Asharq al-Awsat - A new book by the Egyptian Islamic Group (IG) emphasizes that the bombing of infrastructure and governmental establishments is not permissible in Islam.
The new book by the IG titled Islam and Propriety of Wars" (Islam wa tahdhib al-hurub) states that these acts are forbidden because they might lead to the deaths of innocent people and the loss of possessions, which the IG describes as a form of corruption that is banned by Shariaa law, as God Almighty says: "When he turns his back, his aim everywhere is to spread mischief through the earth and destroy crops and cattle. But Allah loveth not mischief." Moreover, the destruction of these establishments and infrastructure, like electricity and water plants, hospitals, schools, roads, and bridges causes a lot of damage for Muslims, their sons, and others for no crimes they had committed and this is contrary to the saying of the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of God be upon him, "No damage and hurt."
The IG added: The interests whose achievement is sought by those targeting these establishments and infrastructure are not equal to the damages resulting from these operations.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
09/03/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Boy, what a relief! Now we won't have to worry about hijackings anymore.
#2
Big deal. The enemy blames most Islamic terror, on Mossad and the CIA anyway. If an authoritative fatwah against stupidity was ever issued, mullahs would live in fear.
Nirpal Dhaliwal
Two of the founding grandes dames of British multiculturalism got into a cat fight this week. Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, has been pandering to the right, spat Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London.
Phillipss crime was to state that last weekends Notting Hill carnival can hardly be said to represent the everyday culture of most of Londons communities. A pretty obvious statement to make as most people in London are not black. But Livingstone had a hissy fit and accused Phillips of selling out black people. Hed had a brief sort of black power fling, said Livingstone, dissing Phillipss past activism, and ever since then hes gone so far over to the other side that I expect soon hell be joining the BNP.
It seems that Trevor aint been keeping it real enough for Ken (or K Diddy as we call him on the street), so hes calling new Labours No 1 homeboy a coconut. Maybe Trevor should get some gold teeth and grab his crotch more often.
Like in America, Britains debate on multiculturalism is becoming an empty-headed bun-fight in which race is a convenient bat to beat your opponents with. The United States has always been fraught with individuals tapping ethnic anxieties to further themselves. The Rev Al Sharpton and his jerry-curled hair became famous throughout the country as he jumped on the flimsiest bandwagons to make hysterical overstatements about race.
Britains irony is that the person profiting most from exploiting racial tensions is not a glamorous funky demagogue but a white middle-aged nerd. But K Diddy is savvy to the way race is skilfully employed in America and has imported those techniques here.
Its easy to disregard Livingstone as just another cheesy lily-white leftie associating himself with ethnic groups to prove his hipness and moral perfection. But theres a sinister consistency in his approach to minority issues. Two years ago he welcomed Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the fundamentalist Islamist, to Britain, praising him as a powerfully progressive force for change. He canoodled with him for the cameras and compared him with the Pope, although the sheikh endorses suicide bombings, despises gay people and thinks it is acceptable for men to beat their wives. But Livingstone knows what potential there is in cultivating ethnic and religious support.
As so few people bother to vote in local and regional elections, Livingstone would love to garner the support of the hardcore element of Londons Muslim community. The value of the lumpen ethnic block vote was obvious in George Galloways victory at the last general election. The podgy ex-pugilist knew nothing about the people of Bethnal Green & Bow but ousted Oona King, a hardworking, wholly committed MP.
Galloway has rarely voted in parliament since his election and has achieved little of practical value for his constituents. But he exploited the anger over Iraq to get himself elected, although he was never going to remotely alter government policy.
Similarly, Livingstone smartly antagonises the Jewish community. He argues that hes not an anti-semite, but anti-semites will warm to his snide remarks particularly those who are hardline Islamists. He knew exactly what he was doing when he attacked David and Simon Reuben, the Jewish businessmen, saying they should go back (to their own country) and see if they can do better. He would never dare tell black people to go back to Africa and try their luck.
In Livingstones calculated hierarchy of bigotries, anti-semitism is a low priority: it wont lose him votes and might even gain him some. The same applies to homophobia.
K Diddy would never welcome a gay rights campaigner who publicly denounced Islam as an abominable practice in the manner that Qaradawi condemns homosexuals.
Phillips annoyed Livingstone when he challenged his declaration that the carnival had been a triumph of multiculturalism. As great as the event is, Phillips argued that combining diverse peoples into a cohesive society is a painstaking process that requires more than a day out in the sun shaking your booty. He touched a raw nerve when he undermined Livingstones attempt at congratulating himself for his cool exotic tastes, saying: We wouldnt, frankly, think of participation in a days morris dancing or caber tossing as a valuable exercise in building a modern multicultural society. Lets face it: the carnival is as outdated and irrelevant to a lot of black people as cheese and pineapple on sticks are to most whites. Hats off to Phillips for having the guts to say it.
Livingstone clings to the myth that he is Britains Mr Multicultural. In his view even black people cant be less than euphoric about the carnival. He makes glib associations between Phillips and the far right, while snuggling up to dark-skinned fascists himself. The mayor pats himself on the back for an occasional street party while sneakily exploiting ethnic divisions.
I hope London voters will forget their differences at the next mayoral election and join forces to show this clown the door. Now that would be a real triumph of multiculturalism.
The column I wrote Wednesday ("Chestlessness"), on the two Fox News journalists who were captured in Gaza, and agreed under duress to make a propaganda video, in Arab garb, taking new Muslim names and announcing their conversion to Islam, has got a lot of response. I know Ive hit a nerve when my inbox overflows.
Let us be clear on one fact. Such videos have serious consequences. They are used as a powerful propaganda weapon across the Muslim world, to show aspiring fanatics how spineless Westerners are. And that video in particular was priceless, for the degree of prostration it exhibited. We cannot dodge this issue.
Most of my correspondents were favourable to what I wrote, but many, including several who said they generally agree with my views, were horrified by the tone of that column, which they found merciless and uncharitable. This is as it should be: I meant it to be hard. I meant to cut with a dull blade through the glibness with which we accept treason and apostasy, as a small price to pay for ones personal safety.
I refused, in that column, to take the easy way out, to lard it with empathy for the captives plight, and other concessions to moral relativism -- let alone to add the excuses the captives themselves have made, on behalf of their captors and the society that encourages them.
Nor did I find space for this worthy sentiment, echoed by many readers: I hope that you and I are never in such a situation, for neither you nor I, though hopeful, can be particularly certain that we would stand.
Others said gloatingly they look forward to when I am captured by terrorists -- a few even volunteered to perform the experiment -- to see how courageous I will be, when I am asked to deny everything I believe in.
To which I reply, that I cannot know how I will behave in such a situation, until I am in it. But if I capitulated, from fear of pain and death, I would be deeply ashamed of what I had done. And this shame would haunt me for the rest of my life. I would not be appearing all smiles on TV, I would not be accepting the accolades of my colleagues, and I would surely have the decency to contradict anyone who dared call me brave for saving my own skin.
And if I had, in that moment of cowardice, denied Christ, Id be praying for forgiveness as Judas should have prayed. Unless, like his, my soul had been broken by the gravity of my act.
This is no mere ethics quiz: I invite my reader to ask himself what he would do in the situation those Fox journalists found themselves in. Not what I would do -- I am just the messenger -- but what you would do. And before you give any quick or clever answer, recall that our whole civilization stands or falls on what you decide. Do you, do we, have the courage to hold our spiritual fortress? Or will we, in the time of trouble, give everything away?
Go read the popstscript at the link while you're at it.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/03/2006 09:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The difference between being a sheep and being a sheepdog. We know how most of humanity prefers the status of sheep. Humanity depends upon sheepdogs to live above anything but existance.
#3
I have little pity for these two asswipes either. If you have listened to their comments over the past days, in trying to justify their actions, they have actually incrimintaed themselves. Anytime any of these halfwits venture into the enemy camp, just what do they expect ? If they get captured, shot, blown to bits, whose fault is it? We don't need any sympathy stories on these poor Paleo f**k turds. We'd be far better off if we never heard them mentioned.
#4
I'm not sure what Centanni or Olaf's personal spiritual convictions were before their kidnapping. Personnally I'm glad not to have been in their shoes. Though I'm sure I'd of been toast either way. If those journalists were devout Christians/Jews or agnostics or atheists I have no idea. If the former then they are not courageous by that standard. If either one of them recognized Jesus as their personal savior then the author is quite correct. I've no idea what they believed prior to their kidnapping. If they had no conviction in organized judeo/christian beliefs then it's debatable. Either way, I could care less what they did except for trying to tell everyone afterward how much they still respect islam - that was extremely weak imho. Hell, if I was in their situation I may have said, "sure dude, I'm a muslim, and my new name is abu baba lu or ali hajji sheik" (NFL field goal kicker - mid 80s), then as soon as the dumbshits release me I publicly renounce that bullshit, piss on a koran, explain it's better to play on the stupidity of your enemy & live to fight another day - then I pick up my rifle and get back to work after those clowns.
#6
A couple years ago an italian civilian was captured in Irak ny the jihadi scum. He reamined defiant until the end and before being beheaded sputtered to his captors: "This is how an italian die"
#7
No one can know for certain how they would react if they were put in this sort of situation, but I can state with all my conviction that my muslim captors would have to tear me limb from limb and present me with my 'nads on a flaming platter before I'd EVER convert, even with my fingers crossed behind my back.
Did you see that video of the two Fox journalists announcing they'd converted to Islam? The larger problem, it seems to me, is that much of the rest of the Western media have also converted to Islam, and there seems to be no way to get them to convert back to journalism.
Consider, for example, the bizarre behavior of Reuters, the once globally respected news agency now reduced to putting out laughably inept terrorist propaganda. A few days ago, it made a big hoo-ha about the Israelis intentionally firing a missile at its press vehicle and wounding its cameraman Fadel Shana. Shana was posed in an artful sprawl in a blood-spattered shirt. But it had ridden up and underneath his undershirt was spotlessly white, like a summer-stock Julius Caesar revealing the boxers under his toga. What's stunning is not that almost all Western media organizations reporting from the Middle East are reliant on local staff overwhelmingly sympathetic to one side in the conflict -- that's been known for some time -- but the amateurish level of fakery that head office is willing to go along with.
Down at the other end of the news business, meanwhile, one finds items like this snippet from the Sydney Morning Herald:
"A 16-year-old girl was tailed by a car full of men before being dragged inside and assaulted in Sydney's west last night, police say . . .
"The three men involved in the attack were described to police as having dark 'mullet-style' haircuts."
Three men with "mullet-style" hair, huh? Not much to go on there. Bit of a head scratcher. But, as it turned out, the indefatigable Sydney Morning Herald typist had faithfully copied out every salient detail of the police report except one. Here's the statement the coppers themselves issued:
"Police are seeking three men described as being of Middle Eastern/Mediterranean appearance, with dark 'mullet-style' hair cuts."
That additional detail narrows it down a bit, wouldn't you say? The only reason I know that is because the Aussie Internet maestro Tim Blair grew curious about the epidemic of incidents committed by men of no known appearance and decided to look into it. One can understand the agonies the politically correct multicultural journalist must go through, distressed at the thought that an infelicitous phrasing might perpetuate unfortunate stereotypes of young Muslim males. But, even so, it's quite a leap to omit the most pertinent fact and leave the impression the Sydney constabulary are combing the city for mullets. The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby wrote the other day about how American children's books are "sacrificing truth on the altar of political correctness." But there seems to be quite a lot of that in the grown-up comics, too. And, as I've said before, it's never a good idea to put reality up for grabs. There may come a time when you need it.
It's striking how, for all this alleged multiculti sensitivity, we're mostly entirely insensitive to other cultures: We find it all but impossible to imagine how differently they view the world. Go back to that video in which Fox's Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig announced their conversion to Islam. The moment the men were released, the Western media and their colleagues wrote off the scene as a stunt, a cunning ruse, of no more consequence than yelling "Behind you! He's got a gun!" and then kicking your distracted kidnapper in the teeth. Indeed, a few Web sites seemed to see the Islamic conversion routine as a useful get-out-of-jail-free card.
Don't bet on it. In my forthcoming book, I devote a few pages to a thriller I read as a boy -- an old potboiler by Sherlock Holmes' creator, Arthur Conan Doyle. In 1895 Sir Arthur had taken his sick wife to Egypt for her health, and, not wishing to waste the local color, produced a slim novel called The Tragedy of the Korosko, about a party of Anglo-American-French tourists taken hostage by the Mahdists, the jihadi of the day. Much of the story finds the characters in the same predicament as Centanni and Wiig: The kidnappers are offering them a choice between Islam or death. Conan Doyle's Britons and Americans and Europeans were men and women of the modern world even then:
"None of them, except perhaps Miss Adams and Mrs. Belmont, had any deep religious convictions. All of them were children of this world, and some of them disagreed with everything which that symbol upon the earth represented."
"That symbol" is the cross. Yet in the end, even as men with no religious convictions, they cannot bring themselves to submit to Islam, for they understand it to be not just a denial of Christ but in some sense a denial of themselves, too. So they stall and delay and bog down the imam in a lot of technical questions until eventually he wises up and they're condemned to death.
One hundred ten years later, for the Fox journalists and the Western media who reported their release, what's the big deal? Wear robes, change your name to Khaled, go on camera and drop Allah's name hither and yon: If that's your ticket out, seize it. Everyone'll know it's just a sham.
But that's not how the al-Jazeera audience sees it. If you're a Muslim, the video is anything but meaningless. Not even the dumbest jihadist believes these infidels are suddenly true believers. Rather, it confirms the central truth Osama and the mullahs have been peddling -- that the West is weak, that there's nothing -- no core, no bedrock -- nothing it's not willing to trade. In his new book The Conservative Soul, attempting to reconcile his sexual temperament and his alleged political one, Time magazine's gay Tory Andrew Sullivan enthuses, "By letting go, we become. By giving up, we gain. And we learn how to live -- now, which is the only time that matters." That's almost a literal restatement of Faust's bargain with the devil:
"When to the moment I shall say
'Linger awhile! so fair thou art!'
Then mayst thou fetter me straightway
Then to the abyss will I depart!"
In other words, if Faust becomes so enthralled by "the moment" that he wants to live in it forever, the devil will have him for all eternity. In the Muslim world, they watch the Centanni/Wiig video and see men so in love with the present, the now, that they will do or say anything to live in the moment. And they draw their own conclusions -- that these men are easier to force into the car than that 16-year-old girl in Sydney was. It doesn't matter how "understandable" Centanni and Wiig's actions are to us, what the target audience understands is quite different: that there is nothing we're willing to die for. And, to the Islamist mind, a society with nothing to die for is already dead.
#1
And, to the Islamist mind, a society with nothing to die for is already dead.
Perhaps to the Infidel mind, a society with nothing to die for embraces life and joy and endurance, and does not hold life as cheaply as those minds bent on dying; so bent on finding something so die for as death is preferable to the "life" permitted.
#2
Been too long Mark? These were just the normal Blue MSM crowd. Don't project. You've forgotten Fabrizio Quattrocchi. "Adesso vi faccio vedere come muore un italiano."
The Taliban resistance movement in both Pakistan and Afghanistan will continue to gain strength until and unless Islamabad abandons its current policy which actually seeks to keep the Taliban alive in the hope of using them to retrieve its lost influence in Afghanistan.
The nonstop violence in Pakistans Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) on the Pak-Afghan border has become a cause of great concern for the United States and her allies in the war on terror, especially Afghanistan, given the fact that the Taliban have virtually taken over the entire North Waziristan tribal area, which could be used as a major military base to wage their resistance against the US-led forces in Afghanistan.
The ongoing fighting began in 2004, when the Pakistan Army entered the region inhabited by the Waziri tribe in search of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters who were using the Waziristan area as a base for launching deadly attacks against the US-led Allied forces in Afghanistan. Since the fighting began, the Pakistani forces have suffered heavy casualties at the hands of the Taliban militia due to roadside bombs and ambushes. The law and order situation in the lawless tribal border land has come to a pass where the writ of the Pakistan Government is almost non existent.
Almost three years down the road after the military operations were launched, the Taliban militia, backed by al Qaeda, has virtually established an Islamic Republic in the rugged and remote Waziristan region, with the Pakistan Army desperately trying to broker a peace deal with it. While the Army wants an assurance from the Taliban that they would not cross the Pak-Afghan border to attack the US-led coalition forces, the militants want the military authorities to release all their colleagues and pay monetary compensation for the damage caused to their property during the operations, to pave the way for the peace deal.
On July 25, 2006, the militants in North Waziristan had announced a ceasefire which they subsequently extended to September 10, 2006, as Leader of Opposition in National Assembly Maulana Fazlur Rehman joined efforts to help clear some obstacles to an agreement for restoring peace in the restive tribal region. Two of the three issues that have bedeviled the peace agreement have already been taken care of: the release of over a dozen militants and the return of seized weaponry. However, the withdrawal of the military from the North Waziristan Agency, one of the key militants demands, is yet to be worked out.
Despite the deployment of over 80,000 Pakistani troops along the Afghan border in the tribal areas to capture the fugitive Taliban and al Qaeda elements, the situation is far from stable in a region that is crucial to three world capitals -- Islamabad, Washington and Kabul. Waziristan, often in the news due to frequent clashes between Pakistani security forces and the Taliban militants, is now more-or-less controlled by the local Taliban, which has established a foothold in both North and South Waziristan and has opened recruiting offices these areas to hire new fighters.
As the recruitment drive started last year, many former members of Pakistani jehadi organizations belonging to the banned Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM), Harkat-ul-Jehad-al-Islami (HuJI), Laskhar-e-Toiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), have converged on North and South Waziristan. According to rough estimates, about 25,000 activists of several jehadi organisation had assembled in North and South Waziristan alone in 2005, with the declared determination to "fight until the last man and the last bullet". And most of them are still siding with the local Taliban in their ongoing fight against the Pakistani security forces.
Waziristan, 11,585 square kilometers of remote mountain valleys, is historically an area that cannot easily be conquered or subjugated. Most of the Taliban active in the region are largely members of Pashtun tribes, although they include some Afghans, Uzbeks, Chechens, and Arabs who fled Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban regime.
Ethnic Pashtuns, who live on both sides of the Pak-Afghan border, also make up the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. This poses two major problems for Washington and Kabul. First, the Pakistani militants continue to shelter the Afghan Taliban and al Qaeda fighters as they flee US-led allied forces. Secondly, Pakistani recruits are being trained to launch ambushes and suicide bombings in Afghanistan.
Several major military operations have been carried out in Waziristan since 2004, which Pakistani military authorities claimed were successfully concluded. These operations literally turned Waziristan into a war zone, yet the fight still goes on despite the use of Cobra helicopters and long-range artillery by the Pakistan Army to target the Militia. The Taliban, under the leadership of Haji Mohammad Omar, is now a force to be reckoned with in the area due to a weakening political administration. Omar had first enforced a rigid social order in Waziristan in 2004 and then declared, in December 2005, the establishment of an Islamic state in Waziristan governed by Islamic law.
Not many outside Waziristan are familiar with the name of Haji Mohammad Omar, but in Waziristan, it is a name that commands great respect and awe. Omar is the chief of the Pakistani Taliban which has put up tough resistance against the Pakistani military troops in the tribal region, to take control of large parts of Waziristan. Haji Omar, 55 had served as one of the many lieutenants of Taliban ameer Mullah Mohammad Omar until the fall of the Taliban regime in November 2001. Haji Omars writ runs virtually unchallenged in South Waziristan while he is hopeful that his commanders would soon establish Taliban control in North Waziristan as well.
Omars three important commanders include Maulana Sadiq Noor, Maulana Abdul Khaliq and Maulana Sangeen Khan. US intelligence sleuths stationed in Pakistan allege that the Taliban have already lined up more than 100 suicide squads for suicide missions, with specific targets all over Afghanistan.
Three major tribes currently live in North Waziristan, which has become the principal stronghold of the Taliban outside Afghanistan: the Wazirs, the Mehsuds and the Dawar. British soldiers referred to the Wazirs as wolves and the Mehsuds as panthers of the mountains while the Dawar have traditionally been peace-loving, preferring shop-keeping to guns and towns over mountains.
The Mehsud and Wazir tribes have been arch-rivals for centuries. Traditionally, the Mehsuds have been part of the Pakistani establishment, and as recently as the past few years they supported the military's actions against the Wazir tribes, who are mostly Taliban. Things are, however changing, and traditional roles and rivalries have shifted. In North Waziristan, Maulana Sadiq Noor and Maulana Abdul Khaliq, the unbending leaders of the Taliban-led resistance, are both Dawar and, even more surprising, the Wazirs and the Mehsuds have accepted their command.
Currently, the man responsible for launching the Taliban raids into Afghanistan is Maulana Sangeen Khan, an Afghan from the neighboring Khost province. In South Waziristan, Haji Mohammad Omar, a Waziri, is the commander of the resistance movement against the Pakistani security forces, while the Afghan operations run from the area are taken care of by Abdullah Mehsud, the chieftain of the Mehsud tribe.
Never before has there been such an arrangement in centuries, where Mehsuds and Wazirs have fought side-by-side, and more, under the command of the Dawars.
Since there is no clear demarcation of the Pak-Afghan border, the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters sheltering in the tribal belt under the control of Wazirs, Mehsuds and Dawars easily cross the border and attack their targets on Afghan soil, using the mountain terrain to strategic advantage, and then melt into the villages located in the Pak-Afghan border areas. The result is that the al Qaeda-backed Taliban resistance movement in Afghanistan continues to gain strength in the tribal areas of Pakistan, which provide natural strategic depth to Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.
Consequently, hardly a day now goes by without Afghanistan urging Pakistan to do more to help overcome insurgency in the southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan. The anxiety being expressed by the Karzai administration is understandable and not entirely misplaced, given the fact that much of the trouble along the border area of Afghanistan happens to be a result of the Taliban militia crossing over from the Pakistani side of the border. In the past, the Afghan mujahideen too had bases in the Waziristan region which they used as launching pads to make frequent incursions into Afghanistan to target the occupying Soviet troops.
Under these circumstances, the Musharraf regime is often blamed for whatever is happening in Afghanistan, given the quantum of activity within close proximity of the Pak-Afghan border. Many visiting US officials have stated time and again in the recent past that Islamabad should fulfill its international obligations by curtailing the movement of miscreants from its side of the border as it cannot simply absolve itself by asking Kabul to tighten control on the other side. They have made it clear that the issue is not just placing 80,000 Pakistani troops on the border, but rather how effective that force has been in accomplishing its mission objective.
On the other hand, the Armys troops in Waziristan have apparently been bogged down by an insurgency which has proved to be more lethal and dangerous than the one in Afghanistan itself. The Taliban have turned their guns on the Pakistani forces, pro-government tribal elders and intelligence operatives. Statistically speaking, the Pakistani security forces have lost more personnel almost three times more, since the operation was launched in 2004 than the US has since 2001, in its ongoing war on terror in Afghanistan.
Before the ceasefire between the military and the militants in Waziristan was announced, ambushes and roadside bomb attacks against the Pakistani security forces had been as frequent as they were across the border, forcing the Army leadership to consider an out-of-the-box solution. Going by Musharrafs own admission [in an interview with the British daily Guardian on May, 5, 2006] "Extremism in a Talibanised form is what people are now going for. Mullah Omar and the Taliban have influence in Waziristan and it is now spilling over into our settled areas".
Musharraf did not mention the names of the settled areas but the districts falling under these areas include Dera Ismail Khan, Tank, Lakki Marwat, Bannu, Hangu and Kohat, all in the southern North West Frontier Province (NWFP), and all very conservative and largely under the political influence of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F), led by the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly, Maulana Fazlur Rahman. Yet in the same vein, Musharraf claimed quite amusingly that the war against al Qaeda had almost been won in Waziristan.By saying so, the General contradicted none other than himself, because the increase in support for the Taliban and their leader Mullah Omar in Waziristan, as confessed by him, meant that the Osama-led organisation too would benefit from the surge in the Talibans popularity. Independent analysts say that al Qaeda may have suffered physical and infrastructural losses in terms of the decimation of its bases in Afghanistan and the killing and capture of its operatives, but there is no evidence to suggest that the ideology it professes has registered a decline.
Under these circumstances, it appears that the Taliban resistance movement in both Pakistan and Afghanistan will continue to gain strength until and unless Islamabad abandons its current policy which actually seeks to keep the Taliban alive in the hope of using them to retrieve its lost influence in Afghanistan.
Amir Mir is former editor of Weekly Independent now affiliated with Reuters and Gulf News. Courtesy, the South Asia Intelligence Review of the South Asia Terrorism Portal
Posted by: john ||
09/03/2006 17:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
There are dangerous international terrorists hiding out in the mountain caves of Pakistan. But 79-year-old Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti, the Baluch tribal leader, politician and rebel, was not one of them.
Now Mr. Bugti is dead and the impoverished but energy-rich province of Baluchistan is in an uproar after an ill-explained military operation last month. After a week of contradictory government statements, the only things now clear are that Mr. Bugtis body was buried in the rubble of his blown-up mountain hideout, and that antigovernment fury in the restive province is at a new pitch of intensity.
The last thing Pakistan needs is an upsurge in violence and repression in Baluchistan. That would only be a distraction from far more important challenges, like developing a chronically underachieving economy; restoring a ravished democracy; and placing a dangerous nuclear weapons establishment, including exports of bomb-related technology, under firm and reliable civilian control.
And there are far more crucial things that Pakistans military could be doing than hunting down Mr. Bugti and his followers. For example, it could finally seal its scandalously porous border with Afghanistan, making it much harder for the Taliban to infiltrate into that country the fighters killing American, NATO and Afghan soldiers. It could permanently shut down the Pakistan-based Kashmiri terrorist groups that have survived past crackdowns by reopening under new names, with little interference from Pakistani authorities. Not least, it could make a more serious effort to find and arrest Osama bin Laden, widely believed to have spent much of the past four and a half years on Pakistani soil.
Any of these efforts would stir up opposition in one part or another of the Pakistani military, the only constituency that Pakistans president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, ever really cares about. So long as elections are brazenly rigged, opposition parties are banned and Washingtons uncritical support remains guaranteed, General Musharraf has little incentive to take up any of these vital challenges.
When General Musharraf comes to the United States, he loves to be lauded as a leader in the war on terrorism. Back home, his government too often acts like a garden-variety military dictatorship.
Posted by: john ||
09/03/2006 17:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
NYT gets a clue...
Posted by: john ||
09/03/2006 17:51 Comments ||
Top||
After the timely folding of yet another Islamic terror plot, the publics attention is focused once more on the Paki problem. Over twenty Muslims have been arrested in connection with the alleged discovery of preparations to blow up a set of airplanes on trans-Atlantic flights starting from London Heathrow. They are mostly holders of British citizenship, born in Britain though of South-Asian origin, and from well-settled families. To their British neighbours, fellow students or colleagues, they must have looked like success stories in terms of integration into British society. And yet, they secretly wanted to terminate the lives of hundreds of anonymous Britons, not excluding those same unsuspecting neighbours.
This is only one incident, though apparently a very sizable one. We may even concede that the incriminating evidence is not fully in yet, so we shouldnt judge in haste. But then, it is only one incident among many. The German police have just folded a Muslim plot to blow up trains, and worse than the failed terror attacks are all those that have succeeded. Remember the trains blown up in Madrid, the tourist centres blown up in Bali, the murder of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam, and so many others. Specifically Pakistani connections were in evidence in the 1993 and 2001 attacks on the WTC in New York, on the public transport system of London on 7-7-2005, and in the endless series of terror attacks in India: buses stopped and all non-Muslims shot every other month in Jammu & Kashmir; repeated bomb attacks on trains and public buildings in Mumbai, from the big international trend-setter of 12-3-1993 (many synchronous explosions) to the latest one on 11-7-2006; on a political meeting in Coimbatore 1998; on Parliament buildings in Srinagar and Delhi in 2001; on temples in Gandhinagar, Ayodhya and Varanasi (the details of the latest temple attack in Imphal remain to be discovered); on a Diwali shopping crowd in Delhi, and so on.
#2
Why not go to the centres of militancy and repeat those sermons there? We dont mean some perfunctory open letter meant for non-Muslim consumption, but an earnest effort to persuade the militant Muslims, one that doesnt stop until the goal is reached. We suspect you have so far never tried this because in your heart of hearts, you are perfectly aware that Islam does condone these acts.
As I have always asked; Where are the Moderate Muslim imams and clergy who are willing to martyr themselves by going amidst their jihadist brethern and laying their lives on the line to take back this so-called "peaceful" [spit] religion from such blasphemers?
[crickets]
Until there is something better than a thundering silence in answer to this question, Islam is worthy only of extermination.
#3
As I have always asked; Where are the Moderate Muslim imams and clergy who are willing to martyr themselves by going amidst their jihadist brethern and laying their lives on the line to take back this so-called "peaceful" [spit] religion from such blasphemers?
That form of martyrdom -- the form that matches the word's true meaning -- is against Islam.
One of the things we were told early after 9/11 was that Muslims don't like to judge the "righteousness" of other Muslims; thus we wouldn't see Muslims arguing against the terrorists. Of course, we've seen what a complete and utter lie this is; Islam has as many divisions as any other faith, and they have no problem slaughtering each other over the differences.
So the only real conclusion is that Muslims don't argue against the terrorists because they approve of them. And, frankly, I've watched it happen, with a self-declared "Moderate Muslim", born and raised in Australia, refusing to condemn Osama bin Laden. At first it was "we only have the accusations of others, and it's against Islam to make false accusations". Once it was pointed out that bin Laden had admitted his role, it was "well, I've heard it argued that the tape's fake". Even pointing to the admissions -- undisputed, in AQ's own communication -- over the African embassy bombings was met with denial and conspiracy theorizing.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/03/2006 8:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
One of the things we were told early after 9/11 was that Muslims don't like to judge the "righteousness" of other Muslims; thus we wouldn't see Muslims arguing against the terrorists. Of course, we've seen what a complete and utter lie this is; Islam has as many divisions as any other faith, and they have no problem slaughtering each other over the differences.
Word, RC. I've had my fill of this crap. Islam refuses to be held responsible for its wrong doings. I'm sick of us expending blood and treasure to bring Islam to account. Time to dismantle this pathological meme wholesale.
"No-one is drawing a knife right now," said one of the Labor MKs who took part in Friday's faction meeting, "we're just waiting to see how the event will fall." What he actually meant is that they are all waiting to see how Amir Peretz will fall. Consensus now among almost all Labor leaders is that the party chairman has effectively painted himself into a corner.
Those interested in challenging his leadership, about half the faction if not more, would do better staying their hand and watching how Peretz digs himself in even deeper.
Prospective opponents, Avishai Braverman and Ophir Pines could allow themselves at the meeting to congratulate Peretz on his decision to back a state commission of inquiry into the war, he had already cause himself enough damage over the issue, and another possible rival, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer rightly accused him of "zigzagging."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
09/03/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
As a journalist, I've spent considerable time over the years in places where America was not always popular. In the bad old days, that meant Russia, China and Vietnam; more recently I've reported from such human-rights black holes as Uzbekistan and North Korea. Then there were the destinations with elements of danger: Israel, the southern Philippines, Northern Ireland. None of those ever gave me pause.
But I wouldn't be truthful if I didn't admit being slightly uneasy about going to Iran -- now in the United States' cross hairs because of its developing nuclear technology -- when a U.N. contact invited me to join a group of international reporters on a trip in May.
The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran haven't had diplomatic relations in 26 years, since students in Tehran seized 66 American hostages inside the U.S. Embassy and held some of them for as long as 14 months. Neither nation has an embassy in the other's capital, and the U.S. State Department has a travel warning on Iran. Meanwhile, the U.N. Security Council is pressuring Iran to stop its uranium enrichment, and the Bush administration is talking sanctions.
#3
So if it were not for the ogre of the Great Satan, Amahandjob, like Chavez, would be out on the street in no time.
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/03/2006 17:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The article seeks to show what wonderful people the Iranians are. I'm sure it is true. Most of the people simply want to live life and be left alone. But this type of article is an effort by the Lilliputians to tie another string on the West. "Please don't hurt the innocent Iranians." Another excuse to do nothing.
The West must reassert the foundation of the Treaty of Westphalia which stated that actions occuring in the territory of a nation were the responsibility of that nation. The 10% of Iranians that are propagating terrorism should render the other 90% irrelavant. The 10% seeking nuclear weapons do render the other 90% irrelevant. The Israelis missed a great opportunity to demonstrate this principle on Lebanon.
#5
If it requires nukes to force regime change in Iran, it is unlikely that Teheran would be touched. Rather, Qom and the large nuke sites would be attacked, along with bases around the Strait of Hormuz. The mere threat of sponsored Kurdish, Azeri and Arab independence would force regime change, because the Arab Shiite sectors alone hold most of Iran's oil reserves. Iranian regime-changers refer to the Ayatollahs as: "Arabparasts" (Arab parasites). With Qom a pile of rubble, Persian nationalist forces would coalesce and move against Basij-Wannabe-arabs.
Pundits are saying that the President will finally define the enemy, in his Sept. 19 UN speech. Then anything is possible. I have said it before here: September could be one of America's best months ever; or worst.
Yes, this article is well written and challenges conventional wisdom. However, I don't reject "root cause" dogma because it is plain and obvious that prescriptions in the unholy-Koran, form the peverse cause of Muslim terror. Muslims who agitate for the isolation of Israel - or any of the front-line states - are really advocating for Hizbollah/Hamas/Fatah/al-Qaeda aggression. And very few Muslims stray very far from the jihad party line. That is why I would criminalize ALL jihad advocacy and material support. The Leftists link Islamic-terror to so-called national-liberation movements, because Western governments won't link terror to Islam. That omission allows the Left to fill the political vacuum. The Islamic ideology is the mortal enemy of liberty and democracy, and Leftists use it to shake Western political foundations. Peaceful-islam dogma is a rhetorical prison.
...If you want to find fault with the foreign policy of the West, you do not need a PhD in international relations. It is a layman's job.
The perversity of the logic which assumes for western foreign policy the complete cause of terrorism lies, in actual fact, in its complete "emptiness." For a start, we have to admit that terrorism is not limited to the Islamic variant. So that, Tamil suicide bombers cannot possibly be reacting to "Western foreign policy." Joseph Kony who professes himself a Messiah of the Jungles is an obvious East African terrorist whose appalling deeds can clearly not be linked to "Western foreign policy."
The Millenarian Japanese sect that poisoned the Tokyo subway had no anti-western grievance to nurse, nor even a Western audience to ponder the meaning of its acts. Having thus agreed that terrorism across the world comes in different shapes and sizes, we are forced to focus solely on Islamic terrorism to justify our stance that Foreign policy is the causal agent in the dynamic of international terrorism.
It is here that the logic completely falls apart. Why should it only be "Western foreign policy"? Presumably, Russian foreign policy is behind Chechnya? Indian foreign policy is behind Kashmir; and Philippine foreign policy is behind the Abu Sayaf insurgency in the southern archipelagoes, and its vicious manifestations in central Manila? Yet all these nations will strongly protest that these issues are matters of "domestic policy" and some will indeed balk at the idea that some notion of "foreignness" is in operation.
Indeed, China, unlike Russia, so abhors that notion that the Government simply refuses to acknowledge the possibility of foreign influence on the Muslim Xingjian secessionists who have frequently resorted to the deliberate civilian targeting we usually refer to as "terrorism." Malaysia, increasingly the target of South Asian regional terrorist movements, often adopts the same insular approach.
Are we then to conclude that the "foreign policy" of every country, in so far as it involves Muslims is likely to incur the wrath of international terrorists regardless whether that country designates the matter as internal or external? When faceless Islamists blow up resorts in Egypt, Turkey or apartment buildings in Saudi Arabia, as they invariably do, is it of any use to devise a long chain of causal linkages until "Western foreign policy" is reached?
And even if we were to accept that logic, that international terrorists will avenge the lives of any Muslims endangered by the foreign policy of any country, in what category should we place Darfur? Here, we have a supposedly Islamic regime that kills other Muslims, admittedly of a different color, in their thousands. Where are the bombs going off in Sudanese chanceries abroad? What happens when different Islamic regimes clash? As was the case with Iran and the Taliban? How does our international terror "foreign policy" analysts determine their loyalties, and, even more crucially, how does that translate into violent action abroad...
...We should learn to see terrorism as a criminal enterprise and attack it as ruthlessly as we will any other such criminal activity that has the capacity to cause so much devastation. Else, we will soon discover that groups, of all sorts, similarly claiming to hold some grudge against East, West, North and/or South, are embarked forcefully on the terrorism business, and succeeding mightily in fueling useless disputes amongst their victims over their motives.
#1
We should learn to see terrorism as a criminal enterprise and attack it as ruthlessly as we will any other such criminal activity that has the capacity to cause so much devastation.
Good up until the above quote: The Law Enforcement model is kaput, useless, with "nation building" being the equivalent of "rehabilitation".
I don't reject "root cause" analysis either: one merely needs to recognize that a "root cause" analysis that doesn't mention contrary facts, or treats them with distain, is immediately suspect. Most libs indulge in this sort of "pseudo-cause-effect analysis" because it is a pale imitation of the engineering-based real thing.
#2
The root cause of terrorism is islam. I'm still waiting for western leaders to clearly speak this inconvenient truth.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
09/03/2006 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I don't reject "root cause" analysis either: one merely needs to recognize that a "root cause" analysis that doesn't mention contrary facts, or treats them with distain, is immediately suspect.
IMHO, most talk about a "root cause" is just an excuse to substitute the speaker's policy preferences for those of the people they're speaking about. Thus, you had idiots claiming that the cause of 9/11 was rejection of Kyoto.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/03/2006 11:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The root cause of nearly all of the worlds problems is the fact that Islam is childish. What is mine will always be mine. Doesn't matter if I grabbed it unfairly its mine! its mine! its mine!
This applies to Andalusia, Israel, and Indonesia. Islam does not play with others. It is the spoiled brat religion that really needs a spanking and then to sit in the corner for a few centuries until they grow up.
#1
DEMOLEFT > anti-sovereign, anti-American Amerikan HyperGovt, Universal Governmentism, geopol retreat-isoationism, and paying our enemies not to hurt us, or at least interrupt the Hollyweird orgy(s), will save us. THe polite but necessary extermination of 90%-plus of the USA's + World's population is good for everybody + planet + will cause the Sun/Asteroids to start obeying mortal man. Amerika can AAAAATTTTTTTAAAAAACCCCCCCKKKKKKKK, iINVA-A-A-A-D-D-D-E-E-E......., and make WWWARRRRRRRRRR....., AS LONG AS AMERICA = AMERIKA DOESN'T HURT OR DESTROY ANYONE OR ANYTHING, OR HURT OUR ENEMIES" FEELINGS, OR POLLUTE THE ENVIRONMENT. OUR ENEMIES, OTOH, CAN ATTAOCK AND DESTROY US AT THEIR LEISURE. And just becuz America is a representative democracy/democratic republic doesn't mean our elected leaders have to explain WHY?WHAT?WHEN? WHERE? and HOW? of why America needs OWG and Global Socialism-Welfarism-Totalitarianism!?
... in an age of weapons of mass destruction, global terrorism, and culpable deniability, authoritarian Middle Eastern regimes can, without being traced, subsidize and sanction killers, who in turn, with the right weapons, can kill and maim tens of thousands.
The decentralized nature of Islamic Fascism permits it to scurry from hiding place to hiding place, ostensibly without nationality or military uniform and insignia. It taunts us in televised diatribes as it simultaneously plots the next atrocity. It milks plausible deniability like the last cow on the farm.
This must end. If we are to be collectively punished for the high crime of being decadent Westerners, then all Islam must be held accountable for its misdeeds. There is no alternative nor is there any hope unless we escalate the force with which we redress these continuing crimes against humanity.
These piecemeal interventions and enforcements are less than ineffectual. They embolden our foes while scattering our troops and materiel until they are diffused into a pale shadow of real power.
No longer can we afford to excuse the way Islamic governments covertly shelter or even overtly sponsor terrorists. To do so must carry an unmistakable price tag. We must put all of these duplicitous abettors on notice that they will be brought to account.
Saudi Arabia must be informed that, should it continue promoting and exporting wahbbism, its oil fields will be wrested from their grasp. Pakistan must be told that failure to close its madrassahs will find them demolished, with their occupants inside. Iran must be put on notice to immediately cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons or face regime change and economic ruin. And so on down the list of terrorist facilitators.
Finally, all of them must be instructed that total ruin awaits them should another Islamist atrocity play out on our shores. That they must police their own fanatics or know that death and destruction will be the price for inaction. How no alternative exists save that of putting a halt to the terrorist juggernaut they have all cheered on secretly and condemned publically.
The only alternative is to sit quietly and await some new atrocity that will make 9-11 pale by comparison. This is not an option, neither is the display of any compassion for our foes. They have forfeited such courtesy with constant perfidy and rapacious violence. So be it, we must be courageous enough to make them foot the bill. Otherwise we shall pay with our very lives.
#5
Just start producing enhanced radiation weapons.
Just use the ones we have now. The contamination they will leave will work on those not gotten by the initial blasts. Besides, we can tell Al-Gore that the "nuclear winter" will stop Global Warming. Two birds with one stone and all that.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
09/03/2006 11:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Just start producing enhanced radiation weapons.
I hate to admit just how right you may be, Nimble Spemble. Better to use neutron bombs than conventional weapons if we are forced to sterilize the Muslim world. We need to make an example out of Iran. It should be the Middle East's last warning before we take it apart at the seams.
#7
my uncle's retired from working at Lawrence Livermore (won't talk about his work, still). We were talking about the ME and how "Neutron bombs" were prohibited (by Carter, I believe) after a big stink over the ethics/morality. He said the lab had complied....but that all nukes emit lotsa neutrons, then he smiled...so basically we still have em, they just don't call em that anymore. That's all he'll say about his work. :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/03/2006 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#8
JOE might be on to something. After reading about this week's Gold Plated Sculpture of Tom Cruises's kidspoop - that's supposed to fetch $30,000 - mebbe we ARE all going to hell. "Hollyweird" indeed!
By John Burtis We all remember Mr. Chamberlain as the great appeaser, which he was up to a point. But he finally understood the Nazi menace, while the Democrats utterly fail to grasp the true horror offered by militant Islam.
Neville drew his line in the sands of shifting fortunes and honored his commitments to Poland on September 1st, 1939, when the panzers and the Luftwaffe, in their first real test, crushed the Polish cavalry and massacred the Polish air force in the air and on the ground in record time.
In the time leading up to this drama, however, the government of Mr. Chamberlain had witnessed the re-occupation of the Rhineland in 1936, the delirious Anschluss with Austria in March of 1938, the swallowing of the Sudetenland in late September of 1938, followed by the occupation of the remaining rump of Czechoslovakia in March of 1939.
Gradually, the early zest for appeasement lost its taste along the timeline of Hitler's continual lust for land, peoples to enslave, industries to steal, and national treasures to plunder.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/03/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Chamberlain is grudgingly respected by many in political science for his well-meaning "war is the last resort/option" naivete vv Hitler and Stalin. Yes, he has become symbol for the detrimental failures of appeasement, but ironically also a symbol for the determination of elected political leaders to work for peace until the bitter end, no matter the effect of success or failure on himself. *Big difference between honest but failed leaders like Nelville vs WOT policrats-wafflecrats whom refuse to admit to any kind or nature of mistake. FOX > new term DEFEAT-CRATS!?
#3
The more I read about 1938, the more respect I have for Chamberlain. He was wrong, but he probably acted to the best of his ability on wrong advice. Even while bringing "peace in our time," he was boosting funding for the military by large amounts.
All the (vastly overblown) horror stories about Guernica and the RAF's own men saying that "the bomber will always get through" made a difference.
Plus, Fighter Command was still converting from biplanes to Hurricanes and the Spitfires were just trickling off the production lines. The Radar stations were still being worked up, with the all-important control centers still not ready.
Germany's problems were at least as bad, and the combined Czechs, UK, and France could have pounded her flat, but people always overrate the enemy and underrate your own side.
#4
One thing to remember is that Britain in 1936 and 1938 simply wasn't ready for war. Neville had no way to back any threat he might have made to Hitler. Of course, the Germans weren't really that far ahead, but bad intel and wrong advice clouded the Brits and French to that.
My guess is Neville went to Munich thinking he had a weak hand, and he tried to make the most of it. But after Munich, and especially after the rest of Czechoslovakia was gobbled up, he knew that war was coming and tried to get ready.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/03/2006 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Yep, a nitwit, but nowhere near as dangerous as Stanley Baldwin who whistled into the wind for years thru his socialist sockpuppet.
#6
One thing to remember is that Britain in 1936 and 1938 simply wasn't ready for war.
Pleaaaaaaaase. Teh one who was not ready for war was Germany: her ground army was so weak that it had orders to withdraw in front of any french reaction to the invasion of Rhenania. Eeven a platoon of Gendarmerie into Kehl (who doubles its police-like functions with light infantry, MP role) would have kicked a Gerpma&n hasty withdrawal from Rhenania. Its airforce was equipped with biplane fighters (Galland spent most of his time in Spain hiding from the Spviet planes until he got his hands on an ME109 in 1938). The Navy was equally pathetic: the Schrnhost and Genisenau has been floated but unfinished, few if any U-boots, only a few destroyers and cruisers.
So no the weakness of British defences was NOT a justification in 36 and to a lesser degree in 1938.
You are weak or strinbg only in realtion to what the ennemy has and you don't go to war in function of your readiness but in the realtive differnce between your readiness and the enenemy's.
#7
I have to say in Chamberlmain's discharge that the Germans were masters in making their opponents believe the Germans were far stronger than they were. In at least one occasion they didcovered a French spy and instead of arresting him had a high ranking Nazi befriend him and make him visit a couple impressive fortifiactions in order to make the French believe the Sigfried line was unassailable. It wasn't, in fact it was very weak and there was nearly nothing between a few Potemkine fortifications built for the benefit of allied spies (GHermany put her money went into tanks and planes not into fortifications).
As a side note in 1941 Rommel used cars with canvassses making them look like tanks in order to force the British to retire from el Agheila.
#8
You are weak or strong only in relation to what the enemy has; you don't go to war in function of your readiness but in the relative difference between your readiness and the enemy's.
So what you are saying, JFM, is that you go to war with the army you have, not the one you'd like to have? Interesting: another brilliant man said something like that recently... ;-)
#9
A small reminder to my American cousins: It is one thing to criticize Chamberlain for taking action only at the 11th hour. He was still years ahead of the United States. With no disrespect to President Roosevelt who did come through in the end.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/03/2006 22:22 Comments ||
Top||
#13
;-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/03/2006 22:24 Comments ||
Top||
#14
going against the grain here but Chamberlain has been resurrected by the Tranzis.
Wiki has had it's battles back and forth with the revisionists.
Chamberlain is perhaps the most ill-regarded British Prime Minister of the 20th century, largely because of his policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany regarding the abandonment of Czechoslovakia to Hitler at Munich in 1938.
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.
Asharq al-Awsat - A new book by the Egyptian Islamic Group (IG) emphasizes that the bombing of infrastructure and governmental establishments is not permissible in Islam. 
"No-one is drawing a knife right now," said one of the Labor MKs who took part in Friday's faction meeting, "we're just waiting to see how the event will fall." What he actually meant is that they are all waiting to see how Amir Peretz will fall. Consensus now among almost all Labor leaders is that the party chairman has effectively painted himself into a corner. 
We all remember Mr. Chamberlain as the great appeaser, which he was up to a point. But he finally understood the Nazi menace, while the Democrats utterly fail to grasp the true horror offered by militant Islam.
