not rioting violently, I guess.
If I were a Muslim leader, I would try to explain to my fellow Muslims that it is freedom of speech that allows us to practise our religion freely in Canada, and the price for this is to accept views critical of ours. If I were the prime minister of Canada, I would declare my unconditional support for freedom of speech, including speech that I may find offensive. And if I were the minister of immigration, I would revoke the visas of the members of that Muslim student group at Saint Mary's University who are international students who now demand expulsion of one of the school's professors. I would remind them that they are merely guests in this country. Guests do not impose their views and ways on their hosts.
But as a private citizen, all I can do is to buy a copy of Western Standard, enjoy my Danish pastry and write opinion letters to Canadian newspapers and media to let them know that Mr. Elmasry does not represent the views of all Muslims in this country.
...The Democrat majority in the Washington State House of Representatives is censoring Republican commentary on Mrs. Gregoire's budget. The Olympian reports "House orders news releases edited for forbidden phrases"
House Republicans say there are "seven dirty words" you can never say when talking about the Democrats' budget this year in Olympia. Republican news releases using the forbidden phrases were removed from Web sites and edited this week by order of the House Chief Clerk's Office and its legal counsel.
The reason: The words impugned the motives of the other party's members at taxpayer expense, House Chief Clerk Rich Nafziger said Thursday. "You can't use taxpayers' dollars to sling mud."
Rep. Joel Kretz went ahead and issued a press release listing the 7 forbidden phrases:
1) "Shell game"
2) "...lack of honesty with taxpayers..."
3) "It's not truthful to say this money is being put into reserve."
4) "Tax-and-spend liberals"
5) "...lack of truth in the majoritys message..."
6) "...the majority party does not believe..."
7) "Disingenuous"
Speaking of which, this is a good time to learn more about Mrs. Gregoire's tax-and-spend liberal budget, which proposes $503 million in new spending and disingenuously claims that money is being put into reserve.
#1
Wouldn't expect any less from the state party of a senator who claims Osama bin-Laden is a hero.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
02/25/2006 8:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"The words impugned the motives of the other party's members at taxpayer expense, House Chief Clerk Rich Nafziger said Thursday. "You can't use taxpayers' dollars to sling mud."
Who says?????
Hmmm....I remember something from civics class:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
and from the Constitution of the great state of Washington:
Section 2-
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.
Section 5- freedom of speech.
Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.
Now, i wonder if I make a permutation of the forbidden phrases, can they pass muster. What if I say the other side is lying about the facts?
Posted by: Mark E. ||
02/25/2006 9:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I think the point here is that the Donks don't want the official record of the House to contain these phrases, and the Repubs, of course, want them in there.
We're all certain, of course, that this is an even-handed policy, and the Dems would never, never use official House records to disparage the Repubs. Nope, nope, never happen, nope.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/25/2006 10:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The DNC Mantra: Free speech for me but not for thee!
BTW: EFFwa is sponsering an initiative in Wa state to require all voters to re-register and prove US citizenship. Which I think is a doubleplusgood thing. Particulary when people keep finding bogus voter residences (at malls, non-existent addresses) and duplicate registrations in the voter's database.
So if you are a Washington Voter be sure to find this initiative and sign it. (and perhaps even if you aren't - after all its illegal to challange even an obvious fraud)
#6
I'm trying to imagine what the MSM would do if they got hold of a scrap of paper written by the lowest-ranking flunky in the Bush administration suggesting the possibility of such a thing.
Posted by: Matt ||
02/25/2006 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Matt - perhaps we should write one up (in MS Word) and fax it to CBS....
#8
I'm still waiting for the Osama bin Laden Memorial Daycare Center...
And Sexualy available goat center.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
02/25/2006 20:21 Comments ||
Top||
#9
That obscene, pornographic, Dick Dastardly, GOP = Limited Democrat, Capitalist Federalist Male Brute B******o!? Such dastardly obscene techno-laguage isn't fit for mice or men, espec for FASCIST = LIMITED COMMUNIST AMERIKANS.
"I also believe that winning the war on terror will not happen by military strength alone. This is fundamentally about America's values and leadership. . . . The idea of winning hearts and minds has been derided by some. But I don't think that we can overlook its singular importance. . ."
-- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, February 25, 2004
In Mrs. Clinton's "hearts and minds" crusade, this will not go down as a good week. A United Arab Emirates government allied with America, that provides a Persian Gulf base for U.S. military operations, and that was the first Middle Eastern country to join the U.S. Container Security Initiative, has been rewarded with Congressional demagoguery that a company it owns can't be trusted to manage commercial operations in U.S. ports. With Mrs. Clinton herself leading the jeers.
And why? For no other reason than that it would be an Arab-owned company. If it is "foreign" ownership that's alarming, the same politicians would also be denouncing the Chinese, Singaporean and British companies that already manage some U.S. port operations. So the message that all Arabs need not apply comes through loud and clear.
Is Dubai an ally and trading partner, or a nest of terrorists? By the way, to make this argument does not mean we are accusing critics of racism. We are accusing them of error, not to rule out stupidity. These columns have long supported profiling young Middle Eastern-looking men in airport screening, for example, as a way of reducing the odds of another 9/11. But Mrs. Clinton was absolutely correct to note back in 2004 that to win the war on terror we need Arab and Muslim allies. And trashing friends who are engaging in legitimate commercial transactions is not a good way to keep those allies.
It is also not a good way to convince the world that we mean what we say about free trade and investment. The port-management business is dominated by non-American companies in part because high labor costs drove U.S. firms out of the business. That's also in part the handiwork of the International Longshoremen's Association, an affiliate of the protectionist AFL-CIO.
And, lo, the New York Sun reported this week that "nearly every politician who has been at the forefront of the opposition to the Dubai deal is on the receiving end of some Longshoreman largesse" in the form of campaign contributions. They include New York Representatives Peter King (R), Jerry Nadler (D) and Vito Fossella (R) and Senators Clinton, Robert Menendez (D., N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.).
usual cause, usual suspects.
Posted by: Captain America ||
02/25/2006 12:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
[T}the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and anti-democratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail -- in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) that we simply are not prepared to take?
It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.
Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.
He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.
Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.
Who's been defeated? Someone we know? Zarqawi? Saddam? The late, unlamentable Uday?
Oh. Us.
Mr. Buckley, you seem like a smart fella. Act like one. Get your head out of the sand and look around. In three short years we've removed a heinous dictator, whacked his evil spawn sons, put a nasty insurgency on the run, and helped a people fashion a state that has potential to grow into a real first -- an Arab democracy. You've fallen victim to the sort of shallow, day-by-day, short-term thinking that you normally lampoon.
We've done all this at the cost of 2,000 lives (every one of them blessed), money that in relative terms is somewhere between chump-change and modest, and at a political cost that both at home and abroad is near-zero. Why near-zero? Face it: were the French ever going to love us? Were the Germans ever going to follow us? Were the Spanish ever going to grow a spine when the chips were down? No. So the Europeans don't love us. How is that different than five years ago?
And at home, the Democrats have allowed the moonbat wing of their party to drive out millions of sensible voters. That would have happened regardless, because the moonbats have an agenda that is a mile long. Their agenda is one of control, and without a war in Iraq, they would have found other wedges to drive into our society. You've been fighting them a long time, Bill, you should know that.
Victory sometimes is dramatic: a surrender of a foreign power on one of our battleships anchored in the harbor of their captial city. Victory isn't always dramatic. This is one of those times. The destruction of the shrine in Samarra is a short-term setback. The long-term favors us in dozens of ways. We're going to see a decent Iraq out of this (or alternately, a decent Kurdistan and a cordoned-off lower Iraq). There are millions of Iraqis who want that, and as long as we keep someone from putting his boot on their necks in the next year or two, that's what they'll get.
#1
I don't always agree with Bill even though I appreciate his legency.
I also take issue with the timing of his conclusion. A terrorist inspired set-up in Iraq, yes; but that doesn't mean we head for the hills.
We should follow the example of Churchill.
Is Bill offering up a better alternative? No. Giving in to the terrorists is no alternative at all.
Posted by: Captain America ||
02/25/2006 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Like the man said, failure is not an option.
Posted by: Matt ||
02/25/2006 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Steve,
This war will not be won or lost in Iraq; it will be won or lost in the living rooms of America. Bush has done an abominable job of fighting that war. The reaction to the Dubai Ports World is one indicator. This column is another.
I too disagree with what Buckley is saying in the micro view of what is going on in Iraq. But in the macro view of what is going on in Ameican living rooms, I am very worried; and this column is just one more indicator that things are not headed in the right direction. My real fear is that it may be too late for Bush to actually demonstrate the leadership necessary to continue this war to final victory.
#4
Much as I have always admired WFB, I think he's way off base on this one. My subscription to NR is running out in a couple of months. After reading this article I'm going to have to think real hard about it before I renew. If I want defeatism I can go to DU or Kos and get it for free.
Posted by: mac ||
02/25/2006 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Buckley is a very smart cookie but he's been wobbly on Iraq since the get-go. I think he just has no faith at all that Arab culture will make the right choice for a change. I hate to say it but the Arab historical record backs him up, still I'm optimistic.
Arabs, more than almost any other culture seem unwilling to back any horse until they are absolutely positive which one is the strong horse. That will grow more apparant as time goes on and we'll get a cascading effect. I'm hoping the latest Mosque attacks will be the start of it.
#6
Gotta agree on the characterization of WFB as a wobbly with regard to Iraq. I am a subscriber to NR and I can attest that every jot and tittle from the old sage has been nothing but pessimism and failure on Iraq, and the WOT, since before OIF. Strange stuff, but WFB has been pretty fixated on the gathering gloom in pretty much anything that grabs his attention. Maybe it is a function of his age.
Posted by: Red Lief ||
02/25/2006 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#7
My real fear is that it may be too late for Bush to actually demonstrate the leadership necessary to continue this war to final victory.
Ah yes, 7 steps to blaming Bush. I don't think anyone in Western society could have understood the backwards nature of the Islamic world. But I think that Bush took the right course in Iraq and in his quest for promoting Democracy world-wide. Hamas is the perfect example. The people got what they wanted and now they have no complaint when they get what they asked for - war. And they will lose, as anyone with half a brain can see. Apparently the palestinians believe otherwise and so now they have the leaders they asked for and now nobody will feel sorry for them when they lose their war. It's what they wanted, an opportunity to attempt to push the Jews into the sea.
Before they could hide behind the poor-poor-pitious-paleo's, because their plight was the responsibility of bad decisions by leaders other than their own. Now they chose their leaders and they can demand results. When the Israelis smite them, hey, they wanted war, they got. it. Too bad so sad for them.
I think the idea that we let people elect the leaders they want and suffer the consequences of the actions is a far better idea than any other we have had to date. It may not be perfect, but it's certainly better than the Arafat era where nations don't get to learn from their own mistakes and the people don't have the ability to hold their leaders accountable for their fate.
#10
"I think the idea that we let people elect the leaders they want and suffer the consequences of the actions is a far better idea than any other we have had to date."
-Spot on imho brother. Which is why I concur w/you on the Paleo's voting like they did. No more excuses for when they get dealt with.
#11
Remember that Buckley is still a Yalie schoolboy at heart, and is probably part of the extended clique at CIA that is being seriously purged right now.
#12
49% OF THE COUNTRY IS BITTER AT BUSH, AND THE MAIN REASON IS B/C OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ONLY PRINTING BAD NEWS AND PRINTING ANYTHING THAT MIGHT MAKE HIM LOOK BAD!! WE WILL WIN IN IRAQ.
#13
It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and anti-democratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail -- in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) that we simply are not prepared to take?
It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.
I believe we are winning in Iraq as well, but the road would have been easier because of "...the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) that we simply are not prepared to take?" I think THAT is what is depressing Buckley, and I am forced to agree with him: we know what worked for Japan and Germany, and it worked beautifully. We simply were NOT prepared to do in Iraq that worked in Japan and Germany.
Buckley is not prepared to abandon American Idealism: read that last sentance I quoted. That Idealism is what properly led us into Iraq. It is that Idealism that shames the Canadians into spitting envy and the Euros into pusillanomous (sp?) sniping. We practice the virtues that leftists, liberals, and democrats seem to believe is their birthright, but which they do not deserve because they have not followed up words with actions.
He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.
Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.
Buckley is talking about TACTICAL defeat, not strategic defeat. Professor Hanson has said that the loss of the Turkish front prevented the spectacle of American Armor rolling through Sunni territory shattering illusions that they could defeat the Americans in the end, and that happened right at the beginning of OIF. THAT was the sort of measure we used against Japan and Germany, but not in Iraq.
All is not lost, of course, and Buckley is not saying that. Our military is wonderfully adaptable, and Buckley believes in them. But they won't change tactics if they don't believe they're working.
Buckley is saying, "things are bad, so change your tactics and win." The fifth column is saying, "Things are bad, so retreat."
Yeah, he may be mislead, but he's a mislead patriot who wants us to win, not a pretend-patriot who secretly wants us to lose. Give him credit, at least, for THAT.
#15
One of my personal sayings: The weighing of facts, pros and cons, the gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing engaged in by the conscious mind is merely cover to justify the decision made subconsciously the instant the need arose.
In other words, some (many?) people actually make up their minds long before there are sufficient facts to do so with any certainty. I've heard it referred to as a "maybe gate" in the brain that allows us, sometimes to our chagrin, to sum a few thousand bits of incomplete fluff and believe we have "analyzed" the issue and our position makes sense.
Effectively, I believe, in these people the subconscious makes a snap judgment - based upon an array of personal foibles and maybe the very few actual facts available - often merely just following the wind of conventional wisdom, and thereafter the conscious mind works to justify it. It is most apparent when contrary facts come long, yet you can see the person's position taken doesn't weave them into the equation for recalculation... No... In fact, for these sad individuals, their position usually hardens and they cast as far afield as needed to explain away these inconvenient new bits - and reaffirm their original brain fart. Challenges to, and derision of, the position often further calcify it and a bunker mentality necessarily follows.
Those who are not afflicted marvel at the cognitive dissonance required.
We see it every day, for example from the Hollyweird types who ramble on about being muzzled, lol, about imagined lost constitutional rights, also demonstrably untrue, and on and on. I think of it as a mental illness process, a dysfunction that is sometimes localized to a certain group or class of issues.
Perversely, it seems to be most common among those who demonstrate an unhealthy need for external validation. More cogdis, lol.
The UAE port management issue is a classic example.
#16
Methinks what Buckley is trying hard NOT to say, vv maintenance of US "strategic policies", is for Dubya and Rummy to attack Iran and Syria, sooner than later. Might as well - MadMoud is all but officially demanding Arrogant Male Brute GOP-led Congress pass a joint resolution = formal declaration of war authorizing invasion anyways. The IRGC and alllied US Motherly Desperate Waffen MarxFrau Commies demand Iranian "People's War".
#17
Perversely, it seems to be most common among those who demonstrate an unhealthy need for external validation
that is sooooo true. In fact, it is something that I have been noticing over the last 3 years. Nice people with Cog D. becoming sad individuals as their position usually hardens and they cast as far afield as needed to explain away these inconvenient new bits
and they all have in common that need for external validation. One other thing - if what the perceive as external validation suddenly requires that they do a 180 (such as cartoons and free speech, or it's ok for Clinton to provide interns with plum positions in exchange for sexual favors) they have no problem doing the 180, and simply see no Cog D in their positions - because they really don't have any positions of their own. They just say what they think will get them the validation they seek.
#18
Yep, I can see that, 2b. I guess that, somewhere within their psyche, they know they've abandoned reason - so other leaps of illogic (lol) are not that difficult - they have nothing to lose, such as integrity or honor, both jettisoned when they left reality behind.
It's sad, but what we're calling validation morphs into mere attention, faux fame, I think - and I'm pretty sure you're saying something similiar, no? I presume there's some addictive quality, there.
Sheehan might be the example of the ages. A more pathetic creature is, IMHO, rather hard to imagine.
(Fire Island, NY) -- The Right Reverend Percy Dovetonsils III, Bishop Suffragan for the Diocese of Fire Island, Provincetown and San Francisco, today called for the beheading of the entire editorial staff of Catholic Monthly for publishing a cartoon in which Jesus of Nazareth is depicted as being the "Son of God."
The cartoon, published in the October 12, 2005 edition of the magazine, and titled "Jesus Raising Lazarus from the Dead," shows a halo-crowned Jesus miraculously bringing Lazarus back to life. In contemporary Episcopalian theology, all references to religion, miracles, holiness, God, and the Bible are considered to be blasphemous -- distracting believers from more important religious priorities such as promoting same-sex marriage and voting rights for illegal immigrants.
"The pictorial representation of the alleged divinity of the notorious Jewish political leader variously known as Jesus, the Son of Man, and the Son of God is deeply offensive to all progressive-minded Episcopalians," said Bishop Dovetonsils this morning at the annual Solidarity Breakfast of the anti-1st Amendment lobbying group, Episcopalians Against Christianity. Bishop Dovetonsils, wearing a stunning mauve DKNY robe and mitre designed by LaCroix, then said that it was the duty of all Episcopalians to heed the call to jihad as long as they can work it around political marches, cocktails at the country club, and their weekly squash games.
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.
