Another good story a few days old. I hope it's not a dupe post...
It is ironic that the very people who claim to have the most concern for the plight of the innocent men, women, and children being massacred in the Darfur region of the Republic of Sudan are complicit in this humanitarian crisis.
On many levels this conflict represents a failure of the media and liberal ideology with its distain for decisive military action. The government of Sudan is backing the Arab Janjaweed rebels as they slaughter and displace thousands of non-Arab inhabitants of the Darfur region. This conflict represents a government annihilating its own population and an utter failure on the part of the United Nations to intervene. This is a military conflict that necessitates a militarily-imposed solution.
The problem with the solution is that it requires a significant investment of time and troops on the part of any nation or coalition to truly affect change. The United Nations has been shown to be truly impotent when it comes to affecting real change and it will not commit the necessary resources to militarily impose a stop to the on-going genocide in that country. It can pass resolution after resolution but it lacks the will to put any teeth behind its mandates. In times of crisis when the UN fails the world then looks to the United States to assist cleaning up the mess no other country can or will deal with, and herein is where the problem lies.
#3
Should the Dems gain control of our foreign policy, this problem will get worse. They are fond of sending our troops into harm's way on feel good missions while hamstringing them with rules of engagement that prevent them from effectively killing the bad guys and ending the problem.
#4
Actualy, any Dhimmi prez in 2009 will be so terrified by the example of W that he or she will not send troops anywhere. Ever.
IIRC, the way the military shut down some interventions during the Clinton admin was to demand that they go big, and to scare the bejeezus out of them with images of body-bags.
Incidentaly, this is why rummy was so hated by certain types in uniform. He called their bluff, and raised.
Posted by: N guard ||
12/05/2006 10:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
N Guard nails it, spot on. After (now) 4 examples of the media affecting the positive outcomes of stunning military victories (Tet Offensive, Kosovo, Somalia, and now, Iraq) and turning the "domestic opinion" of the nation against ANY military action, we should learn from history and forbid "imbedded" reporters. Granted, the MSM will still "report" from their posh hotel lobbies, but at least they won't have any "scare" pics or videos to show.
Notice this has already had an effect in another genocide...Rwanda. The world vowed "never again" and yet, here it is, and all you have are professional hand-wringers, BDS sufferers and armchair quarterbacking petition signers fuming over Sudan. Granted, there are plenty of people who are concerned over Darfur for the right reasons, and are willing to do what it takes to stop the bloodshed, but they don't get as much "press" as the MSM, the LLL, the UN, the "Human Rights" groups, et al.
Posted by: BA ||
12/05/2006 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I am one who favours going into Sudan provided it is coupled with a PR campaign aiming at driving a wedge between Muslim and non-Muslim Africa, between Arab and non-Arab Muslims so that by the end of it we get people rejecting Islam as a mere instrument of racist, imperialist panarabism (panarabism and Islamism) are the two sides of a coin.
#9
In short, the media and the left are a bunch of pious whiners who'll backstab you the moment the going gets choppy...
I don't think the media or left will accept responsiblity for encouraging us to go into Iraq or Vietnam. But I think they are to blame for our going into Kosovo, Somalia, and Lebanon.
I don't think BA's suggestion should be regarded as theoretical, since we actually have implemented media black-outs before: The Grenada operation was marked as a notable success, accompanied by loud howlings of the Media when the Pentagon refused to coordinate any media support. Oh, they were able to get news via phone line from people on the ground, but there was something quite chilling about going into a free-fire zone without the support of the American Soldiers they are accustomed to slandering.
Words often mean the opposite of what they appear to mean in the Middle East. When Jordan's King Abdullah demanded a speedy solution to the Israel-Palestine issue to quell the outbreak of multiple civil wars in the region, he meant the precise opposite: the Arab world has something more pressing on its mind than the plight of the Palestinians. The emergence of an Iranian threat to Saudi Arabia makes Palestine the odd man out. The Palestine problem has dropped to the bottom of the Arab priority list, andthe fate of the Palestinians is to become cannon fodder for proxy wars.
By the same token, King Abdullah's warning of multiple civil wars meant the opposite of what it appeared to. What formerly were civil wars (or prospective civil wars) in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine have become three fronts in a Sunni-Shi'ite war, in which the local contestants are mere proxies. This is obvious in Lebanon, and becoming so in Palestine, particularly after Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh's meeting with Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in Qatar on Saturday.
As historian Niall Ferguson observed in his November 27 Los Angeles Times column, "some civil wars never end", although he neglected to add why this is the case: it is because someone on the outside keeps adding fuel to the fire. The classic example is the great German civil war, namely the 30 Years' War of 1618-48. The Catholic and Protestant Germans, with roughly equal strength, battered each other through two generations because France sneakily shifted resources to whichever side seemed likely to fold. I have contended for years that the United States ultimately will adopt the perpetual-warfare doctrine that so well served Cardinal Richelieu and made France the master of Europe for a century (see How I learned to stop worrying and love chaos, March 14).
"There are two sorts of rat/The hungry and the fat," wrote Heinrich Heine. The fault line between hungry Iranians and the fat Saudis may take precedence over the civilization divide between Muslims and the West, at least for the time being. That is why the Israelis have rediscovered the 2003 Saudi peace plan. The Saudi kingdom has threatened to intervene on the side of the beleaguered Sunnis of Iraq, and Iran (through Hezbollah) is seeking to overthrow the Saudi-allied government of Lebanon, as well as dominate the rejectionist wing of the Palestinians.
Iran, I warned on September 13, 2005, is running short of oil and soldiers (Demographics and Iran's imperial design). Its oil exports could fall to zero within only 10 years, according to new studies reviewed in the December 11 Business Week. Iran's circumstances appear far more pressing than I believed a year ago, when the consensus estimate gave Iran another 20 years' worth of oil exports. Apart from oil, Iran exports only dried fruit, pistachio nuts, carpets, caviar and, more recently, prostitutes (Jihads and whores, November 21).
Iran covets the oil reserves of southeastern Iraq, southern Azerbaijan, and northwestern Saudi Arabia. With 30% youth unemployment, 10% inflation, epidemic prostitution and drug addiction, Iran's fraying social fabric depends on an oil-derived government dole. Within a generation it will have half as many men of military age, and four times as many pensioners. As currently configured, Iran faces economic and demographic collapse eventually. If, as Business Week reports, Iran's oil exports are falling by one-seventh each year, the reckoning might come sooner rather than later. The theocratic regime is a wounded and dangerous beast, prone to hunt outside its own preserve.
Saudi Arabia's quasi-official threat of intervention in Iraq should be read in this light. On November 28, a Saudi strategic adviser, Nawaf Obaid, warned in the Washington Post of "massive Saudi intervention to stop Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias from butchering Iraqi Sunnis", if need be. "To be sure, Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great risks - it could spark a regional war," Obaid added. "So be it: the consequences of inaction are far worse." I do not mean to deprecate Saudi concern for the welfare of Sunnis, but the kingdom faces an existential threat.
Thanks to The Sunday Times of London, we know that Prince Bandar al-Sultan, the Saudi official closest to the US administration, met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as early as last September. In late October, Israeli officials, starting with Defense Minister Amir Peretz, cited the 2003 Saudi peace plan as a possible "basis for negotiations". It amounted simply to recognition of Israel by Saudi Arabia and other Arab states in return for Israel's withdrawal to 1967 borders. All this occurred prior to the US elections and the advent of the James Baker-Lee Hamilton Iraq Study Group.
On balance the Israelis should be pleased at the development. As Diana West wrote in her December 1 TownHall column, "Imagine: Sunni Saudi Arabia vs Shi'ite Iran - and nary an American soldier ordered to pull his PC [politically correct] punches in the crossfire." More precisely, Iran has sufficient influence among the Palestinians to ensure that Hamas rejects a Palestinian national-unity government, leaving Israel no one with whom to negotiate, and a relatively free hand for the occasional raid. Jerusalem can stretch one hand in peace toward the Saudis, and hammer Iran's ally Hamas with the other.
A long war of attrition against Iran will succeed unless Iran can break out of encirclement, which in practice means acquiring nuclear weapons. I do not know how close Iran might be to obtaining a deployable nuclear weapon. If it appears close to that goal, either the United States or Israel will attack Iranian nuclear facilities. But if the West as well as the Saudis is confident that nuclear weapons remain out of Iranian reach, the Richelieu strategy of slow and bloody attrition might be just as effective.
By Kevin McCullough
Barring several series of near seizure-like corrections, Barack Obama will take the Presidential oath of office in January of 2009. It will be a cold January morning, his beautiful wife and daughters will be by his side and they will shiver as he places his hand on the Bible and swears to uphold the Constitution of the United States. His presidency that will follow, if reflective of anything at all of his legislative record, will then seek to dismantle that same Constitution.
I have a long track record of predictions on Obama, and all of them have come true. I have no reason to believe that this one will conclude any differently.
There are reasons that this event is destined to take place, and given the option of knowing them but remaining silent, or mentioning them in the hope that the scene I've just mentioned never comes to path - I choose the latter. If any of these were to take significant turns, the formula might collapse. This is given the fact that the nation will be in a holding pattern for the next two years with absolute gridlock on pretty much everything (with the possible exception of amnesty for illegal aliens.)
RAGING LIBERALS - In 2006 the message of the voters was not Ned Lamont. Rather it was the "Crash Dummy Class of '06." Democrats who looked, and tried to talk like people of faith - at least long enough to get elected. George Soros, the Daily Kos, Al Gore, Susan Sarandon, and not to be forgotten Howard Dean, have made their go at it. They failed. But since their party won the midterms - they believe they've been justified. Their anti-American rhetoric will increase. They will express dissatisfaction with Pelosi/Reid and demand an increased presence in the 2008 picture. The democratic primary voter will reject this increased extremism and look for a "consensus builder." They will long for someone who is "above the frey." Obama will fit that profile and will bring "together" the left and right in his own party. He will do it with a sense of style, smoothness, and humor - a stark contrast to Hillary, Gore, Kerry, et al.
DIGUSTED CONSERVATIVES - Still reeling from the "ginormous" let down of the Senate under Bill Frist, and the second term Presidency of George W. Bush, normally energized conservatives will look to a field that offers a pro-choice/pro-gay mayor from New York, a Mormon from Massachusetts - who was pro-choice/pro-gay but genuinely seems now not to be - but may have hired illegal aliens, blah blah blah, or John McCain (whose single biggest problem is that he IS John McCain.) Normally eager "tax-cutting, government shrinking, let's defend our nation, pro-life, pro-family" voters, organizations, and leaders will be assaulted with speeches on Romney's health care reform, or Giulianis crime initiatives, or John McCain. Whoever emerges, will have not one tenth the oratory skills of Obama and they will come off looking as tired, dry, and stale as day-old toast.
EXHAUSTED MODERATES - They are tired of the stale toast, and will be looking for anything exciting. Mind you, moderates by definition don't truly stand for anything so it doesn't really matter what the candidate stands for. These people voted for Kennedy, Reagan, and Clinton all based on one thing, "how does he make me feel?" Realizing this Obama will be a lightening rod on the campaign trail. He will draw record crowds for every appearance he makes (something he's already begun to do.) Money will flow in as a result. Obama's strategy of talking about cooperation, sounding bipartisan, and seeming to curtly rebuke both sides of the aisle will seem to validate his "ability" to "stay above the frey."
ENERGIZED BLACKS - The true voice for alternatives for black voters will not be heard because the voices of great men like Bishop Harry Jackson will not yet have become distinct enough within American media, and because the media, in ignoring the Bishop, will instead return again and again to the altar of Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson. Instead, as the media is already doing, there will be near non-stop fawning over the Senator from Illinois as he flashes the big smile. Black voters, who in the majority vote for party and not conviction anyway, will see Obama as the personality that no one since Dr. King has been able to live up too. Obama will be invited to each and every significant black pulpit in America. He will rail with poetry, sing with soul, rhyme when appropriate, and never will the IRS even think of threatening even one of these houses of worship for illegal political action.
GULLIBLE EVANGELICALS - The most reliable base of voters for the Republican Party since the days of President Reagan have been the social conservatives. Church-going born-again Christians who believe in God, the importance of His word, and the significance of living out their faith in an open and compassionate way every single day have been the backbone of the GOP. This past Friday Rick Warren, through the implied endorsement of allowing Obama to speak at one of the largest evangelical churches in America gave Obama the opportunity to split evangelicals who will be misled by Obama's words instead of opening their eyes to his actions. In my gentle admonition to Rick Warren over the past couple of weeks I reiterated time and again that it was this opportunity being extended to Obama that would be manipulated by both the press , and Obama himself to pose as a "person of faith." Warren's stubborn action of insisting upon having Obama speak at Saddleback Church in southern California has had that exact effect .
From this point forward should the trend of any of these five areas shift significantly Obama's chances could be compromised. But there are credible reasons to believe that they won't be.
So mark this date down, because it is the first time anyone accurately predicted that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States.
And you have no idea how much I hope this prediction does not come true!
#1
I've never had a good feeling about Obama. I think I'd rather see Hillary in the White House than that guy.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
12/05/2006 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This McCullough guy does realize that if the Republicans had gotten Mike Ditka to run against him, probably nobody would remember who Barack Obama was?
#3
The author might be right...if the US and geo-political situations remain exactly the same eighteen months from now as they are today.
I'm in the way of thinking that something major will change between now and then. I don't know what, or where, or when, but it *will* be huge and we'll be talking about a different cast of characters in August '08. IMHO.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/05/2006 16:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
why it won't: "Barack Obama"
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/05/2006 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I just don't see it. Even the lefty media slurping at his shoes will have to admit his lack of experience. And when was the last time a Senator was elected President? I think you have to go back to John F Kennedy.
LBJ was Vice President first, So was Nixon, and Bush Sr. Ford was never elected as President. Reagan, Carter and Clinton were all Governors. Seems we've gone over four and a half decades without electing a Senator (and never elected a Mayor). The only thing going for Obama is the last Senator we elected was also somewhat inexperienced.
#9
Lynn Swann didn't lose in Pa. because he was inexperienced, unknown, or unfriendly.
He lost because of the same reason Obama will lose, skin color. Democrats are scumbags, true, but they are racist scumbags.
#11
I've seen elsewhere rumormongering on what the full ticket is to be: Obama / Ellison. Nothing would do more to destroy the 2 party system than that...which is probably why it will come to pass. Buy stock in JollyTime while it's still cheap.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
12/05/2006 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#12
He wasn't particularly impressive in New York, I hear.
#13
Lynn Swann didn't lose in Pa. because he was inexperienced, unknown, or unfriendly.
He lost because of the same reason Obama will lose, skin color. Democrats are scumbags, true, but they are racist scumbags
You have a very valid point. My father and Godfather are both faithful Donks, but there is no way in hell they are voting for a "Smoked Irishman"
Posted by: Mike N. ||
12/05/2006 18:58 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Will say again that Iff the WOT is unresolved or mostly unresolved by 2008. HILLARY will NOT WANT TO POTUS - as for OBAMA, few iff any Amers will want a mostly inexperienced Pol in the WH, espec now that Israel keeps being threatened and Radical Iran is going hell-bent for self-sufficiency in nuke materials, whether for domestic energyu or weapons. One of the primary functions of the post-Bill Clinton, Billary-led/centric anti-Amer Amer DemoLeft is TO CONVINCE MAINSTREAM AMERICA THAT THE STATUS QUO IS UNCHAMGED AND WILL GO ON FOREVER, MEANWHILE EMPOWER + ENTRENCH ANTI-US US SOCIALISM=GOVTISM + PRO-OWG'ism AT HOME WHILE WEAKENING USA's POSITION OVERSEAS. Obama is best left for Year 2012 - IMO, it remains Senator = VEEP Hillary's CO-POTUSes GORE, KERRY, or DEAN for 2008, prob GORE. The RINO CINO Lefties are calling or labeling COMMUNISM, LEFTISM-SOCIALISM, GOVERNMENTISM + TOTALITARIANISM, etal. as anything + everything but what it truly is - e.g. Its NOT OWG, NOR "WAR FOR THE WORLD/EMPIRE", NOR "WAR TO THE DEATH", NOT EVEN "THE FINAL STRUGGLE, etal. but "GLOBALISM"! Amers are the ONLY ONES being demanded to pay any future REGIONAL = TRANS-REGIONAL/CONTINETAL = GLOBAL TAXATIONS WHILE SIMUL NOT BE ALLOWED TO RULE, CONTROL, DOMINATE OR GOVERN OUR OWN GLOBAL EMPIRE.
AMERS CAN WAR FOR EMPIRE AS LONG AS WE VOLUNTARILY = FORCIBLY DON'T RULE OR GOVERN IT.
AMERICA = GOOD GUYS > ARE THE ONLY ONES WHOM HAS TO SURRENDER, NOT OUR ENEMIES.
You know you're in trouble when you can't even call the terrorists "terrorists."
This effectively was the ruling handed down last week by Judge Audrey Collins of the federal district court in Los Angeles.
It marks yet another low point not only in the Bush administration's record in defending its War on Terror legal doctrines in the courtroom (2006 has been particularly unkind in this respect) but also in the courts' increasingly nonsensical attempts to assert themselves in matters of national security.
This latest episode began in 1917 when, in the Trading With the Enemy Act, Congress granted the president broad authority to "investigate, regulate . . . prevent or prohibit . . . transactions" in times of war or declared emergencies.
And then in 1977 Congress extended that authority in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), to include the power to "investigate,... regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of" property in which a foreign country or person has an interest, but only in the presence of an "unusual and extraordinary threat." (Incidentally, violating the IEEPA was one of Clinton supporter Marc Rich's many transgressions.)
On September 23, 2001, President Bush announced the existence of just such a threat. Executive Order 13224 declared that the "grave acts of terrorism" and the "continuing and immediate threat of future attacks" on the United States constituted a national emergency.
President Bush then froze the assets of twenty-seven groups and individuals, each of which
he designated as specially designated global terrorist groups (SDGT). At the time, the administration earned plaudits from all but the most hardened leftists for its recognition that terrorist money is the ultimate source of terrorist evil; not exactly the root cause so much as the root itself.
The executive order authorized the designation as an SDGT of anyone who: acts "for or on behalf of;" is "owned or controlled by;" assists, sponsors, or provides ". . . services to;" or is "otherwise associated with" a designated terrorist group. The order also provided mechanisms for administrative review of any SDGT designation and for obtaining a license to conduct business with such groups under limited circumstances.
Among the groups specified were terrorist front organizations like the Wafa Humanitarian Organization and the Al Rashid Trust, both linked to jihadists like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Later included were the Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan (Kurdistan Workers' Party) (PKK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) or Tamil Tigers, whose supporters were the plaintiffs in the lawsuit before Judge Collins.
The PKK is a brutal international Marxist-Leninist revolutionary group dedicated to creating a Kurdish homeland by hook or by crook, and always by violence. It carried out bombings against civilian and military targets, mostly in Turkey. Its founder and leader, terrorist mastermind Abdullah Ocalan, was captured and convicted in Turkey in 1999.
The Tamil Tigers are likewise a violent separatist movement responsible for the deaths of hundreds of civilians, including an especially ghastly shooting in a Buddhist temple in 1985. Seeking an independent state for Sri Lanka's Tamil population, the LTTE most recently killed over one hundred people in a bus bombing in October. While neither of these groups are Islamist, they have proven poisonously lethal.
Nevertheless, Judge Collins stacked the deck in the first paragraphs of her opinion where she described the PKK as "a political organization representing the interests of the Kurds in Turkey, with the goal of achieving self-determination for the Kurds in Southeastern Turkey." Well, that's one way of putting it.
She also depicted the TTLE's "activities" as "political organizing and advocacy, providing social services and humanitarian aid, defending the Tamil people from human rights abuses," oh, and, by the way, "using military force against the government of Sri Lanka."
The court portrayed the particular litigants as "seeking to provide support to the lawful, nonviolent activities" of the PKK and the LTTE.
And while Judge Collins rejected several of the groups' constitutional challenges, she held that the Executive Order "provides no explanation of the basis upon which these twenty-seven groups and individuals were designated." Thus, the president's authority was so vague as to violate the Constitution.
Furthermore, because "the President's designation authority is subject only to his unfettered discretion," the administrative procedure for challenging such designations was found wanting. And just like that, in five crisp paragraphs, the administration's power to designate terrorist groups was suddenly eliminated.
In addition, Judge Collins held that the Executive Order, which prohibits individuals from "otherwise associat[ing] with" the SDTGs, violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment freedom of association. Because the Order did not define what this term meant, it impermissibly "lends itself to subjective interpretation" and improperly "gives the Government unfettered discretion in enforcing it."
In many ways, then, the court piled on to previous recent national security rulings that went against the administration.
The key theme is "unfettered discretion," a term that appears no fewer than 11 times in Judge Collins's opinion. In the minds of many of our nation's jurists, the cardinal sin of the Executive Branch is to arrogate to itself undue prerogative. When the administration seizes excessive authority in matters properly allocated to the other branches, this argument goes, our entire system suffers.
Fair enough - in peacetime and in matters of domestic policy. Our founders unquestionably favored the separation of powers as one of their highest ideals. No single branch ought to dominate any of the others.
But when we are at war, over the course of our history - both legal and political - the president has traditionally enjoyed much greater leeway in setting policy in the national security ambit. Only the executive can act decisively and efficiently in the face of gathering or present threats.
It's therefore especially surprising that the court would strike down President Bush's authority to designate terrorist groups as such. Who is better equipped than the executive - privy as he or she is to top-secret intelligence and an enormous range of information - to make such determinations?
As for Judge Collins's reasoning, there may well be occasions on which the president simply cannot divulge the justification behind labeling a certain organization an SDTG. That very decision could itself implicate national security concerns.
Practically speaking, the ruling marks a victory for terror groups around the globe. If the U.S. cannot effectively uproot the terrorist money tree, it will continue to bestow its fruits on groups ranging from Hezbollah to Al Qaeda to the PKK.
But more fundamentally, this is a major symbolic blow to the War on Terror. If we are not allowed even to define the enemy, how can we possibly hope to defeat him? If we are deprived of the very opportunity to identify the nature of our adversary, we have already fallen into his clutches.
The administration has vowed to appeal this ruling, as it has all of the others it has recently lost. Here's hoping it prevails - for all of our sakes.
Michael M. Rosen, TCS Daily's intellectual property columnist, is an attorney in San Diego.
Dennis Kucinich's ( hopefully ) last part of a series outlining how fast he would retreat from Iraq. Kucinich's proposals boil down to turning the whole show in Iraq over to the UN, including 130,000 UN "peacekeepers." Does Iraq have enough goats, starving kids and women to service those troops?
There are good days and bad days in considering the insanity the left has in store over the next two years. This is one of the bad days.
Edited for the loonier parts (ESP)
1. Transfer to the United Nations the authority the United States currently excerises in Iraq. This includes: The United States must ask the United Nations, in cooperation with the Iraqi government, to manage the oil assets of Iraq until Iraq is stabilized.
2. The United States will finance a UN-sponsored peacekeeping mission in Iraq and enlist the help of other members of the coalition of nations which participated in the Iraq action.
3. UN troops will rotate into Iraq, and all US troops will come home. The United Nations, through its member nations, in cooperation with member nations from the region, will commit 130,000 peacekeepers to Iraq on a temporary basis until the Iraqi people can maintain their own security.
4. The United States must agree to pay for what we destroyed. An Iraq reconstruction fund, monitored by the UN in cooperation with the Iraqi government, must be annually replenished to replace destroyed infrastructure.
5. The United States will abandon policies of "preemption" and unilateralism and commit to strengthening the UN.
#2
Great. Dennis Kucinich now makes foreign policy recommendations and people actually listen to them.
Why don't we just nuke ourselves and get it over with...
#4
Is it just me, or are all 5 of these demands anti-American on their face ?
This jerkoff couldn't get support for this in the House or in the street.
Bring it on, Dennis, you anti-American miscarriage.
#6
Dennis wants the UN to take over peace-keeping in Iraq? Would this be the same UN that left the country on the grounds that it was too dangerous after someone crashed a car bomb into their compound?
(1) We don't have to ask the UN NUTTIN'. And, Coffee and son have already had their greedy paws in the Oil for Food program monies (as well as France and some other nefarious nations). NEXT!
(2) As opposed to what we're doin' now with over 30 nations backing us up? No thanks, that whole increase in costs/middle man thingy, Coffee (see above for OfF).
(3) Uhhhhm. Is it just me or are the only "UN" soldiers worth a damn the same ones whose boots are already on the ground (US and allies)? Again, I feel the UN trying to make a "program" to only enrich themselves here.
(4) We're already paying for reconstruction and have probably billions in graf. We prefer to only enrich ourselves or Halliburton, thank you very much. And, what's this "annual replenishment" garbage? If UN troops loot, rape and pillage, the US is supposed to pay for it? PSHAW!
(5) Preemption exists in light of 9/11, Denny boy. You don't get to have a say in my family's existance, arsewipe. And, since when is over 30 nations in the "coalition of the willing" called "unilateralism"? And, we were trying to strengthen the UN (at least it's founding beliefs), but you guys shot down Bolton. Next up? Ann Coulter for UN Ambassador!
Posted by: BA ||
12/05/2006 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Ann Coulter for UN Ambassador!
Only if you put her in a sheer black cat suit, arm her with a flamethrower and machineguns, and give her carte blanche with a pre-signed Presidential Pardon.
I have this vision (fantasy?) of Annie standing up in front of the General Assembly shouting "I'll take a flamethrower to this place!" and cutting loose.
François Gautier, born in Paris in 1950, is a French journalist and writer, who was for eight years the political correspondent in India and South Asia for " Le Figaro " and now works for Ouest-France, the largest circulation daily (I million copies) in France and LCI, France's 24 hour TV news channel.
The recent bombings of the Western Railway system in Mumbai have once again thrown up the same question: Is it possible to dialogue with todays Islam ? Does it listen to reason ? Does plain logic work ? Will it ever stop killing innocent people in the name of God ?
Take these bombings for instance: do they really make sense ? Here you have a Central Government which is heavily pro-Muslim, making sure that a number of Muslims are appointed in top posts, endeavouring to carve a sizable chunk of reservations for Muslims, as seen in Andra Pradesh and constantly pandering to Indias Muslim minority. The bombings also happen in Maharashtra, a state governed by the Congress, where many Muslims live and work, the financial capital of India, whose prosperity benefits all, including Muslims
The same illogical strain seems to have got hold of the Government of India, whether it is BJP or Congress ruled. We keep hearing that those blasts, in Delhi, Vanarasi or Mumbai, are the work of the ISI of Pakistan or Bangladeshi extremists. But what they dont say is that it would be impossible for these people to function unless they have a lot of ground sympathy amongst local Indian Muslims. And the question has to be asked again: why should Indian Muslims go against their own Government, which has done so much for them since Independence ? Why should Indian Muslims target India, a country where they have more freedom than in say Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia ?
Every time also, the Government comes out with the same litany: these acts are meant to create communal violence, be peaceful, dont react. Which basically means, You Hindus (who are targeted), keep quiet and get killed. Who cares anyway. And a few months later, another blast takes the lives of a few more innocent Hindus. But how long will the Hindus keep quiet? This is the question that the Indian Government has to ask itself. Gujarat has paved the way: However reprehensible these acts of mass vengeance were, they have shown that Hindus keep quiet for a long time: they get riled at, they are made fun of, they are despised, their women raped, men killed, children burnt in trains and one day they blow up - and blow up badly. Riots dont erupt in a few days: they are the fruit of decades, of generations even, of suppressed anger, of frustration, of a silent majority which sees itself more and more marginalized and taken for granted.
Yes, we do occasionally come across wonderful Muslims, open, friendly, who have somehow preserved the knowledge that all religions are the same, that Islam in India owes a lot to the tolerance of Indians, that Hinduism, yoga, meditation and pranayama, are Indias gifts to the world and can be practiced by Muslims, Christians and Hindus alike. I have personally met quite a few of them, within the Art Of Living Family, for example. But they are such rarities. And even those educated Muslims, whom you can talk to, will not go as far as criticizing the Koran. Look at Javed Akhtars poetic tearjerker on the Bombay blasts (As a human being, I shudder to think how can my fellow humans do something so heinous? Are these terrorists made of flesh and blood? Do they laugh and cry like us?). Not once Akhtar, who has made a favourite pastime of deriding Hindu Gurus, said that all these crimes are committed in the name of Islam and the Koran, his religion and his Scriptures
So will Islam ultimately convert itself? Because the problem is not with Muslims, but with the Koran. Will it, instead of feeling totally paranoiac, thinking that it is under attack everywhere, whether it is Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, or France, realize that it is actually Islam which is the aggressor all over the world, that Muslims who have settled in France or India, or the UK, and which these countries have sincerely accepted, giving them citizenship and the same rights as any French, Indian or German citizens, are actually biting the hand that fed them ? Will the mullahs of Islam accept to sit down and reform the Koran, which is a perfectly acceptable scripture for the Middle ages, when mentalities were very different, but which today still propagates an aggressive, exclusive, and dangerous zeal in its children?
This is what we are all hoping for. This is what most Western leaders secretly crave for, when they go out of their way to praise and favour the moderate Muslims of their country. This is what spiritual leaders like His Holiness Sri Sri Ravi Shankar are attempting, with a certain amount of success, by speaking to Muslim leaders, fostering ties in Muslim countries such as Iraq or Afghanistan, or reforming Kashmiri terrorists through meditation.
Unfortunately, time is running out. Muslims in India and elsewhere in the world do not understand is that we are slowly losing our innocence. At the moment, Islam still benefits from the sympathy of the media, which constantly negates Islamic fundamentalism, making a hero for instance of the Chechen warlord Shamil Bassayev, recently killed, who organized the gruesome massacre of hundreds of children in Beslan and a villain of Vladimir Putin (or a hero of Sadddam Hussain and a monster of Bush) but it is slowly losing that sympathy. Sooner or later nearly the entire world will wage a war against Islam, from Europe to China, from the Ural to Pakistan.
There will also come a time, which is not very far, where everybody will become wary of anything Islamic. Anyone looking slightly Muslim, in a plane, in a train, in a shopping mall, will be looked upon suspiciously. Anybody with a Muslim name will have problems entering any country. Those who have Muslim friends will quietly stop seeing them or find some excuses not to meet them. It is already happening. Muslims will cry themselves hoarse and speak of persecution. But they will have only themselves to blame: they did not speak up as a community when innocents all over the world were killed in the name of their religion .
And this may be the way Islam will slowly disappear. Muslims with a little common sense, or just maybe with a sense of survival, will start changing their names quietly, they will stop going to the Mosque, they will send their children to Christian or Hindu schools. Governments will clamp down so hard on their own Muslims, there will be so many restrictions on them, that entire families, will move out of the Muslim enclaves you find all over the world, to resettle elsewhere. Jehadis facing certain death even if they are not suicide bombers, will melt back in civilian life. Muslims will slowly lose faith in the righteousness and the power of their own religion, become atheists, or even embrace back Hinduism, as 90% of Muslims in India are Hindu converts. It may take a few decades, a hundred years even, But Islam will surely disappear in the alleys of history and what look now like menacing, dangerous, foreboding force will be looked upon as just another religion that came and passed away..
Unless Islam converts itself
Posted by: john ||
12/05/2006 17:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
According to Gautier, he submitted this article three times to the Indian newspapers who carry his work. It was rejected by the editors...
Posted by: john ||
12/05/2006 17:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And this may be the way Islam will slowly disappear.
Wishful thinking. The exclusion promotes separation and conflict. The eventual disappearance is likely to be rather sudden.
#4
why should Indian Muslims go against their own Government, which has done so much for them since Independence ? Why should Indian Muslims target India, a country where they have more freedom than in say Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia?
If it ain't sharia, it ain't halal and it ain't Islamic. These morons will never be happy unless everything is their way and their way only. And it is this that will get them killed.
Sooner or later nearly the entire world will wage a war against Islam, from Europe to China, from the Ural to Pakistan.
Most amazing of all is how Islam absolutely refuses to admit or even recognize this simple fact. They have set themselves on a collision course with reality. The impact will likely be expressed in mega if not giga-tons.
There will also come a time, which is not very far, where everybody will become wary of anything Islamic. Anyone looking slightly Muslim, in a plane, in a train, in a shopping mall, will be looked upon suspiciously. Anybody with a Muslim name will have problems entering any country. Those who have Muslim friends will quietly stop seeing them or find some excuses not to meet them. It is already happening. Muslims will cry themselves hoarse and speak of persecution. But they will have only themselves to blame: they did not speak up as a community when innocents all over the world were killed in the name of their religion.
Islam's repeated demands for a repetition of the Holocaust will end up being their death knell. If there is another genocide, it will probably be the Muslim holocaust. To date, they are begging for it on hands and knees with little promise of any change at all in the near or long term future.
The fifth anniversary of 9-11 saw me reach my personal limit. The complete and total obliteration of Islam and every Muslim on earth will not cost me a second's sleep. I certainly welcome any and all more peaceful solutions but have no personal doubt as to what will finally be required.
#6
Kind of similar to a neophyte Risk player who randomly attacks all other players -- then suddenly finds out what happens when they all simultaneously decide that they've had enough of that particular color on the board.
Moslems will go the way of Carthaginians, Aztecs, and Nazis because they are a thoroughly irrational death cult.
The world has gone mad. As Lebanon teeters on the brink of Iranian and Syrian instigated collapse, senior American and British political officials urge President George W. Bush to hand Iraq over to Iran and Syria.
As the Palestinians push forward with their Iranian-sponsored, Arab supported jihad, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert responds by announcing his intention to release thousands of terrorists from prison and throw thousands of Israelis out of their homes while giving their lands to Hamas.
While Saturday found the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh meeting in Teheran with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and applauding his plan to annihilate Israel, Olmert decided Sunday that, in the interest of peace with the Palestinians he would forbid the IDF from attacking terrorists positions in Gaza even if doing so would prevent imminent rocket attacks against the Negev.
And now, according to Britain's Sunday Times, Saudi Arabia is becoming the "principal peace broker" between Israel and the Palestinians.
Reportedly since meeting in Amman in September with the former Saudi ambassador to the US, Saudi Prince Bandar, Olmert has been seriously considering embracing the so-called Saudi peace plan from 2002. Senior Israeli officials told the Times that the plan, which would establish a Palestinian state, "could lead to a formal peace deal between Israel and seven Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, the Emirates, Morocco and Tunisia."
IT WOULD really be terrific if Israel could have peace with Saudi Arabia and the rest of those Arab countries. A true peace with Saudi Arabia would mean an end to the illegal Arab economic boycott of Israel and their boycott of companies that do business with Israel.
Peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia would mean that the Saudis would stop financing Islamic terror groups dedicated to killing Jews in Israel and around the world.
Since having peaceful relations with Israel would presuppose Saudi acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, obviously a Saudi peace with Israel would mean an end to Saudi financing of mosques, schools and media organs throughout the world which indoctrinate hundreds of millions of people to believe that Jews are dogs and pigs and vermin and must be annihilated.
Peace between Saudi Arabia and Israel would mean an end to Saudi pressure on Europeans to criminalize Israel and marginalize the Jewish communities in their countries in exchange for a stable oil supply.
The calls by professors who teach in Saudi-financed US and European universities to boycott Israeli academics and end the US alliance with Israel would be muted if Saudi Arabia was at peace with Israel. Similarly, former US officials employed by the Saudis would stop calling American Jews traitors for supporting the US-Israel alliance.
So if there were a possibility that the Times report that "The Saudi Arabian government is emerging as a key player in talks to broker a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace agreement," were true, it would be a true cause for a celebration in Israel.
BUT OF course, like the view that the turmoil in Lebanon is an internal Lebanese affair; and the view that a US retreat from Iraq could be anything other than a strategic victory for the global jihad, the belief that the Saudis are interested in brokering peace with Israel is a complete fabrication. Indeed the "deal" that the Saudis are "brokering" is nothing less than a blueprint for Israel's destruction.
The 2002 Saudi "peace plan" requires Israel to agree to be overrun by millions of hostile foreign Arabs in the framework of the so-called "Right of Return." Moreover, the text of the initiative, "Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian partition which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries." That is, the Saudi plan prohibits Arab states from granting citizenship to these millions of Arabs and so leaves them no choice other than to destroy Israel.
Saudi Arabia's "peace plan" also demands that Israel surrender east Jerusalem - including the Temple Mount, all of Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley and the entire Golan Heights to the Palestinians and the Syrians. This Israeli surrender would enable the formal establishment of a Palestinian terror state. It would also strengthen Iran's principal ally - the Syrian Ba'athist regime.
HERE TOO, the Saudi plan is a recipe for Israel's destruction. Without these territories, Israel would be rendered indefensible. Without Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights, Israel would be so vulnerable to missile and artillery attack that it could be overwhelmed even before conventional invading Arab armies set foot on its remaining territory.
As a reading of the Saudi plan makes clear, it would only be after Israel surrendered all this land and allowed itself to be overrun by millions of hostile Arab immigrants that the Saudis and their Arab brethren would "establish normal relations with Israel." That is, the Saudis will be ready to talk to Israelis only after Israel is destroyed.
The Times' report claims that Olmert's speech at David Ben Gurion's grave last week where he offered to surrender to Hamas, "was not Olmert's own initiative but a dictate given to him last month when he met George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice in Washington." The Americans reportedly were acting at the behest of the Saudis who wanted proof that Olmert is truly committed to capitulation.
IT MAKES some sense that the Bush administration would express such devotion to the Saudi plan. The most glaring Achilles heel of Bush's entire war against the global jihad has been his refusal to contend with Saudi Arabia's central role in fomenting the jihad.
Bush's father's secretary of state James Baker III is the senior partner of Baker, Botts law firm which is representing Saudi Arabia in the lawsuit filed against the kingdom by the relatives of the victims of the September 11 attacks. As the co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, Baker is about to recommend that Bush pressure Israel to capitulate to Hamas and Syria in Judea and Samaria, Gaza and the Golan Heights order to facilitate the US's capitulation to Syria and Iran in Iraq. Prince Bandar, Olmert's reported interlocutor is a personal friend of Baker and the Bush family. After 15 Saudis and four Egyptians carried out the attacks on the US on Sept. 11, it was Bandar who persuaded Bush to become the first US president to ever make the establishment of a Palestinian state an official US policy goal.
Olmert's motive for providing the Saudis with an unwarranted propaganda victory in the US and Israel is similarly understandable. Quite simply, Olmert will do anything to take the Israeli public's attention away from his failure in office. And to successfully "spin" the public, he needs the support of the Israeli media.
Olmert's embrace of a new imaginary "peace process" will win him the support of Haaretz and the other radical leftist elements in the Israeli media. These media organs will then work to prevent the opening of police investigations into Olmert's alleged criminal activities.
Friday, Haaretz columnist Gideon Samet made clear that in exchange for the media's support, Olmert must release thousands of Palestinian terrorists from jail even without securing the release of IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit; scale-down IDF counter-terror operations in Judea and Samaria; facilitate the free flow of goods from Gaza into Israel and so render Israel even more vulnerable to terrorist penetration from Gaza; destroy Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria; and provide free medical services to Palestinians in Israeli hospitals.
OLMERT'S SPEECH at the gravesite of Israel's founding father was a signal on his part to the radical leftist media that he is accepting their terms. And in exchange the media ignores the ever escalating allegations that Olmert has been involved in criminal activity. More importantly, the media makes light of the fact that by losing the war this summer and adopting a strategy of total capitulation to all external forces Olmert has placed the country in the greatest existential danger in its history. Similarly, the media hides the ideological bankruptcy of Olmert's Kadima party - whose platform of capitulation has failed completely, and ignores the fact that Kadima has no clear constituency.
It is a Faustian bargain these leaders of Israel and the US make when they prefer good press to good policies. What the self-satisfied grins on the faces of the leaders of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other "moderate" countries these days clearly signals is that it is a bargain we cannot afford.
By Justin Logan; foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute
Executive Summary:
It appears increasingly likely that the Bush administration's diplomatic approach to Iran will fail to prevent Iran from going nuclear and that the United States will have to decide whether to use military force to attempt to delay Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability. Some analysts have already been promoting air strikes against Iran, and the Bush administration has pointed out repeatedly that the military option is "on the table." This paper examines the options available to the United States in the face of a prospective final diplomatic collapse.
Evaluating the two ultimate optionsmilitary action on the one hand and acceptance and deterrence on the otherreveals that neither course is attractive. However, the evidence strongly suggests that the disadvantages of using military action would outweigh those of acceptance and deterrence. Attacking Iran's nuclear program would pose several problems: U.S. intelligence seems likely to be even poorer on Iran than it was on Iraq; Iran has hardened and buried many nuclear facilities in a way that would make them difficult to destroy; Iran could respond in such a way that the United States would feel forced to escalate to full-blown regime change; and there would be a host of unintended consequences inside and outside Iran.
A policy of acceptance and deterrence is also an unattractive prospect. Iran would likely be emboldened by the acquisition of a bomb and could destabilize the region and inject more problems into an already bleak prospect for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Still, given the costs of the military option, the only compelling rationale for starting a war with Iran would be if there were good reason to believe that the Iranian leadership is fundamentally undeterrable. But available evidence indicates that Iran is deterrable and would be particularly so if faced with the devastating repercussions that would result from the use of a nuclear weapon. Therefore, the United States should begin taking steps immediately to prepare for a policy of deterrence should an Iranian bomb come online in the future. As undesirable as such a situation would be, it appears less costly than striking Iran.
#6
"Policy of deterrence" > IOW, LET ISRAEL BE DESTROYED + ALL WESTERN DEMOCRACY BE THREATENED OR PLACED AT RISK, so that US Cities don't get nuked + anti-Amer Americans have something left in CONUS, and only CONUS, to rule over. FIGHTING FOR THOSE FEW SPECIAL AMERIKANS ONLY-RESERVED SEATS ON THE FUTURE AMERIKAN POLITIBURO WHICH RUSSIA-CHINA NEVER PROMISED THE US LEFT.* "USSA, NOT USSR", ergo the future USSA is weirdly and mysteriously, but only co-incidentally randomly and PC/Deniably, the only one that has to surrender.
Realism is an academic theory that holds that nations should, and typically do, conduct foreign policy with greater regard for their interests than their values. But realism is also an ordinary word that tells us that good sense and experience are better practical guides to action than theory. That's a distinction worth bearing in mind as the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group releases its report this week and we debate whether the U.S. should engage diplomatically with Iran.
To hear the so-called realists tell it, engaging Tehran is a matter of necessity and ought to be one of choice. Necessity, they say, because there will be no good outcome in Iraq--or Lebanon and Palestine--without Iranian acquiescence, which can only be achieved through face-to-face talks and confidence-building measures. Necessity, too, because they think that neither the U.S. nor Israel can stop Iran's nuclear ambitions militarily and so they must be dealt with as part of a broader negotiation.
Yet the same people who now call for engagement also believed in it long before the invasion of Iraq or the recent revelations about Iran's nuclear advances. They argue that Iran's pressing political and economic problems--the country's huge youth cohort, cleavages within the regime and its loss of popular legitimacy, ethnic and labor unrest and growing unemployment--mean the Islamic Republic has reasons of its own to come to the table. The same logic also suggests that the real purpose of its nuclear program is to serve as a bargaining chip to obtain bigger concessions from the West rather than as an end in itself.
But here's where realism of the common sense kind should intrude. Iran's domestic problems are hardly new and in some ways have been eased by the high oil prices of recent years. In 1997, Iranians "elected" a supposedly moderate president, Mohammed Khatami, on a reformist platform. As Iranian journalist Amir Taheri notes in the November Commentary magazine, the Clinton Administration sought to establish openings with the Khatami government by lifting some sanctions and apologizing for U.S. political meddling. President Clinton even planned an "accidental" encounter with Mr. Khatami during the U.N.'s millennium summit, but Iran's Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei canceled it at the last minute. The stood-up President "was left pacing the corridors of the U.N.," writes Mr. Taheri. . . .
Finally, there is the matter of values. One has to wonder about "engaging" a regime whose recent domestic practices include taking a razor to the tongue of labor leader Mansour Ossanloo, whose crime was to have organized an independent union for bus drivers. Realists would have us believe that a country that indulges such barbarism can still be expected to act as a predictable and, under certain conditions, reliable partner in diplomacy.
It's true that we also "engaged" the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but most successfully when Ronald Reagan also spoke candidly about Soviet reality and on behalf of Russian freedom and the U.S. resisted the Kremlin's global designs. We suppose in that sense the Gipper was an idealistic realist. President Bush has spoken repeatedly, in his major speeches and in interviews, about American support for Iranians who aspire to more freedom, which is one reason the U.S. is popular among the Iranian people. What message would it now send those Iranians if the U.S. turned around and embraced the rule of Tehran's mullahs?
We think it's simple realism to believe the fate of people like Mr. Ossanloo explains Iran's past behavior, and well predicts its future.
Posted by: Mike ||
12/05/2006 07:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One thing completely left out of this "realism" analysis is the impending collapse of oil production in Iran (within the next 10 years, see Spengler as quoted today in Rantburg) and the Achilles' Heel of the West (oil again). For the mullocracy to survive, they are obliged to seize control of their neighbors' oil resources, and the West is obliged to block them. When Iran goes nuclear, the only thing to "engage" them with is how much tribute the West will pay them for the oil they will then control. That is the real purpose of the Iranian nuclear program, to ensure the mullocracy's survival and perhaps dominance of the Muslim oil resource. There's more going on here than the jihad.
#2
And "Jihad for Allah" is just what their mullah taught them. The mullocracy is calling the shots and their jihad has larger personal meanings, conflicting with each other, in their race to global (and so, so individual) global conquest. All their mullahs wear army boots.
What they capture, they keep. When they lose, they complain to the U.N.
By Raymond Ibrahim,
RAYMOND IBRAHIM is a research librarian at
the Library of Congress. His book, "The Al Qaeda Reader," translations of religious texts and propaganda, will be published in April.
December 5, 2006
IN THE DAYS before Pope Benedict XVI's visit last Thursday to the Hagia Sophia complex in Istanbul, Muslims and Turks expressed fear, apprehension and rage. "The risk," according to Turkey's independent newspaper Vatan, "is that Benedict will send Turkey's Muslims and much of the Islamic world into paroxysms of fury if there is any perception that the pope is trying to re-appropriate a Christian center that fell to Muslims." Apparently making the sign of the cross or any other gesture of Christian worship in Hagia Sophia constitutes such a sacrilege.
Built in the 6th century, Hagia Sophia Greek for "Holy Wisdom" was Christendom's greatest and most celebrated church. After parrying centuries of jihadi thrusts from Arabs, Constantinople now Istanbul was finally sacked by Turks in 1453, and Hagia Sophia's crosses were desecrated, its icons defaced. Along with thousands of other churches in the Byzantine Empire, it was immediately converted into a mosque, the tall minarets of Islam surrounding it in triumph. Nearly 500 years later, in 1935, as part of reformer Kemal Ataturk's drive to modernize Turkey, Hagia Sophia was secularized and transformed into a museum.
Protests aimed at keeping the pope out of Hagia Sophia rocked Istanbul right up to the morning of his visit to the site. Contrast that intolerance with the tolerance granted Muslims in regard to the Al Aqsa mosque this time, an Islamic site in Jerusalem annexed by Judaism. Unlike the permanent Muslim desecration of Hagia Sophia, after Israel's victory in the 1967 war, the Jews did not deface or convert the mosque into a Jewish synagogue or temple, even though the Al Aqsa mosque is deliberately built atop the remains of the Temple Mount, the holiest site of Judaism and, by extension, an important site for Christians. Moreover, since reclaiming the Temple Mount, Israel has granted Muslims control over the Al Aqsa mosque (except during times of crises).
All this illustrates the privileged status that many Muslims expect in the international arena. When Muslims conquer non-Muslim territories such as Constantinople, not to mention all of North Africa, Spain and southwest Asia those whom they have conquered as well as their descendants are not to expect any apologies, let alone political or territorial concessions.
Herein lies the conundrum. When Islamists wage jihad past, present and future conquering and consolidating non-Muslim territories and centers in the name of Islam, never once considering to cede them back to their previous owners, they ultimately demonstrate that they live by the age-old adage "might makes right." That's fine; many people agree with this Hobbesian view.
But if we live in a world where the strong rule and the weak submit, why is it that whenever Muslim regions are conquered, such as in the case of Palestine, the same Islamists who would never concede one inch of Islam's conquests resort to the United Nations and the court of public opinion, demanding justice, restitutions, rights and so forth?
Put another way, when Muslims beat infidels, it's just too bad for the latter; they must submit to their new overlords' rules with all the attendant discrimination and humiliation mandated for non-Muslims. Yet when Islam is beaten, demands for apologies and concessions are expected from the infidel world at large.
Double standards do not make for international justice. Either territorial conquests are always unjust and should therefore be ameliorated through concessions, or else they are merely a manifestation of the natural order of things that is, survival of the fittest.
If some Muslims wish to wage eternal jihad until Islam dominates the globe, they are only being true to Islam and its doctrines as they understand it. However, in that case, where the world is divided into two warring camps, Islam and Infidelity or, in Islamic terms, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War how can these Muslims expect any concessions from the international community? The natural conclusion of the view that "might makes right" is "to the victor go the spoils."
The fact that Turkey conquered Constantinople more than 500 years ago does not prevent the Turkish government from returning Hagia Sophia to Christendom today, which would undoubtedly be a great gesture. But of course that can never be. The Muslim world would undergo a "paroxysm of fury" if a Christian pope dares pray in the conquered church; what would the Muslim world do if Hagia Sophia were actually converted back to a church?
But perhaps Muslims cannot be blamed for expecting special treatment, as well as believing that jihad is righteous and decreed by the Almighty. The West constantly goes out of its way to confirm such convictions. By criticizing itself, apologizing and offering concessions all things the Islamic world has yet to do the West reaffirms that Islam has a privileged status in the world.
And what did the pope do in his controversial visit to Hagia Sophia? He refrained from any gesture that could be misconstrued as Christian worship and merely took in the sights of the museum. Moreover, when he was invited into the Blue Mosque nearby, he respectfully took off his shoes and prayed, eyes downcast, standing next to the the grand mufti of Istanbul like a true dhimmi a subdued non-Muslim living under Islamic law and acknowledging Islamic superiority.
And therein is the final lesson. Muslims' zeal for their holy places and lands is not intrinsically blameworthy. Indeed, there's something to be said about being passionate and protective of one's own. Here the secular West Christendom's prodigal son and true usurper can learn something from Islam. For whenever and wherever the West concedes ideologically, politically and especially spiritually, Islam will be sure to conquer. If might does not make right, zeal apparently does.
Posted by: john ||
12/05/2006 17:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Shocking to see this in the LA Times... are certain editors getting a clue?
Posted by: john ||
12/05/2006 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Heh, an Op-Ed. No change, IMO, think of it like a lawyer who takes the occasional pro-bono case... just the occasional piece to maintain the illusion of balance, lol.
#4
Sorta like Furians who were expelled for being whiny-assed bitches, cowardly girly-men who hid behind wymyns, and gutless fucks who kill the defenseless.
I've been wondering this of late as well. More and more columnists are starting to cast a critical, if veiled, light on islamic insanities. It could be that a saturation point may yet be reached by some more soon. Others will take an Ahmadinnajacket lobbed bomb to start breaking a sweat. But I've got hopes.
There may come a point where the duplicity and ignorance of cause and effect, not to mention double standards of islam itself will become uncomfortably obvious - and so, worrying - to average Joe. And the pap of appeasement won't work anymore. Joe gonna know pap when he sees it.
With the gruesome killing of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, Vladimir Putin's Russia stands accused of poisoning yet another critic.
Meanwhile, Syria continues to mastermind the murders of Lebanese democrats. Israeli-free Gaza is as violent as ever. Hezbollah is busy replenishing its stock of Iranian missiles. The theocracy in Iran keeps promising an end to Israel. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is slowly strangling democracy in Latin America in a manner that an impoverished Fidel Castro never could. And then, of course, there's Afghanistan and Iraq.
It's easy to think all of this violent instability across the globe is unconnected. But, in fact, in one way or another, oil and its huge profits are at the bottom of a lot of it.
Islamic jihadists, fed from petrodollar wealth of the Middle East, have the cash to arm and plan operations from Baghdad and Kabul to Madrid and London. Thanks to oil, unhinged leaders like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Mr. Chavez in Venezuela can stay in power (and demand the world's attention) despite policies that ultimately harm their people, ruin their economies and imperil their neighbors.
Russia, meanwhile, is essentially threatening Eastern Europe with energy cutbacks and reviving the old Soviet nuclear and arms industries. It's stirring up an already volatile Middle East by selling radical Islamists everything from nuclear reactors to high-tech anti-tank guns. President Bush may have seen, as he attested, something reassuring in the heart of President Putin. But Russia's new oil riches offer a fast track back to superpower status -- which we're already seeing them use to silence critics at home and abroad.
Furthermore, the global thirst for oil distorts interstate relations. Take the case of China: Its amoral foreign policy is aimed mostly at securing petroleum. Because Beijing is involved in long-term oil deals with Sudan, it's reluctant to join the West in pressuring the corrupt Sudanese government to cease the genocide in Darfur. (Of course, the West, beholden to China for economic reasons, is in turn reluctant to pressure China.) Similarly, China worries far more about getting Iran's oil than stopping its nuclear proliferation.
The U.S. is often subject to the same blackmail. Take away its need for imported oil and American officials long ago would have ceased visiting Saudi Arabia -- a monarchy based on Shariah law and the cash nexus for Islamist madrassas and Wahhabi terrorism. Rather than appeasing a few hundred sheiks in the Gulf, American presidents -- both Democratic and Republican -- might have instead worried more about the poor millions slaughtered in Chad, Darfur, Ethiopia and Rwanda.
High-priced oil also warps the entire world's limited attention span. We hear daily about Israeli "occupation" in the Middle East because the oil-rich patrons of the Palestinians have sent their terrorists ample subsidies and in the past leveled oil embargoes to punish those sympathetic to Israel. Yet millions more people the world over have also lost land. We don't televise daily refugees from, say, Tibet or Cyprus, since their patrons have no ability to shut down global commerce.
The distortions caused by abrupt influxes of oil wealth have nearly turned upside down the once traditional and tribal Middle East. Sudden oil revenues prop up inefficient state-run economies, while ensuring profits go to the few. Without democracy and free markets, the majority of impoverished Arabs lack access to their nation's treasure -- and blame foreigners for dealing only with their own elite who control the oil and purse strings.
What money that does trickle down has been used for conspicuous consumption, not national investment -- as monarchs and dictators import consumer toys to pacify the disenchanted. In other societies, modernity came at a measured pace, but in the Middle East nomads and peasants have skipped the telegraph and headed straight to the camera cell phone. Of course, the poor "Arab street," tuned into satellite TV, blames the postmodern West for titillating its newfound appetites.
To remedy this mess, a good start would be to lower our own oil consumption, expand American production and diversify our energy sources with solar, nuclear and ethanol power and coal gasification. Only by taking these steps can America -- the most desperate of all oilaholics -- collapse the world price and thus erode the assets of our adversaries.
With a divided U.S. government and a slight dip in world prices, there is a window of opportunity. Democrats can ask for more mandated conservation and alternate energy; in exchange, Republicans can bargain for more drilling and nuclear power.
In World War II, an energy-independent United States bombed the oil fields controlled by the Third Reich to stop Adolf Hitler's killing. Today a wartime but energy-hungry America is daily enriching our worst enemies.
#1
The only ways for the price of oil paid by the world to collapse would be (1) if enough economies paying for it collapse beforehand, or (2) if an ocean of easy-to-extract oil is found somewhere (not bloody likely). I couldn't agree more with VDH that oil money is financing the jihad and that we could have cut off relations with the Islamic fascists a long time ago if we didn't need what they supply so much. It would be nice to see a few baby steps taken by the US along the lines of decreasing its dependence on imported oil, AFAIK nothing has been done along these lines since 9/11. Perhaps when enough of the electorate becomes aware of the link between their consumption of imports and the wealth that goes to support Islamic fascism, our leaders may take the hint & do something productive about this dilemma.
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.
By Kevin McCullough
You know you're in trouble when you can't even call the terrorists "terrorists."
The world has gone mad. As Lebanon teeters on the brink of Iranian and Syrian instigated collapse, senior American and British political officials urge President George W. Bush to hand Iraq over to Iran and Syria. 
By Justin Logan; foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute
Evaluating the two ultimate optionsmilitary action on the one hand and acceptance and deterrence on the otherreveals that neither course is attractive. However, the evidence strongly suggests that the disadvantages of using military action would outweigh those of acceptance and deterrence. Attacking Iran's nuclear program would pose several problems: U.S. intelligence seems likely to be even poorer on Iran than it was on Iraq; Iran has hardened and buried many nuclear facilities in a way that would make them difficult to destroy; Iran could respond in such a way that the United States would feel forced to escalate to full-blown regime change; and there would be a host of unintended consequences inside and outside Iran.
