By ALVARO VARGAS LLOSA
September 25, 2006; The Wall Street Journal Page A14
It would have been more appropriate for Hugo Chávez to brandish Dantes Divine Comedy than Chomskys Hegemony or Survival during his sulfuric broadside at the U.N. last week. In the first part of the Italian masterpiece, the author undertakes a journey through the nine concentric circles of the Inferno, each representing a type of evil. Dantes description reads like a script of present-day Venezuela.
Dantes first circle is for those who lack faith. In Chávezs Inferno, the first circle is made up of those who lack food. Cendas, a research center, maintains that 80% of Venezuelans cannot meet the cost of a basic daily diet. According to an official statistic the government inadvertently made public on the Web site of the Instituto Nacional de Estadística, between 1999, the year in which Chávez took office, and 2004, poverty rose to 53% from 43% of the population. The authorities attributed the figures to an outdated methodology and now claim the rate of poverty is 42%. If it were true, that would be embarrassing enough, because it would mean that poverty has remained at nearly the same level for eight years.
Dantes second circle is for those unable to control lust. Chávezs second circle is for those unable to control homicidal instincts. His government has degraded social coexistence so much that there have been more homicides in Venezuela during his seven-and-a-half years in office than there have been deaths in any single armed conflict around the world in recent years. Between 2001 and 2006, the number of homicides in Venezuela has been three times the number of victims in Afghanistan.
Continued on Page 49
#2
djohn66, you will find it at the Belmont Club, "The Australia US Alliance", click on podcast.
Perhaps a mod could help with a less roundabout way.
It's an address to the Sydney Institute by Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor of The Australian, launching his book, The Alliance.
Lots of useful background on the Australian political and military sides of same, and how it is working in practise now. Quite well, it would seem.
Psychoanalyzing the Turkish nation is a favorite pastime for many analysts since Turkey's recurring identity crisis gives ample material for all sorts of conjecture: Is it trying to be Western? Is Turkey trying to rediscover its eastern roots? Is it getting more comfortable with its Ottoman inheritance?
This has been going on for decades, with some haughty Westerners finding it bemusing that a Muslim nation is trying so hard to put on sophisticated read European airs. Well, now Turkey's existentialism is no longer eccentrically cutesy. Whichever way Turkey lands could potentially determine the outcome of a war between two civilizations the West and Islam.
Consider the change. The usual hot-button issues for regular Turks used to be Cyprus and all things Greek, leftist and rightist politics, Kurdish terrorism, and other assorted threats against the secular nature of the state. Otherwise, soccer rivalry was the remaining topic that could engender enflamed passions in coffee shops. The Middle East for those lay Turks was a place full of Arabs a people who euphemistically stabbed the Turks in the back during World War I.
But recently, Israel, Hezbollah, and the war on terror have been inflaming Turkish passions. Some blame the pseudo-Islamist AKP Justice and Development Party politicians for orchestrating an inch-by-inch reorientation of Turkish popular sentiments back into the Islamist fold and away from the Kemalist that is the nonaligned, militantly nationalist, and secular heritage. Regardless of who is behind this shift, it is still to be determined whether these changes will take on a dangerous strategic dimension.
Still, how serious is the change? Finding evidence that the stringent secularism of Kemalism is being undermined is hard to come by. It is done in nuances and whichever way the Islamists can get away with it. One way is to rewrite history and overturn some of the symbolism. At the tomb of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II the Muslim conqueror of Constantinople, who was buried on a hilltop that also at one point held the remains of the Byzantine emperors before him, including Constantine one finds the following biographical excerpt to educate English-savvy tourists, "He spent most of his life engaged in campaigns. He finally destroyed the Byzantine Empire and conquered Istanbul. He changed St. Sophia into a mosque and willed whoever should abolish this, may he be cursed by Allah the Almighty." The English version then goes on to say that he was poisoned by a Jewish doctor at the behest of the Venetians.
The corresponding Turkish text makes no mention of divine curses. It matter-of-factly clarifies that St. Sophia was a church for 1,127 years and then a mosque for 482 years more, and that in 1934 it was changed into a museum its current status. There is also no mention of a Jewish doctor. The person who altered Aya Sophia's status was Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, and hence, the English text is implying that he is cursed by Allah.
Atatürk is also challenged elsewhere. Across the main north-south thoroughfare traversing Istanbul another location is teaming with conflicting legacies. The area of Vefa has undergone some major changes since it was first claimed by urban habitation. A mosque that was once a church still bears the solemn fragments of saints in mosaic. A Muslim holy man, with some role in conquering the city, is buried nearby. The Greeks who lived here throughout the Ottoman era were pushed out in more modern time, and in more modern quarrels. The mildly fermented drink called Boza they made is still being sold in a shop that has been in business for more than 100 years, and still displays the glass that Atatürk imbibed from during a visit there. The Valens Aqueduct, a massive Byzantine structure, casts a long shadow over a small convention hall, where a very peculiar topic is being discussed. Here, panel upon panel of speakers are facing an overflowing audience of young men in unkempt beards and young ladies in headscarves. The topic is taboo and illegal in most countries of the Middle East: a celebration of the 40th anniversary of the "martyrdom" of an Egyptian thinker called Sayyid Qutb.
Qutb was executed by the Egyptian authorities in 1966. He was one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood there, but he veered away from his organization's policy of working through the system and counseled the violent overthrow of the ruling regime. His theory of hakimiya the rule of Allah over all the affairs of man as espoused in the Koran is still the animating tenet of jihadists everywhere. Interestingly, peering out over the congregants at the seminar was a poster whose title incorporated one of the Kemalist slogans calling for "hakimiyeti milliye" rule of the people. This is the clash between political Islam and modernity at its simplest: Who's in charge? The voting public or the divine? A similar celebration was held 10 years ago at the 30th anniversary, and no violent overthrow of the Turkish regime has occurred since then, but that still does not go a long way toward explaining why such a radioactive topic is being discussed so blatantly.
One well-placed security source dismisses all these signs subversive hagiographies in English and seminars on terror's godfather saying that "Turkey is much more democratic than 10 years ago." A decade ago, the southeast of Turkey was engulfed in bloody strife between Kurdish secessionists and the Turkish state. Today, it is more or less quiet, with Turkish authorities turning a blind eye to such provocations as having mayors of major towns acting as fronts for PKK Kurdistan Workers Party terrorists.
The town of Surgucu in Mardin province has elected a mayor whose son, Heytham Anik (codenamed Alan) is fighting alongside the PKK in the mountains nearby, the source tells me, but the state did not interfere, which is a marker of democratic progress. However, there may be some holdouts within the security regime that are having a hard time with this touchy-feely policy toward PKK sympathizers, and they may have had a hand in orchestrating a violent incident in the town of Shemdinli a year ago to abort an unofficial channel of communication between influential Turks and the PKK leadership hiding in Iraq's Kandil Mountain.
But there is no doubt that Turkey has come a long way toward a more reasonable policy toward its Kurdish problem. It would seem that the Turkish state has mellowed out and is more confident in its permanence, and hence the loosening up on talk of secessionism or a return to Islam.
So, is the radicalism that is coming to a surface just a natural measure of popular sentiment expressed benignly and hence nonthreateningly, whereas in the past it was suppressed and thus escaped the notice of many Turkey watchers? Or is the radicalism a symptom of a trend in Turkey that is taking it deeper into the vortex of the Middle Eastern mess?
The decision to send troops to enforce peacekeeping in Lebanon was couched by the AKP as necessary for Turkey's regional prestige a historical role that harkens back to Ottoman suzerainty over the Middle East. In order to sell it to the public, the politicians had to promise that Turkish troops will not open fire on their Muslim brothers and will not disarm the warriors of Hezbollah. Some analysts understand this move as the opening gambit of engaging Turkey as a powerful Sunni power to check the mounting challenge posed by Shiite Iran, and explain the recent trip by the Saudi king as part of this strategy. What is certain is that Turkey is now involved, and every little story emerging from over there will be played up by the home press to further fan the flames of radicalism on the issue of an Islamic confrontation with the West and Israel.
When the Ottomans sat down to write the story of their fathers, they preferred to remember them as warriors for the Islamic faith doing battle against Christendom. Such a warrior is called a gazi, who fights on the borderlands being claimed for Islam. What is more likely is that the early Turks were fighting for plunder rather than for faith and that their ranks included a substantial number of Christian mercenaries. But that did not leave subsequent generations awestruck with the glorious victories of their forefathers, so memories were modified. The emerging radicalism in Turkey, and especially its Islamist component, may not mean much at this point, but many young Turks may be in danger of being lured into the gazi myth: to see themselves as the inheritors of that sword-wielding legacy on the behalf of the Prophet Muhammad's call. The world should be on notice that Turkey which is still very secular and more or less friendly, and an emerging regional powerhouse may be in danger of slipping back into a similar role down the road.
Mr. Kazimi was recently in Turkey and can be reached at nibraska@yahoo.com.
#1
This is the moron that wrote history was over. All you need to do to get a book deal with massive promotion these days is froth at the mouth over Bush, Neocons and the Iraq war. Another piece of garbage for the dustbins of history.
It was, as the hero tells it, his Road to Damascus moment. There he is, in a hall of 1,500 people he has long considered to be his allies, hearing the speaker treat the Iraq war, nearing the end of its first year, as "a virtually unqualified success." He gasps as the audience enthusiastically applauds. Aghast to discover himself in a sea of comrades so deluded by ideology as to have lost touch with reality, he decides he can no longer be one of them.
And thus did Francis Fukuyama become the world's most celebrated ex-neoconservative . . .
I happen to know something about this story, as I was the speaker whose 2004 Irving Kristol lecture to the American Enterprise Institute Fukuyama has now brought to prominence. I can therefore testify that Fukuyama's claim that I attributed "virtually unqualified success" to the war is a fabrication.
A convenient fabrication -- it gives him a foil and the story drama -- but a foolish one because it can be checked. . . .
Fukuyama now says that he had secretly opposed the Iraq war before it was launched. An unusual and convenient reticence, notes Irwin Stelzer, editor of "The Neocon Reader," for such an inveterate pamphleteer, letter writer and essayist. After public opinion had turned against the war, Fukuyama then courageously came out against it. He has every right to change his mind at his convenience. He has no right to change what I said.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/25/2006 6:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Me, I come from the "Kill them all"
Allah will sort out the good ones."
I remember reading about the day after Baghdad collapsed that a young soldier was sent onto the University of Baghdad campus, unarmed.
Somebody walked up to him and blew his brains out. My anger was white hot rage, not at the person who shot him, but at the moron who sent him on a suicide mission, in all innocence. I still hod that rage to this day, but I keep it muffled. After all , we are all supposed to be on the same side.
All warfare tells us you win by using the concept of "divide and conquer" If the COWs had just stood back and forgot about bringing "democracy" to an unwilling populace, and let them sort their own grieviences out, and not tried to micromanage the whole process, I'm sure the war would be over by now.
As H. Truman said ""When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true."
I believe, with the reviewer, that what Fukuyama offers "His book is sharp and shrewd, although ultimately not so devastating as he believes. The alternative he offers, by contrast, so-called realistic Wilsonianism, merely prefers ineffectual internationalism. Alas, in these difficult times, this is no alternative at all."
The last intervention in public affairs Ted Turner made was a month or two back, when he recounted what an agreeable vacation he'd had in Kim Jong Il's North Korea. (I sent him a postcard saying, "Wish you were still there.") He's now weighed in on the ayatollahs, and his line's pretty straightforward: Why shouldn't Iran have nukes?
"They're a sovereign state," he said. "We have 28,000. Why can't they have 10? We don't say anything about Israel -- they've got 100 of them approximately -- or India or Pakistan or Russia. And really, nobody should have them. They aren't usable by any sane person."
Cut to President Ahmadinejad's address to the United Nations. His speech was mostly a lot of run-of-the-mill kook boilerplate -- the U.N. is a stooge of the Great Satan (if only), America started the Israel-Hezbollah war (whatever) -- but he wound up the usual shtick with a prayer for the return of the Twelfth Imam, the so-called "Hidden Imam" -- or, as the Iranian president put it: "the perfect, righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/25/2006 10:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mark's first ever book "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It" is being released on Oct 16th. Avaiable at Amazon, an others.
A part of one reveiw, What sets this apart is his writing. The argument is made in a way that is the most engrossing and entertaining presentation of these ideas I've ever read. Steyn, as part of his superhuman writing regimen, is the obituarist for The Atlantic Monthly, and he puts that talent on display. This is not just a description of a set of demographic realities, but a loving, if premature (he hopes), obituary to a dying great culture. It's Steyn's ability to blend humor with the terminal diagnosis that sets him apart.
#1
Ralph has a valid point about some seeing Muslims as subhuman. But by flailing away at "right wingers" he goes down several notches in my book as being someone with something meaningful to say. Sure, it probably pays his bills; you can't get published unless you go after the right-wing boogey man. But by lumping "right wingers" together and ignoring the left or the multiple others who blame a group of nameless, faceless, "others" for all that's wrong in the world - Ralph becomes what he complains about - a shallow bigot.
#3
Peters has a history of being full of shit. Thats why those who served with him discount his opinions, heavily. He is a pretty good writer but a second-rate intel weenie.
Go read his first "big hit" novel, "Red Army". Its so full of fundamental errors, misunderstandings, and outright howlers that its almost a comedy.
Peter's quailty of facts in his writing and his reasoning are both equally limited, and both frequently in error.
And that continues through today.
And he's not flag rank - he was a Lt. Col, not a full bird, so use the correct rank - don;t give him any undeserved gravitas. He was too crappy as an intel staff officer to rise any farther.
On a personal level, Ive met him and I think he is basically a self-promoting jackass. In the end, he's just another half-informed, attention whore from the beltway.
#5
Peters started as enlisted. Was commissioned before Vietnam, IIRC - but someone correct that if I don't remember correctly. Has had a pissy attitude toward the brass from day 1.
And as is sometimes -- but by NO means always -- the case with prior enlisteds who are commissioned, he was perhaps promoted beyond what they are very good at -- and I'm sure he was an outstanding NCO and probably junior officer -- he doesn't know how limited his point of view really is.
I used to have to deal with the equivalent in industry. Engineers and programmers who got promoted to, say, project managers or even (shiver) VP Engineering, but never broadened either their skillsets or their scope of vision to match the new job responsibilities.
No offense to either programmers or engineers, who are generally among my favorite people and among whom I count myself. But the pattern is pretty common and it results in some bad bad decisions by people who don't know what they don't know.
It's a shame when this happens, whether in the military or in industry. Because those who start out as grunts can bring great sanity and knowledge to higher echelon roles, if they make the transition well. But when it doesn't "take" .... you get people like Peters, who always are sure they know better than others, but never seem to see their own narrow limitations.
Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.
Superb...
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
09/25/2006 17:36 Comments ||
Top||
#7
lotp
Ralph has done quite well for himself, the cause of freedom, GWOT, etc. He continues to contribute beyond his literary work (good or bad). I'd hate to hang the cook over one batch of soupy Shepherd's pie.
#8
I have to agree with lotp about promoting techinical people to general management. Some people can and should make the transition from one to the other, but those that do it well are about as common as those who can make the transition in the other direction. Technical and management are two very different worldviews, and wise management provides a technical promotion track to parallel that of the management promotion track, specifically to answer the ambition of those whose ability must be acknowledged and rewarded, but for the sake of all not by forcing them to deal with personnel, marketing and budget issues when what they really want to think about is that marvellous new invention/discovery that is tickling their frontal lobes. Mr. Wife made the transition, but that's because he discovered that while he enjoyed the science, turning it into viable and ever more profitable businesses was even more fun... and his old technical friends had to develop a tolerance for his little eccentricity. ;-)
#10
Fortunately, LOTP, My stint in management was just long enough to convince Me and My superiors that it was a bad idea all around. I have far less opportunity for advancement on the technical side, but at least I am capable of doing the job.
#12
LOTP. Gotta agree. I'm an enginner graduated to Project Manager. I rarely get to do any more engineering, mostly financial mgmt, environmental hurdle-jumping, project team hand-holding. Miss the engineering part, but that's the wat it goes. Some of my colleagues can't mentally make the jump, and micromanage the engineering part while their project goes in the shitter
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/25/2006 19:07 Comments ||
Top||
#13
enginner? Jeebus
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/25/2006 19:10 Comments ||
Top||
#16
but hawaiian-shirt/jeans/boots is still in style for casual PM's :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/25/2006 19:34 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Like I said, I've met him, know people that served with him, and have read his stuff. Based on those things, I don't really respect him much at all. I've held off before because folks here seem to like him, especially when he's on the right side of things. But fundamental honesty demands that I no longer hold off.
He was a medicore staff officer. And his conclusions, and methods of drawing them (and grasp of the facts) is tenuous at best.
Sorry guys, even when Peter's is right on an issue, he's seldom right for the right reasons.
By CHAIWAT SATHA-ANAND
The Sept 19 coup d'etat in Thailand is a great puzzle for many. It is difficult to understand, not so much in terms of why it happened, but why it is so popular. There are reports of people giving flowers and cold drinks to soldiers in the streets. In Chiang Mai, children would not stop bothering their teachers until they were taken to see the coup makers' tanks. In fact, according to one recent survey, 83% of Thais nationwide were in favour of the coup. Given the positive popular public reaction, one wonders if there is such a thing as a "good" or "peaceful" coup.
I hope here to offer an explanation why so many common people and noted intellectuals are supporting this coup. Then we can look at the moral enigma, when the reasons for the coup can be accepted, but coups themselves as a means of political change are rejected. Finally, there is a sign of hope in Thai society's quiet effort to cope with the coup.
For those in favour: Apart from the fact that the coup was staged without bloodshed in its successful attempt to oust Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, there are four reasons why it is favoured by many in Thai society.
First, some believe the coup was staged to prevent the continuing conflict from sliding into violence, and possibly a civil war, between two armed groups, one supporting Thaksin and one opposing him. Conflicts in any society between people of different opinions, as well as between the state and ordinary people, are generally regarded as less dangerous than those between opposing armed forces _ both for the combatants and civilians. For those who saw the situation prior to Sept 19 as potentially leading toward violence, the coup could be supported on the grounds that it was a preventive measure.
Second, there are some who believe that the coup did not kill the constitution because it was already dead long ago in the hands of the Thaksin government which had rendered all independent monitoring agencies ineffective through its control of capital, people and the media.
Third, during its years in office, the Thaksin government, while trumpeting the notion of electoral rights, had chosen to so profoundly connect Thailand with the global economy that its regulations have dangerously threatened peoples' rights to natural resources and other communal rights.
Fourth, from a theoretical point of view, it is not adequate to think of this coup as a conflict between dictatorship and democracy. It is the democratically elected government that has been by and large responsible for so much violence, including those who died in the drug wars, in southern violence and the NGO rights advocates who have been killed over the last five years.
This has been a conflict between the military who finally decided to forcefully defend what they regard as sacred and the government of Mr Thaksin who, according to Kasian Tejapira, is an "elected capitalist absolutist".
But a coup is wrong: If one believes the aim of the coup was to prevent the country from falling into a pit of violence, that the constitution was long dead, and that the Thaksin government was not democratic in the profound sense of the term, apart from the fact that it was elected by the majority, then the coup is morally acceptable.
The moral enigma lies, however, with those who believe that these reasons are probably true and yet maintain that a coup d'etat is still morally wrong. I count myself among these. I would argue that a coup d'etat, despite the fact that it was staged non-violently and probably for a good cause, is wrong because of what it has done to the society that accepts it as right. Accepting or condoning a coup d'etat means accepting Mao's dictum that "power comes from the barrel of the gun" and that violence or the threat of violence is the final arbiter of political conflict, not the power of words or rational persuasion.
Engaging in the moral dilemma is important on a meaningful journey on the road to democracy, which needs to be grounded on some basic ideals which include questioning the monopoly of "truth", the use of force to impose it on others and the gradual renewal of society as an energising ideal through free debates.
In De Officiis, Cicero wrote that "for in exceptional circumstances that which is commonly held to be wrong is found on reflection not to be wrong". When it comes to the problem of violence, especially in Thai society, there seems to be a tendency to turn a state of exception, as suggested by Cicero, into a norm which would render the notions of right and wrong irrelevant. Though understandable, it is sad to see how popular this coup has become because accepting violent solutions to political problems could also be seen as a sign of despair.
The moral cost of hopelessness in oneself and the inability of one's society to solve political problems peacefully needs to be seriously taken into account as the price a society has to pay for a popular coup.
A sign of hope: Two days after the coup on 9/19, a young woman walked into my office. She said she had decided not to go to class because what has happened bothered her a great deal as a student of political science at Thammasat University. So she spent her time thinking in the library. In a soft voice, she politely told me that in response to the Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy's public invitation for written inputs from university students, she wrote a letter, using her real name, asking them — no, begging them — to respect the rights and liberty of those who might disagree with them and to treat those who might express their right to dissent peacefully without resorting to violence. She mentioned the brutal violence which had taken place in this land three decades ago and which has created a rift which cut deeply into the soul of the nation and has been so hard to heal. She used a piece of lined paper from her schoolbook, wrote it with a pencil in a language so simple that it shames me with her innocence and courage. I looked up at her bright young face and there saw hope for Thai society.
The writer is with the Peace Information Centre, Foundation for Democracy and Development Studies, Faculty of Political Science, Thammasat University.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/25/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A coup is kind of like a Lays potato chip.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/25/2006 1:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I looked up at her bright young face and there saw hope for Thai society.
But then I told her she better put her burka on and accept the fact that she would probably be marked for writing this letter and possibly be singled out for rape and torture if she didn't convert and find a husband to protect her.
#3
In fact, according to one recent survey, 83% of Thais nationwide were in favour of the coup.
This has something to do with 'consent of the governed' written by that Jefferson guy. Attention, two bit self serving ego centric limelighting politicans and bureaucrats out there. Piss off enough people and all they have to do is just sit and watch the changing of the guard. The people don't have to raise in rebellion. They just giving up caring which crook in sitting on the seat of power.
Errr...remember what the 'popularity rating' was for Congress, journalist, and the military?
#4
Thailand's situation is a bit different from, say, Burma's or Indonesia's in that loyalty is to the king, not to the prime minister or even to the political system. It's a constitutional monarchy, but the king retains a veto power in the form of the military. Toxin was on the way out as soon as the king took a dislike to him.
Bhumibol is on in years, and I have no idea whether the same will apply with his successor. I suspect it will, until they get a king who's disliked by the commons -- a Prince Charles, f'rinstance, or a King Gyanendra. At that point the consent of the governed will be withdrawn and power will swing to the civil government, probably in a one-way trip.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/25/2006 10:17 Comments ||
Top||
I received this by email. I cannot attribute it to anyone but the quoters are given appropriate credit.
ICHTHUS IMPRIMIS
Forced belief does not persuade people to love God with their hearts, any more than a forced marriage creates love for another human being. God and relationships must be freely chosen to be meaningful and herein lies the fundamental difference in world views. One sees their God as an angry enforcer who needs goon squads to whip people into line. The other sees God giving humanity free will with blessings and consequences for each choice, but with ultimate judgment reserved for Himself. Cal Thomas
CULTURE
There are many millions of decent and kind Muslims in the world. But there are also at least a hundred million Muslims (i.e., 10 percent) who support killing innocents in the name of Allah and Islam. And there are more than that who believe in the ideal of using force to spread Islam throughout the world. So the question is this: How many kind and decent Muslims are kind and decent because of Islam, and how many evil Muslims are evil because of Islam? I do not claim to have an answer. I only claim that the question is a legitimate one that all the decent Muslims need to answer. The evil ones repeatedly tell us how Islam is the source of their support for murder and torture. We need to know from the good ones how Islam has made them good. So far we have only heard from one side. Dennis Prager
LIBERTY
[N]othing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe its time that it should... [I]f stray comments by Western leadersnot to mention Western films, books, cartoons, traditions and valuesare going to inspire regular violence, I dont feel that its asking too much for the West to quit saying sorry and unite, occasionally, in its own defense. The fanatics attacking the pope already limit the right to free speech among their own followers. I dont see why we should allow them to limit our right to free speech, too. Anne Applebaum
OPINION IN BRIEF
Whether its the popes comments or some Danish cartoons, self-appointed spokesmen for the Islamic street say, You have offended a billion Muslims, which really means, There are so many of us, you should watch out. And if you didnt get the message, just look around for the burning embassies and murdered infidels. Theyre not hard to find. In response, the West apologizes and apologizes. Radical Muslims, who are not stupid, take note and become emboldened by these displays of weakness and capitulation. And the next time, they demand two pounds of flesh. Meanwhile, the entire global conversation starts from the assumption that the West is doing something wrong by tolerating freedom of speech, among other things. This week, French President Jacques Chirac explained that everyone in the West must avoid everything that sparks tensions. In other words, we must forever be held hostage by the tactical outrage of a global mob. Jonah Goldberg
THE LAST WORD
If you mock Islam with a drawing or a novel, you get riots and dead people. News of mishandled holy books yields riots and dead people. Insufficiently reverent short films by a Dutchman yields a dead person, specifically the Dutchman. Now we add this detail: Quoting medieval religious colloquies is a reasonable justification for burning churches, shooting a nun and holding up signs demanding that the pope convert to Islam or saw off his own head... Since its difficult to predict what else will enflame the devout, Islam has to be treated with unusual deference, like a 3-year-old child with anger management problems. But its not what we say that truly offends. Its what we are. The Wests lack of interest in joining the Ummah is an affront in itself, and we broadcast our sins in High Infidelity. If you believed that the Wests apostasy was an affront to God, youd spend your leisure hours torching straw popes too. Progressives at home and abroad seem oddly unconcerned. Islamophobia, after all, is just a product of the BushCo juntas relentless fearmongering, and Benedict is the Nazi pope who personally swipes the condoms from peoples bedroom drawers. But its an inconvenient truth, to coin a phrase, when the ranters show up with vibrating uvulas demanding the popes assassination... Thus the most enlightened and well-intentioned beneficiaries of the human civilization excuse or wish away the words of their most implacable opponents. Itll take something drastic to change their minds. A dirty bomb? Maybe. A demonstration in Pakistan in favor of Wal-Mart? That would certainly reorder some opinions. In the meantime, we will learn to say less and less about more and more. As the grim clichè has it: If you say Islam isnt always a religion of peace, the Islamicists will kill you. This doesnt make them hypocrites, of course. The grave is a very peaceful place. James Lileks
#1
As the grim clichè has it: If you say Islam isnt always a religion of peace, the Islamicists will kill you. This doesnt make them hypocrites, of course. The grave is a very peaceful place. James Lileks
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.
It would have been more appropriate for Hugo Chávez to brandish Dantes Divine Comedy than Chomskys Hegemony or Survival during his sulfuric broadside at the U.N. last week. In the first part of the Italian masterpiece, the author undertakes a journey through the nine concentric circles of the Inferno, each representing a type of evil. Dantes description reads like a script of present-day Venezuela.
