No link here. Just something that I just realized. It seems obvious to me really, but I didn't put two and two together until earlier today.
There seems to be one concept entirely mangled when I see radical Islam at work: Redemption/forgiveness.
What I have decided so far that passes for "redemption" in radical islamic societies is what you might call an initial warning to convert to Islam or die, or maybe even a warning to infidels that a certain behavior is unislamic. Until then you can get away with things that are unislamic. After that, you're toast. For example: Western society has been warned by Bin Laden to convert or face their wrath. There have been huge discussions on this in islamic circles validating the use of nuclear weapons because of this. Radicals will kill each other at random if they even hear a rumor of another Mohamhead cartoon.
If you are a muslim growing up in an radical islamic society you better walk the narrow line or risk all kinds of hardship. If you are a woman and flash a bit of ankle by accident you get caned if the wrong guy sees you, and I'll bet nobody steps in to stop it. A bunch of neanderthal Kurds stoned a 17 year old female relative to death recently in Iraq because they suspected she had done the deed with someone from the wrong sect.
I know that Judeo-Christian societies have their morons too, but they seem to be left pretty much to themselves as long as they don't cross the line of harming someone. After that, everyone steps in to smack them down to remind them where the line is. In the islamic cultures, radical behavior seems to be more tolerated if it can be argued that it is more "islamic". Perhaps also because of long memories and tribalism.
I don't know what the end result of a tribal Judeo-Christian society would be, but I'd bet the outcome would be better than this tribal islamic crap I'm seeing.
The Torah doesn't seem to devote a lot to the concept of forgiveness, but it does seem to deal a lot with people being inherintly nice to each other, and Jewish society in general doesn't tolerate terrorists in any form. I would say that Jews have even walked away from the death penalty for what the Torah says deserves the death penalty, and they have also walked away from the advice to wipe out every arab they see because they they would "forever be a thorn in their side" or something like that.
Of course the New Testament has plenty of material related to forgiveness and redemption, so I won't even go there.
Does anyone know if the Quran addresses forgiveness and redemption? Or did that chapter never get written, as I suspect. I am pretty sure it talks a lot about how muslims should be nice to other muslims and travelers, but that is not forgiveness.
What kinds of transgressions are deemed forgivable without some kind of harsh punishment in an islamic society? I know this is a target for snarking, but does anyone out there actually know the answer to this?
#1
You are missing an even deeper reward/punishment problem.
Back up a bit and look at what is one of the key secular uses for a religion: Keeping the people in line.
Now you can have positive reinforcement and negative.
Negative reinforcement requires a threat of punishment. Something like HELL. You will burn in hell forever is a great restrainer of bad actions in believers. (unfortunately it does nothing for unbelievers).
So a religion needs a hell.
Rewards are, also, useful so a HEAVEN helps keep people doing good deeds that might not be in their best short term interest.
Religions, being human creations, also need money so then you get the corruption of things like indulgences. note how quickly global warming has become a religion.
So, two major religions have made MURDER of OTHERS a GOOD DEED to RECEIVE positive feed back in terms of GOOD TIMES IN THE AFTERLIFE. The Vikings and Islam.
With the Vikings - if you die in battle or fighting its Valhalla For You - YIPPY!
With Muslims it's - Suicide yourself (so the rest of us are not directly to blame) and take a lot of NON-BELIEVERS with you and it's Virgin's R Us in Paradise by the dashboard light for the inept!
What a deal! A loser has a way to win and the ULAMA wins in a deniable way.
We need to figure out a way to make having this concept so painful that Islam drops it.
If we can't do that the end is either submission or Death to the Ulama via nukes, or bugs, or nanotech ooze or rod or bigger from god..
The Koran is too black and white so there is no real option. Everybody just kind of shys away from it. We say in jest that they are stuck in Mo's timeframe but it is the nature of the document. That date, is just proof that can't be modified.
So there is really only one option just nobody wants to get dirty executing it.
However, in every case, it is Allah who forgives (or doesn't forgive). Sometimes, people pray for forgiveness, sometimes it just happens (or doesn't happen).
A typical case of Allah forgiving is:
[4:110] Anyone who commits evil, or wrongs his soul, then implores GOD for forgiveness, will find GOD Forgiving, Most Merciful.
A typical case of not being allowed to ask Allah for forgiving is:
[9:113] Neither the prophet, nor those who believe shall ask forgiveness for the idol worshipers, even if they were their nearest of kin, once they realize that they are destined for Hell.
or, here Allah is just plain 'not forgiving'.
[47:34] Those who disbelieve and repel from the path of GOD, then die as disbelievers, GOD will never forgive them.
It seems clear to me that the koranic Allah puts great emphasis on correct belief and also great emphasis on correct action (although a bit less than on belief).
When you leave the Koran and go to the Sunna, Hadiths and Sharia, things get a bit more complicated. However, there are several things you can say with confidence,
1. the golden rule does not exist is Islam in any of the authoritative texts
2. killing, mutilating or taking property from infidels isn't a sin except under exceptional situations (during a koranically correct hudna for example).
3. Allah may or not forgive believers but most certainly will never forgive infidels.
4. In addition to divine punishment, Allah endorses the punishment of infidels for a large number of sins, provocations, etc.
#4
We need to figure out a way to make having this concept so painful that Islam drops it.
Take your pick:
A.) Carpet Bombing (Disproportionate Retaliation)
B.) Incendiary Bombing (Firestorms, i.e., Massive Retaliation)
C.) Nuclear bombing (Total Annihilation)
Islam's death obsession makes simple retaliation invalid. Reciprocity will not work. The death toll must be so staggeringly high that Islam's clergy either:
1.) Loses its flock (Loss of Political Power)
2.) Loses its life (Corporeal Disintegration)
3.) Loses its turf (Uninhabitable Sphere of Influence)
Item 2 is the most vital part of this equation. Part of deprogramming Islam's death meme demands exterminating its sources of indoctrination. Any of items A through C can obtain this result in one of three ways:
I.) Motivate aggrieved Muslims to kill jihadist clerics (Incentivization)
II.) Kill the jihadist clerics in their mosques (Direct Marketing Approach)
III.) Kill leadership and followers (Bulk Processing)
Item I is more desirable as it motivates larger numbers of prior participants to engage in the required long term behavioral modification being sought.
Islam's total lack of reciprocity in dealing with the West mandates the above measures. Where there is no possibility of negotiation, coercive behavioral correction must be applied. The individual Muslim's fixation upon martyrdom negates the value of proportionate reprisal.
Retaliation must be on such an overwhelming scale that all thought of revenge is directed at those who inspired the reprisal and not at the delivering agent. Muslims must be disciplined with sufficient regularity whereby the concept of jihad eventually becomes an accursed concept. Only by instilling a high degree of remorse for the practice of jihad and the consequences its atrocities precipitate upon its advocates can any change be obtained.
To date, there has been little, if any, significant penalty for jihadist activity and it will continue until some variant of the above equation is enacted. Aside from biological or chemical agents, the West possesses no other means of persuasion that will deliver similar results within a workable time frame.
#5
IMO, you confuse cause and effect, gorb.
Arab society (and Islam is just a codification of the Arab mindset) is based on kinship and not reciprocity[1] i.e., Muslims are incapable of effective cooperation[2]. You might say that, on the average, typical Muslim's behavior is a close analogy to clinically certifiable sociopath's.
This has two consequences: (a) Islamic societies are incapable of long-term economic self-sufficiency & (b) they can't mount effective armies.
Because of (a) Muzzies must keep conquering or perish. And they try to make up for (b) by psychotic belligerence.
======
1. They only recognize reciprocity as intellectual concept to be used as Taquia e.g.. all their whining all the time about being wronged.
2. Except when a bunch of relatives are ganging up on a stranger.
#6
Gorb, you have nailed it. Western society is shaped by Christian values and Judeo law. You can only see what you have lost in its absence.
It may not be cool, but it helps tames the vast ugliness and selfishness of human nature. But then, good solid advice that requires self sacrifice is never cool, because it is the kind of stuff that granny tells you to do.
Kids today are taught to do what feels good. Take what you can get. Sacrifice? What's that? It's all about meeeeeeee.
The new clergy of today are the lawyers - someone must be found to blame for every wrong in the world. Every accident, every hurricane, every time you can't afford an ipod or car of your choice - there is no need to look inward, to roll up your sleeves, to work hard or to help your neighbor - you just need to establish who is to blame and make them pay. Crops failed due to weather? Global warming is GW's fault. Forgiveness and redemption come only in the form of judgements and the settlements which are every bit as ridiculous, uneven and unfair as any punishment every practiced by the church leaders during any era.
For the Islamists - the Jews are always to blame for every dead baby. That's why their societies are shitholes. The leaders don't need to take actions since they aren't to blame, it is the joooos. There have no concept of forgiveness. I don't know - but I suspect they do not even have a word in their dictionary for it.
I get the feeling that non-Jews still misunderstand the jewish point of view on these things. That is, so far as the jews have a point of view on anything, as opposed to 2 points of view or 20.
The Torah, the Five Books of Moses, usually speaks of forgiveness in terms of the sacrificial system. A person would violate a prohibition, and later realize it. To gain forgiveness, he would correct the fault, often with a penalty attached. Then he would confess his sin to the priests, and then he would offer a special sacrifice, often tied to his means. Some sins were unforgivable: murder and certain forms of sacrilege.
Sometimes people sinned, and they prayed for forgiveness, or others prayed on their behalf, and often forgiveness was granted, but sometimes not fully. Moses was allowed to see the Promised Land, not to enter it. Abraham prayed that the Lord no t destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of any innocent people there; we know how that conversation turned out. And God did present Himself as forgiving, up to a point. Certainly, punishments only extended to the guilty, which was an advance on the other societies around them.
The later prophets expand upon the concept of forgiveness. The orientation turns away from the mechanics of sacrifice to prayer and reconciliation, especially in the writings of Isaiah and in the minor prophets, especially the Book of Jonah.
In any case, forgiveness for a sin against another person required one to compensate him for the mistake.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
05/06/2007 17:40 Comments ||
Top||
#8
In any case, forgiveness for a sin against another person required one to compensate him for the mistake.
Interesting. For Christians, there is a very distinct difference between redemption and forgiveness. You have described redemption, ie: one redeems oneself or does something to help make it right. Pay the dime or do the time.
#9
Critical to understanding the Jewish viewpoint is to realize that Judaism has continued to evolve beyond the Biblical period. With regard to redemption and forgiveness, the key prayer recited on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, is germane here. Basically, for sins against God, God will forgive; but for sins against another person, God will not forgive until the harm has been made right and the person given forgiveness for it. I think that prayer was written during the Middle Ages.
Looking at the Ten Commandments, only two -- You shall have no other gods before Me, Make no graven images -- reference the Man:God relationship; most the rest refer to Man:Man, and forbid behaviours harmful to that relationship.
I would consider the fourth commandment (3rd in the Catholic division) also to be a commandment about the Man:God relationship. Exodus 20:8–11: Remember the Sabbath day, and keep it holy….
AT1904,
Interesting. I guess this why I see so many politicians doing things that hurt their constituents or the nation, simply apologize, and then expect us to forgive them and ignore their faults. Frankly, in most of these cases I would like to see them work hard to repair the damage first, or at least to start repairing the damage.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
05/06/2007 20:46 Comments ||
Top||
#12
And not taking the Lord's name in vain. Four for God, one for parents, four for acts towards other men and one for thoughts about other men.
The concept of Christian forgiveness is probably the most misunderstood by those not familiar with the religion. You touch on it when you imply that politicians need only ask for forgiveness and be done with it. In fact, the need for apologies is a liberal obsession and a non-entity for practicing Christians. For Christians, deeds, not words are foremost.
It is as much of a mistake to buy into the myth that Christians are dunces and dupes as it is to buy into the myth that Jews are greedy zionist oppressors who rule the world. In both instances, it is ignorance that breeds the bigotry.
#16
Just for the record - I was not attempting to be snide when I said your comments were "interesting". I meant that. This thread is about Redemption/forgiveness and its impact on Islamic culture. Your view looking at it through a different prism was insightful when attempting to understand different points of view.
An orginal opinion by JFM, with an extract from Nicolas Sarkozy's speech:
"France must be on the side of freedom and support the opressed. We tell to the nurses prisoners in Lybia for eight years, to Ingrid Bethancourt (JFM's note; prisoner of a marxist guerrilla movement), to the women in burkha, to the women martyrized everywhere in the world that France will be at their sides, that we will not abandon them."
I don't know if he is sincere, I don't know how much latitude he will have, if he will really be able to retire the Villepins, Juppés and the other weasels but the speech is at complete break with De Gaulle. De Gaulles's policy (and Mitterrand and Chirac) was to have no moral consdideratiions, to play the East Europe dictorships aginst freedom, to support the worst dictatorships in Africa, to ally with the Nassers, Assads, Saddams, Ahmedinajads. To sell them weapons, nuclear technology, to support them at the UN and delay their undoing without any consideration for the tens of thousands who would die in the interim, or the dangers for humnkind itself. Taht policy who led to Franxce's complicity with Rwanda's genociders.
That is finished. France is now to be on the side of freedom. I hope he is sincere. I want to be proud of my president, I want to be proud of being French, I want to be proud of my country.
#2
That is finished. France is now to be on the side of freedom. I hope he is sincere. I want to be proud of my president, I want to be proud of being French, I want to be proud of my country.
JFM - stirring words. We wish you the best. France is a beautiful, beautiful, country with wonderful people. I hope that this is the beginning of you getting your great country back. Let's all enjoy the moment and celebrate with optimism for the future of freedom.
#6
Sarkozy: 'US to lead battle for climate change' "A great nation, like the United States, has a duty not to block the battle against global warming but - on the contrary - to take the lead in this battle, because the fate of the whole of humanity is at stake."
Indeed, JFM, the man represents a profound change in French politics.
#7
Angusoque Ghibelline5564, our Senate Dems say that the 50-1-49 lead is a mandate
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/06/2007 19:40 Comments ||
Top||
#8
As many as one-third of Algerians have told pollsters that they want to immigrate to France. And it is probably the same in all the failed states. Controlling frontiers is a must. Paradoxically, once Euros accept the refuse from those gutter states, Muslims immediately reject assimilation and build "dar-Islam" enclaves within Europe. Europe can only be saved if abandonment of the Islamic murder cult is openly promoted by European governments. Immigrant homelands are "failed states" for one reason: Islam.
Don't hang me on the "freedom of conscience" flagpole. We didn't accept that for Nazis, Communists, Baathists, Waco-Wackos, KKKlansmen, Anarchists, etc. Why treat Muslim cultists different from their co-equivalents?
#9
Well written, JFM, and even better thought. Your hope is our hope as well. And our prayer for our own presidential election next autumn.
We here are still working through whether Islam is capable of living in the same universe as the rest of us, Sneaze. Dave D. laid out our options in dealing with jihadi Islam some time ago, and it appears to me that if the current experiments in Afghanistan and Iraq don't work out, our only choices are abject surrender or climbing the scale of brutality.
link Zenster discusses those options elsewhere in today's pages as well, although his perspective is more marketing/business oriented than an engineer's analysis. ;-)
#10
It's only a mandate if the New York Times sez it is.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/06/2007 21:00 Comments ||
Top||
#11
As much as we love to pick on the French, we really do want and need them to be on the freedom for-front of the war of civilizations. Not contently surrendering and helping the other side. I remain skeptical of Sarkozy's ability to pull France out of the death spiral of oblivion, but hope he can do it.
Good luck over there. You are really gonna need it.
#12
The USDOD and the Armed Services all teach that nothing is outside the purview, duty, or responsibility of the Commander = Person-in-charge; while Universities teach that in business that everything in an organization is directly = indirectly, no matter how benign, the fault and responsibility of Management. FRANCE WILL NOT GET OUT OF ITS MORASS IFF THE FRENCH PEOPLE KEEP ELECTING LEADERS THAT PREFER "SAFE POLITICS" OVER HARD CHANGE. The essence of politics, as in warfare, is wilful CHAOS/ANARCHY - to handle the latter half-heartedly due to fear = correctness is only to increase the risk of failure and more chaos/anarchies. WOT > the "STATUS QUO" OR " --------- AS USUAL" IS NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE, inclusding but not limited to the realms of State-International Politics.
Over the past five years, President Bush has made various efforts to reform the Arab world. They have all stumbled over one enormous obstacle. In the region, the people who win elections are not democrats. They seem to believe in elections (at least as long as they win), but not in the individual rights, laws and traditions that create a genuine liberal democracy. The administration has pushed for elections in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Egypt, only to find that religious fundamentalists have triumphed in most of them. Except in Turkey. In Turkey the popular ruling party, the AKdespite some background with political Islamhas proved to be the most open, modern and liberal political movement in Turkey's history. That extraordinary achievement may now be in peril because of the overreaction of Turkey's secular (and unelected) establishment.
All the political and legal maneuvering aside, the issue at stake is very simple. Does the AK Party have a hidden Islamic agenda that it would implement once its nominee for the presidency, Abdullah Gul, attained that office? I put that question to the urbane Gul, currently the foreign minister, during a phone conversation last week. "No," he said flatly. "But why listen to what I'm saying now? Look at what we have done in government for four and a half years. We have worked harder than any party in Turkey's history to make this country a member of the European Union. We have passed hundreds of laws that have freed up the economy and strengthened human rights. Why would we do this if we were trying to Islamize Turkey?"
I asked him whether he thought Turkey should adopt Sharia, Islamic law, which is a goal of almost all Islamist parties around the world. "No," he replied. "There is no possibility of introducing Sharia in Turkey. We are harmonizing Turkey's laws with the EU's standards in every area. Is this Sharia?"
Gul is right. The secular establishment's suspicions about the AK are best described by Turkish columnist Mustafa Akyul as "fact-free paranoia." The Army memorandum accusing the AK of Islamic tendencies points as evidence of an Is-lamic agenda to two isolated cases where headmasters allowed students to sing Qur'anic verses and celebrate Muhammad's birthday on Turkey's Republic Day. That's not exactly a sign of an impending theocracy.
The other issue that keeps coming up is the headscarf, which under Turkey's coercive secularism is actually banned in public buildings. Gul's wife wears one, and Turkey's elites are in a tizzy that a man who will occupy Kemal Ataturk's position has a wife in a headscarf. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's daughters felt similarly and went to Indiana University, where they had the freedom to wear whatever they wantedunlike in Turkey.
"I have no intention of forcing or even asking anyone to wear a headscarf," Gul explained. "It's a matter of personal choice. Not all the women in my family wear them. If I don't ask my family to do it, why would I ask others? In fact, were I to try to force Turks to wear headscarves, there would be a negative reaction from my own family."
The crucial player now will be the Turkish armed forces, which have deposed four governments over the past five decades. I asked Gul what he thought their attitude was going to be as events unfolded. "I have talked with the Army chiefs several times in the last week," he said. "I am sure that they will respect the democratic process. [Interfering with it] is not any part of the Army's role in a modern democracy. But I understand that they have concerns, and we will work things out together. As a Turk I am proud of the armed forces. And as foreign minister I have had excellent dealings with them."
I asked Gul whether Islam and democracy were compatible. "Of course," he said. "Turkey is a Muslim country. But that doesn't mean we should mix Islam and politics. It would be bad for both." Rejecting any comparison between the AK and Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, he said, "We are not an Islamic party. Religion is a matter for individuals, not politics. The Turkish Constitution speaks of a secular state, and we agree with that.
"I don't like Islamic political parties," Gul added. "But as Muslim societies democratize, you will see greater religious expression everywhere in society. It is a consequence of democracy. People in Muslim countries are devout, socially conservative ... You cannot fight against this. You have to understand it and allow some expression of this belief."
The European Union and Condoleezza Rice have warned Turkey's generals to respect the democratic process. My guess is that they will, and not only because of outside pressure. Over the past five years, Turkey has gone through a quiet revolution and is now an increasingly genuine liberal democracy. The secular demonstrators against the AK held up signs that said no sharia, no coup. That is what most Turks seem to want. They will not accept being treated like denizens of a banana republic.
Why are Democrats so 'deeply troubled' by Colombia's Álvaro Uribe?
COLOMBIAN President Álvaro Uribe may be the most popular democratic leader in the world. Last week, as he visited Washington, a poll showed his approval rating at 80.4 percent -- extraordinary for a politician who has been in office nearly five years. Colombians can easily explain this: Since his first election in 2002, Mr. Uribe has rescued their country from near-failed-state status, doubling the size of the army and extending the government's control to large areas that for decades were ruled by guerrillas and drug traffickers. The murder rate has dropped by nearly half and kidnappings by 75 percent. For the first time thugs guilty of massacres and other human rights crimes are being brought to justice, and the political system is being purged of their allies. With more secure conditions for investment, the free-market economy is booming.
In a region where populist demagogues are on the offensive, Mr. Uribe stands out as a defender of liberal democracy, not to mention a staunch ally of the United States. So it was remarkable to see the treatment that the Colombian president received in Washington. After a meeting with the Democratic congressional leadership, Mr. Uribe was publicly scolded by House Majority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), whose statement made no mention of the "friendship" she recently offered Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Human Rights Watch, which has joined the Democratic campaign against Mr. Uribe, claimed that "today Colombia presents the worst human rights and humanitarian crisis in the Western hemisphere" -- never mind Venezuela or Cuba or Haiti. Former vice president Al Gore, who has advocated direct U.S. negotiations with the regimes of Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, recently canceled a meeting with Mr. Uribe because, Mr. Gore said, he found the Colombian's record "deeply troubling."
What could explain this backlash? Democrats claim to be concerned -- far more so than Colombians, apparently -- with "revelations" that the influence of right-wing paramilitary groups extended deep into the military and Congress. In fact this has been well-known for years; what's new is that investigations by Colombia's Supreme Court and attorney general have resulted in the jailing and prosecution of politicians and security officials. Many of those implicated come from Mr. Uribe's Conservative Party, and his former intelligence chief is under investigation. But the president himself has not been charged with wrongdoing. On the contrary: His initiative to demobilize 30,000 right-wing paramilitary fighters last year paved the way for the current investigations, which he and his government have supported and funded.
In fact, most of those who attack Mr. Uribe for the "parapolitics" affair have opposed him all along, and for very different reasons. Some, like Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), reflexively resist U.S. military aid to Latin America. Colombia has received more than $5 billion in economic and military aid from the Clinton and Bush administrations to fight drug traffickers and the guerrillas, and it hopes to receive $3.9 billion more in the next six years. Some, like Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), are eager to torpedo Colombia's pending free-trade agreement with the United States. Now that the Bush administration has conceded almost everything that House Democrats asked for in order to pass pending trade deals, protectionist hard-liners have seized on the supposed human rights "crisis" as a pretext to blackball Colombia.
Perhaps Mr. Uribe is being punished by Democrats, too, because he has remained an ally of George W. Bush even as his neighbor, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, portrays the U.S. president as "the devil." Whatever the reasons, the Democratic campaign is badly misguided. If the Democrats succeed in wounding Mr. Uribe or thwarting his attempt to consolidate a democracy that builds its economy through free trade, the United States may have to live without any Latin American allies.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/06/2007 13:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You can count on the Democrats to be on the wrong side of just about everything.
Another review of George Tenet's CYA book. EFL'd top get to the good part.
Mr. Tenet makes a peculiar claim of detachment, as if he had not been a top official in the Bush administration. He wants readers not to blame him for the president's decision to invade Iraq. He implies that he never supported it and never even heard it debated. Mr. Tenet writes: "In many cases, we were not aware of what our own government was trying to do. The one thing we were certain of was that our warnings were falling on deaf ears." . . .
But even if it were true that he never heard any such debate and was seriously dissatisfied with the dialogue in the White House Situation Room, he had hundreds of opportunities to improve the discussion by asking questions or making comments. I sat with him in many of the meetings, and no one prevented him from talking. It is noteworthy that Mr. Tenet met with the president for an intelligence briefing six days every week for years. Why didn't he speak up if he thought that the president was dangerously wrong or inadequately informed?
One of Mr. Tenet's main arguments is that he was somehow disconnected from the decision to go to war. Under the circumstances, it seems odd that he would call his book "At the Center of the Storm." He should have called it "At the Periphery of the Storm" or maybe: "Was That a Storm That Just Went By?"
Mr. Feith was undersecretary of defense for policy from July 2001 to August 2005. He is a professor at Georgetown University and the author of the forthcoming memoir "War and Decision" (HarperCollins).
Posted by: Mike ||
05/06/2007 07:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ouch! Well, I look forward to Tenet's review of Feith's book!
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/06/2007 7:59 Comments ||
Top||
By Swapan Dasgupta
A controversy being played out in Britain may offer lessons for India's war on terror. During the 'fertiliser bomb' trials that led to the conviction of five British Muslims, it emerged that the intelligence agency MI5 had put two of the perpetrators of the ghastly July 7, 2005 London bombings under surveillance in 2004. However, owing to a misjudgement the monitoring was discontinued, with tragic results.
The revelation that Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanveer were actually on the police radar before they killed 52 people in the London Underground has outraged many people. The police and MI5 have been mercilessly pilloried in the media and there are demands for a public inquiry into the costly lapse. If only, it is being said, the surveillance had gone on many lives would have been saved.
It is entirely possible that had Khan and Tanveer been detained by the authorities in a pre-emptive move, there would have been charges of human rights abuse by the same people who are today demanding an inquiry. It is unlikely that a conspiracy charge would have stood judicial scrutiny.
Wisdom in hindsight being a part of the popular discourse, the anger is understandable. In India, every successful terrorist attack is followed by shrill accusations of "intelligence failure". Yet, it is entirely possible that had Khan and Tanveer been detained by the authorities in a pre-emptive move, there would have been charges of human rights abuse by the same people who are today demanding an inquiry. In all likelihood, the 7/7 plot hadn't fully materialised in 2004 when the two came under the scanner and it is unlikely that a conspiracy charge would have stood judicial scrutiny.
The question of how much leeway the police should be given to fight fanatical terrorists has agitated democratic societies. Pre-emptive action is, of course, the best recourse but this may also lead to some wrong numbers being dialled. Arguably, many of those incarcerated by the Americans without trial in Guantanamo Bay were harmless cranks. Yet, can we honestly say that the world would have been a better place if Taliban-trained radicals were roaming free, plotting vengeance?
Continued on Page 49
This article starring:
AFZAL GURU
Lashkar-e-Taiba
Amarjeet Singh Sandhu
Beant Singh
Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi
Gujarat Home Minister Amit Shah
Kauser Bi
KPS Gill
MOHAMED SIDIQUE KHAN
al-Qaeda in Europe
Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
Prime Minister PV Narsimha Rao
SHEHZAD TANVIR
al-Qaeda in Europe
Siddhartha Shankar Ray
Sohrabuddin Sheikh
SOHRABUDIN SHEIKH
Lashkar-e-Taiba
Lashkar-e-Taiba
Posted by: John Frum ||
05/06/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In striking a balance between civil liberties and national security, the authorities have a daunting task.
Or you can stop pretending that Islam is just another religion like Christianity or Buddhism.
#2
Arguably, many of those incarcerated by the Americans without trial in Guantanamo Bay were harmless cranks. Yet, can we honestly say that the world would have been a better place if Taliban-trained radicals were roaming free, plotting vengeance?
So, which are they? Harmless cranks or vengeful and plotting Taliban-trained radicals? This is pure journalistic double-speak. It's long past tea for these scribbling assclowns to finally realize that anyone infected by Islamic indoctrination poses a direct threat to society.
#3
. . . it is entirely possible that had Khan and Tanveer been detained by the authorities in a pre-emptive move, there would have been charges of human rights abuse by the same people who are today demanding an inquiry . . .
Sadly true. Some people aren't antiwar, they're on the other side.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/06/2007 7:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The system, it would seem, proved incapable of distinguishing between normal circumstances and conditions of war.
Terrorism can't be fought by the Queensbury rules.
This should sound familiar to Americans, Canadians, British, French, German, etc. readers. Not only is it absurd to apply due process to foreigners whose only "right" was to be hanged as pirates, our domestic traitors use the law to hamstring every effort to defend civilization against nihilism (be it Marxist or muslim).
Encounters are almost as old as independent India. They began in the 1950s when policemen who were fighting the dacoit menace in the Chambal ravines discovered that the best way to destroy the power of the daku gangs was to murder their leaders. Because dacoits held entire districts in their thrall (a phenomenon celebrated in Hindi cinema from the 1950s to the 1970s), policemen would shoot the outlaws dead and then line up their bodies for villagers to view. Triumphant cops would be photographed with their feet on the heads of dacoits in imitation of pictures of great white hunters and the word would go out: do not be frightened of these thugs; the police will kill them one day.
Though we romanticise the early days of independent India, the truth is that this policy had widespread public sanction even in that era. The political class wanted it known that nobody could escape the power of the Indian state and law-abiding citizens were entirely pleased to see the dacoits shot dead without the inconvenience of the judicial process.
In the 1960s, the same approach was followed in fighting the Naxalites and in combating insurgencies in the Northeast. By the 1970s, police forces in the cow belt regarded it as totally legitimate to shoot mafia leaders dead in bogus encounters. Many will argue that militancy in the Punjab would not have ended without the fake encounters that were the hallmark of the state polices fight-back against terrorists (the so-called bullet-for-bullet policy) in the 1980s. And by the 1990s, every police force in India was cheerfully bumping off gangsters in cold blood.
Each time the policy of bogus encounters was questioned by human rights activists, the same arguments were trotted out. It was not that the police enjoyed murdering people, we were told. It was that the judicial process was so slow, corrupt and time-consuming that it was almost impossible to bring hardened gangsters to justice. Far easier to just shoot them dead.
Perhaps these arguments were valid when it came to fighting terrorism. But as a means of imposing law and order? Surely, it was not that difficult to persuade judges to deny bail to gangsters? Was it really impossible to find evidence against hardened criminals?
Posted by: John Frum ||
05/06/2007 12:04 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Arguably, many of those incarcerated by the Americans without trial in Guantanamo Bay were harmless cranks.
Well armed 'Harmless Cranks' are NOT "Harmless."
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
05/06/2007 12:30 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I understand that some of those that were released from Gitmo showed up in battles again.
#11
I have long advocated both a low threshold for arrest of terrorists, and reverse onus in Habeas Corpus hearings. Terrorism is about taking away rights. Ergo: defend rights by imposing obligatory harsh treatment of terrorists, onto government agents. Frankly, a good terrorist is a dead one.
#1
Can't appease Int. Opinion by anything short of a complete destruction of Israel. In fact, can't appease it even by a complete destruction of Israel. Just bring the "Jewish Problem" back to 1933.
#2
As for Israel's neighbors, they had 13 centuries to make a go of "Palestine." Instead, they turned the Land of Milk and Honey into a desert.
The ecological reclamation of the land of Israel is nearly as dramatic as the creation of a Jewish state. (Indeed, environmentalists of real integrity should count among Israel's strongest advocates.) That return to the garden is as humiliating to feckless Arab cultures as their military defeats.
And we won't even talk about Israel's introduction of rule-of-law democracy into the wretchedly governed Middle East.
SMACKDOWN!
Israel reminds me of nothing more than a child seeking approbation from a physically abusive parent. What use is any approval from someone who wants only to harm you? Israel must free itself from any reliance upon world opinion and go about the task of permanently ensuring its safety and security. Purging the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank must be their first priority. No Palestinian State. No terrorists within their borders. No right to return. No compensation. No further toleration of proxy terrorist attacks. Further meddling by Lebanon, Syria or Iran should result in calculated strategic strikes that cripple those terrorist havens.
Soodies, Zenster. Take out Soodies and 90% of the World's Islamic problem (I believe where are rational, sort of, people in Iran---they just need to get the right kind of message) are over.
#4
As said before, the Saudis may be in favor or support a Global Muslim State, but they are NOT in favor of the same being dominated or controlled by Persia = IRAN. Remember, the Saudis view their country as smack in the middle of the "Lands of the Bible", including the TORAH + QURAN, etc. For third-party, peripheral nations, even iff Muslim, to dominate the "Lands of the Bible"" + Arabian Peninsula will be interpreted as a sign of God's disfavor = punishment.
I am Major Ralph Harland, I am a British officer attached to UN peace Keeping force in Iraq, I am the commanding officer of the First Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment, as you may know everyday, there are several cases of insurgents attacks and suicide bombs going on here.
We managed to Move funds belonging to some demised persons who were attacked and killed through insurgent attacks. The total amount is US$9.5 Million dollars in cash. We want to move this money to you, so that you may keep our share for us until when we shall come over to meet you.
We will take 60%, my partner and I. You take 40%. No strings attached, just help us move it out of Iraq, Iraq is a war zone.
We plan on using Diplomatic courier and shipping the money out in two large metallic boxes, using diplomatic immunity. If you are interested I will send you the full details; my aim is to find a good partner that we can trust and assist us can you be trusted?
When you receive this letter, kindly send me an e-mail here majorralphharland@yahoo.co.uk, or ralpharlanduk@aol.co.uk signifying your interest including your most confidential telephone/fax numbers for quick communication and also your contact details.
This business is 100% risk free.
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.
