#2
While he paints himself as a moderate, at a young age Sheik Hilali joined the Muslim Brotherhood - an extremist group influenced by one of Islam's most radical thinkers and a supporter of violent jihad.
Although the cleric has formerly claimed that he broke away from the Brotherhood because they were too "extreme" in their teachings, several years ago he allegedly praised suicide bombers and called anyone who died fighting for Islam a "hero".
Remember folks, this is the same as yesterday's Sheik Hilali, the Australian mufti who declared scantily dressed women to be nothing more than "uncovered meat".
He blamed women who "sway suggestively" and who wore makeup and no hijab (Islamic scarf) for sexual attacks. "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat," he said. "The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hajib, no problem would have occurred."
Please try to remember that Islam traces back much of this world's problems and especially those of men to Eve herself. She who tempted Adam has wrought the majority of this world's evils and must therefore be hidden from view, be it by hijab or burqa. A single stray lock of hair is enough for this foul temptress to lead even the most pious man astray.
Again, permit me to remind you that Sheik Hilali is purported to be a moderate Muslim. Of course, as with the title of this article, he claims to be "misunderstood". After being held to his incredibly offensive allusions regarding women as "uncovered meat", he vigorously back-pedaled in order to conveniently condemn the Sydney gang rapists.
Let's have a dekko at this Muslim gang rapist, who is named Bilal Skaf, eh?
For his crimes Bilal Skaf is serving a 31-year prison sentence, and will be eligible for parole in 2033. (He was originally sentenced to 55-years with a 40-year non-parole period, but that was modified several times upon appeal -- see below.)
He commenced his sentence in Sydney's Long Bay Correctional Centre, but was soon moved to maximum security in Goulburn Gaol after prison wardens uncovered plans by fellow inmates to inject him with HIV infected blood.
He is the brother of Mohammed Skaf, also a gang rape attacker serving 32 years jail for his part in the attacks. Bilal and Mohammed are the sons of Mustapha Skaf and Baria Skaf who immigrated to Australia from Lebanon.
Mustapha worked for State Rail in Sydney, gaining a good reputation among his colleagues. It was through his father's reputation that Skaf also found work for State Rail despite having left school at age 14 and gaining convictions for shoplifting and theft.
Skaf was engaged at the time of his arrest but although his fiancée stood by him during his trial, she ended their engagement soon after his conviction. Skaf's response was to sketch cartoons depicting his former fiancée being raped and murdered. Since he was first charged in November 2000, Skaf has remained unrepentant. During his trial he claimed he was involved only in cases of consensual sex, laughed when his verdict was read and swore at the judge when he received his sentence.
In jail he has made threats to commit acts of terrorism and was also responsible for a terrorist hoax in which a white powder laced letter to the NSW Corrective Services Commissioner Ron Woodham.
No wonder that Hilaly dropped Skaf like a live grenade. Lets take a moment and find out just how sincere Hilaly was:
Yesterday, the mufti defended the sermon about "adultery and theft", a recorded copy of which has been obtained and translated by The Australian. Sheik Hilaly said he only meant to refer to prostitutes as "meat" and not any scantily dressed woman with no hijab, despite him not mentioning the word prostitute during the 17-minute talk. He told The Australian the message he intended to convey was: "If a woman who shows herself off, she is to blame, but a man should be able to control himself".
He said if a woman is "covered and respectful" she "demands respect from a man". "But when she is cheap, she throws herself at the man and cheapens herself." Sheik Hilaly also insisted his references to the Sydney gang rapes were to illustrate that Skaf was guilty and worthy of receiving such a harsh sentence.
Like a whore in church, Hilaly is probably sweating every last thing hes said for the last few months and hoping no one has any of it recorded. While he claims that there is a lack of understanding, Im confident about only one thing being misunderstood.
Throughout his rather chequered Australian career, Hilaly has always claimed to be a moderate. Why dont we examine one of the most famous Muslim moderates of them all? One Yusuf Qaradawi.
The scholarly figure widely considered to be the world's chief proponent of moderate Islam is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian-born Islamic jurist who heads the European Council for Fatwa and Research. Mr Qaradawi's rulings are recognised by Muslims around the world as reflecting the balanced nature of Islamic law and its relevance to modern life. This is the recurrent theme of his programmes on Arab television channels, as well as the popular Islam Online website, for which he acts as patron.
Muslim BrotherhoodQaradawi is a major figure in the brotherhood, an Islamic movement founded in Egypt in 1928 that has spawned several contemporary terrorist groups (including Hamas and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was absorbed by Al Qaeda).
International Association of Muslim Scholars Qaradawi is founder and president of the association, which was officially launched on July 11, 2004, in London. Defining itself as a "pan-Muslim body," the group's leaders include Ayatollah Muhammad Ali Taskhiri, an advisor Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Ahmad bin Hamad al-Khalili, Grand Mufti of Oman.
In May 2004, Taskhiri said on Iranian TV: "We must support this [Palestinian] uprising as much as we can so it will realize its goals and cut off the treacherous Zionist hands and the American hands standing behind Zionism and supporting it." He has also called the U.S. the "mother of international terrorism."
Islamic American University Qaradawi is on the faculty of the Michigan-based Islamic American University, a subsidiary of the Muslim American Society. Until June 2003 he was also the chairman (in abstentia) of the board of trustees of the institute (he may still hold this position, but relevant information is no longer available online).
Several of the university's board members have ties to Middle East extremist groups, while the university's founder and president, Salah Sultan, has fomented anti-Semitism and terrorism, saying that "the text of the Talmud says: 'If you come across a non-Jew kill him!' I want every child to sleep on the wound of Palestine and the action of martyrdom."
The final question being; How many other moderate Muslims are just like these moderates? Its all taqiyya, all of the time and never forget it.
#3
I don't understand. We keep hearing that the Mufti doesn't represent Muslims - so who are the people in these audiences of 2,000 to 5,000 that are listening to him and cheering him?
HAROLD Ford, a 36-year-old from Tennessee, has become one of the sensations of the mid-term elections in the US and a reason why Democrats are a good chance of winning back control of the US Congress for the first time in 12 years.
But if Mr Ford, already a US congressman, wins his bid to become a more powerful senator, Australia had better watch out.
Because according to Mr Ford, Australia has an interest in nuclear weapons and is part of the broader nuclear threat to the US.
In a speech to county government officials yesterday in Knoxville, Mr Ford - listed in People magazine in 2001 as one of the 50 most beautiful people in the world - electrified the audience, as he does everywhere he speaks.
He's charismatic and seamlessly weaves a national political story into his own. He speaks about how he will clean up corruption-plagued Washington using the brand of right and wrong that he learned growing up as an African American in the south; how he has old-fashioned parents who were ready to snap a piece of switch from the tree in the front yard of their home in Memphis and cane him if he broke the rules.
If victorious on November 7, Mr Ford will be the first popularly elected black from the South to take a seat at the exclusive 100-member Senate.
His skilled oration on domestic politics may be flawless, but his grip on foreign policy is error-prone. Yesterday he stumbled into gaffes on the North Korean nuclear tests and then mentioned Australia in the same breath as rogue nations wanting to go nuclear.
"Here we are in a world today where more countries have access to nuclear weapons than ever before," Mr Ford said, adding that when he left college in 1992 he thought the nuclear age had come to an end "and America would find ways to eliminate the number of chances that a rogue group or a rogue nation would get their hands on nuclear material".
"Today nine countries have it - more than ever before - and 40 are seeking it, including Argentina, Australia and South Africa," he said.
Mr Ford was referring to the nine known nuclear weapon states: the US, the UK, Russia, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and now North Korea.
He said this made the US less safe because "more countries have nuclear weapons today which means the possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands has increased dramatically".
On North Korea, he claimed Pyongyang had conducted two nuclear tests, the first of which he said occurred on July 4. This confuses the ballistic tests Pyongyang carried out on that date with the single nuclear test earlier this month.
The gaffes were lost on the audience and he was given a rousing standing ovation from Democrats and Republicans alike. Any chance of clarifying Mr Ford's remarks with the man himself was impossible as minders shielded any international media from asking questions, ushering Mr Ford away.
"You don't win us any votes," said his spokeswoman. And she might have added that it also means he is insulated from pesky questions probing his limitations on enunciating a foreign policy involving a trusted ally.
Not that any of that appears to matter much in Tennessee. The polls have Mr Ford in a dead heat with Republican Bob Corker.
And it is not clear if Mr Corker has benefited from a controversial campaign ad that has aired on Tennessee television in which a scantily clad woman claims to have met Mr Ford at a Playboy party. Mr Ford was one of 3000 guests at a Playboy party for the Super Bowl last year.
Former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, co-chairman of a bipartisan commission studying Washingtons Iraq policy, will release his panels alternative to the stay-the-course strategy next month. If partitioning Iraq into three countries is presented as an alternative, then the White House should earnestly consider and pursue the idea. This course of action will salvage Americans faith in the Iraq policy, and will be in the Iraqi peoples best interest.
The current stay-the-course policy has utterly failed. Insurgent activities are escalating, sectarian clashes are intensifying, the Iraqi peoples suffering is worsening, the loss of American lives is climbing, and war expenditures are rising. The existing plan to pursue terrorists until each one of them is captured or killed has proven unworkable. On the other hand, the United States military departure from Iraq would be ominous for the entire Middle East, calamitous to the Iraqi people, and a clear proclamation of the failure of American foreign policy. Slicing Iraq into three countries is the only viable plan that will pacify the majority of Iraq and promise the US success in Iraq.
The lack of security, sectarian violence and insurgencies are the main ailments plaguing the Iraqi people. And thats only the beginning, considering the precarious nature of the serious and real threat of a wider civil war breaking out. But if Iraq were divided into three countries a Shiite nation in the south, Kurdish in the north, and Sunni Arab in the middle this would solve many of the current host of problems and obviate the threat of civil war.
How would the division of Iraq bring an end to the activities of insurgents? Consider the present traveling arrangements in Iraq. The Iraqis, by virtue of their citizenship, are at liberty to travel anywhere within their country. This means an entire terrorist cell or their members can travel freely within Iraq, and allows weapons, ammunition, and needed funds to be transferred from one place to another. Most dangerously, it gives terrorists the ability to organize and recruit across the region. It is widely known that the source of the problem emanates from the central part of the country. Narrowing the realm of the problem requires the seclusion of the Sunni Arabs in central Iraq. Partitioning Iraq is the most efficacious way to achieve this. Once Iraq is partitioned, borders would then be drawn, and border security would hinder illicit traveling since a passport would be required.
The partitioning of Iraq would also help decrease violence in Kurdistan. The present chaos in both Kirkuk and Mosul are largely engendered by the hundreds of thousands of Saddams followers who were settled in these cities and their surroundings during the Arabization campaign. Once an independent Kurdistan is declared, the Kurds will gracefully deport Saddam's followers to their respective homelands. Unfortunately, the Iraqi government and the US have not taken this predicament seriously enough, and as a result it has persisted and drags on, but in an independent Kurdistan it will be dealt with expediently to prevent further bloodshed and restore justice and equity.
An all-out civil war would be thwarted by the creation of three separate countries. The Sunni Arabs would not be able to freely enter the Iraqi Shiites country nor Kurdistan due to border restrictions. At the same time, the menace of civil war between Kurds and Arabs would be averted since Kirkuk and Mosuls problematic non-natives would be deported, and the small native Arab Sunni population will not pose a grave threat.
In the central region, the most chaotic in Iraq, there would remain some violence after the partitioning of Iraq. But terror organizations eventually will be a thing of the past since the Sunni land will be squeezed between Kurds and Shiites, cutting off Sunni insurgents from their suppliers, thus lessening their ability to reach the outside world for ammunitions and material support.
When talking about the division of Iraq, or in particular about Kurdish statehood, Iraqs neighbors put up resounding objections, as if its their right to predestine the Iraqi peoples future, and plan for their political and social arrangements. Those opposed to partitioning Iraq are Syria and Iran, both of whom are US enemies. The other foe is Turkey which has proven itself to be an unreliable friend to the US and a liability. America should not sell out or ignore its best friend in the region, the Kurds, to appease its enemies or an unworthy friend.
Should Mr. Bakers panel be thorough, one of the alternatives to current US-Iraq strategy they come up with will have to be the partitioning of Iraq into three countries. When that presents itself as a solution, President Bush should act upon it promptly. If he does, the legacy of failure in Iraq policy will be transfigured into undisputed success, one of Bushs triumphant, estimable legacies that will duly inspire the Iraqi people, in particular the Kurds.
#1
Another positive aspect of partitioning may be showing Iran what is in store for them, provided that operation "Green Glass" won't be the final step of "negotiations".
#3
As the partitioning of Africa in the 19th Century and of the Middle East after WWI worked so well too, let's try again. Why does this have that 'UN' flavor to it? Keep repeating the same mistake over and over again hoping that it will work this time?
The problem with the first go was the way they did it, and the reasoning.
The arbirary splits across anything remotely resembilng tribal boundries was the primary goof. That's why you got Kurds spread across multiple states etc.
I don't think we should touch this one with a 10 foot pole personally. If the Iraqis want to split let them do it on their own.
The problem with approaches of this sort is they are all based on the omniscient, omnipotent US model. They don't allow or account for any initiative on the part of anyone else. Others can only manage a short term reaction to something the US did, talked about, thought or dreamt.
That's why the "we should do this, we should do that" is such a crock. "WE" don't control others resonses or their initiatives.
#6
We do, however, have a long-term stake in the matter. Depending on how partition was approached, it could trigger a region-wide war with Turkey, Syria and Iran fighting to keep the Kurds from seceeding to join a larger Kurdistan. Syria killed 25,000 Kurds a while back over just such an issue IIRC.
Insofar as we have a stake in the region, we care about how this shakes out. But we can't force a model on them - we can only influence, maybe.
#7
I think it could split up at some point-with our hands in it our not-but our partitioning it could give way to countless battles over "this acre belongs to us, no it belongs to us", with no arbiter respected by all sides to decide the issues. 1001 Golan Heights.
But if we setp in and guarantee the Kurds independnace, and still have a say in the sotuerhn partititon (to prevent Iranian takeover), then I say let the Sunnis in Baghdad rot.
#10
"the Kurds will gracefully deport Saddam's followers to their respective homelands" Right, tell me another. The only safety for the Kurds in the north is to deport Saddam's followers, indeed all terrorist-loving Sunnis and Shiites, out of their part of the country in any manner. There is nothing "graceful" about conditions in Iraq, although the Kurdish part comes closer than the rest of the country does.
From what I have read about Kurdish Iraq, its borders are policed strictly to keep out non-Kurds. Iraqis in general are not free to travel to the Kurdish part, the contrary assertion in this article approaches a lie. There has been very little violence in this region, very few US forces need to be there. AFAIK Kirkuk and Mosul are not governed by the Kurds at the moment, and expelling the Arabs implanted there by Saddam would be a bloody affair.
One option I haven't read anything about is for the US to build major bases in the Kurdish part, as a fall-back option in case the country does fragment. If things really go to hell in Anbar and southern Shiite Iraq, the US can pull back to the old "northern fly zone", thereby preserving its presence in Iraq, serving as a massive deterrent to nonsense in the rest of region, certainly Turkey and Iran wouldn't do much about an "independent Kurdistan" if 100,000 US troops were there to maintain law'n order. I don't think the Iraqi Kurds would object to this, in fact it may be the best way to ensure their prosperity, even their survival. The oil-rich area around Kirkuk could be "assimilated" one way or the other back under Kurdish rule. So many assumptions in this article vary with what is known to be the case in Iraq, it's virtually useless.
#13
AH9418, you are working from a number of false assumptions.
There is in fact large scale Arab immigration into the Kurdish region. The previous article (at the link) by the same writer highlights the problems this is causing.
Kurdish parties govern in the provinces containing the cities of Kirkuk and Mosul, having won an absolute majority in the former province and being easily the largest party in the second.
I believe the US is constructing a large base in Kurdistan.
And as for Kurds not being allowed to travel outside of Kurdistan. First I've heard of it and I follow the news about the region closer than most.
The reality is Arabs are floooding north into Kurdistan because it is stable properous and there are ample employment opportunities. Sound familiar?
#16
And phil_b was telling you that it's not true, and I confirm his view is correct and yours is not. We have had several news stories posted here detailing precisely the Arab -> Kurdistan flow. Arabs fleeing the violence. It was remarked upon in the Iraq the Model blog, as well.
#17
The restrictions the Kurds may place upon Arabs trying to enter will, and I'm sure have, change as circumstances change - so "restricted" may, indeed, be true - but the flow of Arabs into Kurdistan is occurring.
#18
-- .com: Would very much like to see links to back up an massive Arab migration to Kurdish Iraq. Everything I can remember reading the last few months indicates Muslim Arabs are not easily allowed into the Kurdish areas. This Michael Totten article is a month or two old:
the Iraqi army has been infiltrated by Baathists and isnt allowed anywhere inside the [Kurdish] autonomous zone. ... I learned that when Omar and Mohammad Fadhil, the bloggers behind Iraq the Model, drove up to Kurdistan from Baghdad to meet me at my hotel. They never made it. The Peshmerga told them Arabs were not allowed to enter the region without a Kurdish escort [Perhaps they didn't bribe the right people]..., the Kurdistan Regional Government actually provides money and housing for Arab Christians who want to pick up and resettle in the north...Arab Muslims arent barred from the region. They can visit as tourists, and they can buy new homes there. But they must have connections if they want to settle in Kurdistan, and they must prove they arent a security threat before they can even show up.
The influx of Arabs has made many Kurds nervous, and regional leaders are debating whether to corral the Arabs into separate housing estates or camps....Arabs moving to Kurdistan are required to register with security agencies, which track how many arrive and where they live. The chief security officer for Sulaimaniya, the largest city in eastern Kurdistan, said about 1,000 Arab families had moved into this area, and that thousands more families had settled in other parts of the Kurdish north...We know the parents of families who come here are Baathists, but theyre allowed to live in Sulaimaniya if they have a Kurdish sponsor,[a principal at an Arabic primary school was quoted]
#20
Lol - I had just walked in when I saw your response - and had a rapidly-cooling In-N-Out Double-Double that needed my attention. :-)
While wolfing it down I've been trying to remember about how long ago it was - and I would say 3-4 months ago that there was a small flurry of articles on Kurdistan. At least one story coincided with their TV campaign where they say, "Thank you, America!" - as I recall posting a link to the Kurdish website that carries copies of the ads. Yeah, about 3-4 months, probably. I hope this helps.
#21
you had an In-N-Out and didn't bring some for us? BASTARD. Next time - I like my double-double animal style TYVM. I also like my fries extra crispy
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/27/2006 22:09 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Heh - you've got kids with drivers licenses - that's what they're for, lol. I told my daughter that, after she got hers, that the price was payback for all the taxi services I had rendered for 16 years. :-)
If Thailand's new military-appointed interim government is suing for peace with the Malay Muslim insurgent groups ravaging the country's three southernmost provinces, nobody apparently told the rebels. One month since military coup-makers ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra and vowed to reconcile Bangkok with the historically restive region, the security situation has only gone from bad to worse.
While new Thai Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont met last week
in Kuala Lumpur with his Malaysian counterpart Abdullah Badawi to discuss possible peace strategies, insurgents added at least another 23 murders to the conflict's spiraling death toll, which, according to one independent estimate, has surpassed 2,300, substantially higher than the 1,700 figure that the Thai government acknowledges. The local and international media have misread the significance of the Thai government's recent peace overtures.
Significantly, Surayud purposely refrained from mentioning former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad's recent mediation effort, which was launched clandestinely in August and entailed meetings between insurgent leaders and Thai intelligence agents on Malaysia's Langkawi Island. Mahathir's efforts were not endorsed by Kuala Lumpur and were apparently arranged more with a view to upstage his successor Abdullah than to establish a legitimate peace process, according to people familiar with the situation. Mahathir's initiative also managed to complicate parallel mediation efforts that were already under way, and his brusque handling alienated some insurgent groups when he suggested that they lay down their arms as a goodwill gesture before proposed formal talks began.
The hard reality, according to those involved with ongoing mediation efforts, is that peace is still a long way off for southern Thailand. Insurgent groups are deeply entrenched and have achieved total control in areas along the Thai-Malaysian border in Narathiwat province, where Thai soldiers reportedly dare not patrol. Although Kuala Lumpur steadfastly denies it, Malay insurgent groups often plan attacks and take sanctuary from Thai reprisals in remote areas of Kelantan province in northern Malaysia, according to people who have met with the rebels.
Nearly three years into the renewed conflict, Thai officials still do not have a clear idea concerning who exactly they should be negotiating with to stop the violence. Thailand's shadowy insurgency notably lacks any charismatic leaders and is being perpetuated by a number of different autonomous rebel groups, some of which share divergent outlooks and competitive objectives for the resistance.
When former Thai insurgent Wan Kadir Che Man told journalists on the sidelines of an academic conference in Malaysia in 2004 that he controlled insurgents and was willing to negotiate an end to the conflict in exchange for more regional autonomy, his shirt-tie-and-jacket look didn't jibe with the Islamic flavor of the rebel groups. Thai officials later discovered that the aged insurgent, who at the time was serving as an academic at Malaya University, had closer links to Malaysia's special-branch police than to Thai insurgent groups, and they immediately broke off communications with the ethnic-Malay Thai national.
Thailand's inability to gain any traction in behind-the-scenes talks is reflective of the resistance movement's complicated fragmentation. According to people familiar with the situation, certain insurgent-group representatives will not attend meetings if other groups are also invited. That is, rather than a united front, as the umbrella rebel group's Bersatu name translates in the local Yawi language, Thailand's Muslim insurgents often don't see eye-to-eye, which has complicated past efforts to work toward a blanket solution for the conflict.
Fresh start, same result
Surayud has signaled that he wishes to make a clean break from Thaksin's heavy-handed policies, which arguably tipped the restive region back into conflict. This week he announced plans for restoring the Southern Border Provinces Administrative Center and possibly later the Combined 43rd Civilian-Police-Military Command, agencies that had successfully mediated between Bangkok and local Muslim leaders before Thaksin unilaterally dismantled them in April 2002.
But a return to the status quo ante likely won't be enough to settle what has arguably morphed into a full-blown insurrection. Thailand's southern Muslim communities earlier took seriously the decentralization articles enshrined in the 1997 constitution, which among other democratizing measures opened the way for Muslim dress codes in state schools, greater liberty to use the local Yawi language, and access to radio airwaves for local groups to broadcast Islamic sermons and programs. Those local-level reforms were slowly but surely bringing the country's long-marginalized Muslims into the national fold and had undermined the influence and clout of violence-bent insurgent groups, which had largely been consigned to the political and, in certain cases, literal wilderness.
Thaksin's policies violently reversed many of those democratic gains by reinforcing the Thai state's authority, centralization and regulation over the region. The reform rollback included the harassment and profiling of Islamic teachers and schools, and as insurgents regrouped and steadily escalated the violence, detention without trial, commando-style apprehension and disappearance, and in some cases torture of suspected Muslim militants.
Unfortunately for Surayud, most southern Thai Muslims' and even certain insurgent group leaders' complaints and grievances are pinned directly to the on-the-ground security forces he now commands and hopes to rehabilitate to forge peace rather than sow violence across the region. His military-appointed government is confronted with a population that remains highly reluctant to cooperate with state agents, lest they be accused of cooperating with its proven abusive tendencies.
One possible path to peace and reconciliation would be greater mobilization of royal symbolism, from which his military-appointed government derives much of its legitimacy. His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, although the most potent symbol of the Buddhist-majority Thai state, is known to be highly revered among the region's Muslims. Insurgent leaders have largely refrained from overtly criticizing the monarch, who local Muslims often note oversaw the first translation of the Koran into the Thai language. The palace has also shelled out variously for the construction of mosques across the country, and the respected monarch sometimes officiates at Koran recitals during important Muslim rites and rituals.
That said, it's not clear stronger royal signals would necessarily break the impasse. One indication: the status of the royally appointed Chularajamontri, Thai Muslims' top spiritual leader, has come under fire from many Muslims who view him as too close to the central government and too distant from his adherents. Adding fuel to those fiery perceptions, the current Chularajamontri offered only muted criticism after the military's April 2004 destruction of the highly venerated Krue Se Mosque in Pattani province during a massive siege against a group of lightly armed rebels that had holed up in the ancient structure.
Surayud recently said without elaborating that he would be willing to consider as part of a peace deal an autonomy package similar to the one Indonesia brokered last year to end its 30-year conflict against rebels in Aceh province. But according to people familiar with the situation, those in Surayud's inner circle are still highly reluctant to enact any sort of regional autonomy that from their perspective could eventually jeopardize the territorial integrity of the kingdom.
Indeed, by shredding the 1997 constitution and appointing mainly conservatives to the body drafting the new constitution, the prevailing political winds are blowing against fully reinstating even the local-autonomy measures that were enshrined in the previous progressive charter, which significantly had paved the way for local democracy and peace to take root in the region. And so, despite the new government's change in tone, there is still no clear end in sight for Thailand's spiraling southern conflict.
Shawn W Crispin is Asia Times Online's Southeast Asia editor.
#1
Gawd, I didn't think the Thais were this stupid. Have they not heard that continued digging does not get you out of the hole ? Their continued appeasement has put them in dire straits. After southern areas are overrun, do they think the Muzzies will be satisfied ? They are in worse shape than the French. (Tho not much )
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American University
Where does all this stuff that youve heard about this morning the victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it where does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses, but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come from? What is it?
We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of it as only half-serious. In fact, its deadly serious. It is the great disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world. It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the college, they face formal charges some star-chamber proceeding and punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true such as the whole of the history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and say, "Wait a minute. This isnt true. I can see it isnt true," the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims," and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isnt as well qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation. White owned companies dont get a contract because the contract is reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.
And finally, both have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers they want. For the classical Marxist, its Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, its deconstruction. Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it and re-inserts any meaning desired. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender. All of these texts simply become grist for the mill, which proves that "all history is about which groups have power over which other groups." So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that were familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today as Political Correctness.
But the parallels are not accidents. The parallels did not come from nothing. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much longer than many people are aware of outside a small group of academics who have studied this. And the history goes back, as I said, to World War I, as do so many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, and indeed our culture, down.
Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments the bourgeois governments because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries than they had in common with the bourgeoisie and the ruling class in their own country. Well, 1914 came and it didnt happen. Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to fight each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany and said there are no parties now, there are only Germans. And this happened in every country in Europe. So something was wrong.
Marxists knew by definition it couldnt be the theory. In 1917, they finally got a Marxist coup in Russia and it looked like the theory was working, but it stalled again. It didnt spread and when attempts were made to spread immediately after the war, with the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers didnt support them.
So the Marxists had a problem. And two Marxist theorists went to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary. Gramsci said the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christian religion that they are blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukacs, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, "Who will save us from Western Civilization?" He also theorized that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilization itself.
Lukacs gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government is established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did was introduce sex education into the Hungarian schools. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, workers as well as everyone else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the "latest thing."
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is for people to figure out its a form of Marxism. So instead they decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.
The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930 it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimers views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the Frankfurt School are renegade Marxists. Theyre still very much Marxist in their thinking, but theyre effectively run out of the party. Moscow looks at what they are doing and says, "Hey, this isnt us, and were not going to bless this."
Horkheimers initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes, "If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois societys socio-economic sub-structure," and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, Im not reading from a critic here "in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory."
The stuff weve been hearing about this morning the radical feminism, the womens studies departments, the gay studies departments, the black studies departments all these things are branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because youre tempted to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that. They say it cant be done, that we cant imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as were living under repression the repression of a capitalistic economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression we cant even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not the 1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political Correctness, and thats the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse, who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromms view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of essential sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.
Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism. "Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulative dominating attitude toward nature." That was Horkhemier writing in 1933 in Materialismus und Moral. "The theme of mans domination of nature," according to Jay, " was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years." "Horkheimers antagonism to the fetishization of labor, (heres were theyre obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness." In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkeimer "discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture." And he specifically referred to the Marquis de Sade, favorably, for his "protest against asceticism in the name of a higher morality."
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933 the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in 1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels needed theory of some sort. They couldnt just get out there and say, "Hell no we wont go," they had to have some theoretical explanation behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there when the student rebels come into Adornos classroom, he calls the police and has them arrested Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.
One of Marcuses books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person Freud describes the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of "polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! Theyre students, theyre baby-boomers, and theyve grown up never having to worry about anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesnt require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes back to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America today is in the throws of the greatest and direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it. The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on campus is part of it. Its exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now its coming here. And we dont recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it off. My message today is that its not funny, its here, its growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
IMHO, this is very important, for this allow us to see the "inside" of the "Culure war", which should be for what it truly is, the marxist assault on western civilization. And this whole threat from islam is only a byproduct of that internal rot; it is only because they see us as (rightly) weakened that the Moderate Muslims (or rather their active vanguard, MB, deobandis, salafis) believe they CAN and WILL win. And the more they will seem to be winning, the more the average, non-active muslim (the "silent majority") will turn toward them.
I wasn't sure where to file this one. Culture Wars? Britain? Old Tyme Religion?? Refile as necessary. by Gerard Baker
The remarkable creative strength of America will ensure that its present travails are soon left far behind
George Bush got in trouble recently for saying the tragedy of Iraq over the last year will come to be seen, in the long narrative of history, as a mere comma.
It sounded to his critics a little callous to dismiss the war as one of the commoner punctuation marks. Tens of thousands of casualties, the discrediting of a superpowers foreign policy, the destabilisation of the worlds already most volatile region? Youd think that might at least merit an exclamation mark. But no. Just another dull comma, the notoriously overused dab of a penstroke separating much larger, substantive thoughts.
And yet commas, and their placement, as Lynne Truss has cleverly and lucratively demonstrated, can have large consequences. They can change the entire meaning of sentences. They can, on the one hand, represent no more than a boring, tiresome, repetitive pause in a long list. But in the right position, they can signal a critical dividing line, a caesura, as poets call it, a point of departure in a line of thought in an entirely new direction.
Which sort of comma will the Iraq war be? Americas critics and enemies hope, and some of its supporters fear, that the answer is obvious: Iraq represents a great dividing line in historys multi-clause sentence the end, or the beginning of the end, of the American century. The war itself, on this view, shows in unexpected clarity the limits of American power. At almost precisely the moment that the US seemed to bestride the world as no other colossus in history, it is felled, not by by a rival empire lobbing nuclear missiles but by a bunch of murderers armed with plastic explosives.
More than that, say the doubters, Americas famous soft power has been fatally undermined, victim of an ugly war, Guantanamo Bay and torture. At the same time, Americas costly detour in the Middle East has allowed new rivals to gain ground in the struggle for global hegemony. China and India, emerging powerhouses, are eating into global markets in goods and services, while the European Union, preaching love and peace, is winning the market in ideas.
As you might expect, Im sceptical about the premature obituaries. That Iraq shows the limits to American power is surely true. But the only real surprise in this is that we should be surprised about it. Asymmetric warfare from Algeria to Northern Ireland has shown the limitations of large immobile militaries. With accelerating nuclear proliferation, those limits are only going to grow, as we have seen with North Korea. What will determine Americas ability to maintain its pre-eminence will be its flexibility and the willingness of its population to take on new burdens in the new warfare that confronts them.
Here, I suspect, the consequences of failure in Iraq are also overblown. The Vietnam War was a much larger calamity. By 1974 it had produced a precipitous decline in self-confidence and was tearing the country apart. But just six years later US voters elected Ronald Reagan, who placed American greatness and global pre-eminence at the heart of his presidency.
That Americas soft power has declined is probably true too. But I wonder if that is not mainly a consequence of the changed circumstances in which the US finds itself. Throughout its 220-year history, as the historian Robert Kagan points out in his brilliant new book, Dangerous Nation, America has been seen as a threat to global stability. But for most of that history, the US was just one of many powers. The angry backlash against it today is worse in large part because its dominance is greater than it has ever been. In a world in which America has no serious rivals, its revolutionary tendencies will inevitably be seen as more alarming than in one in which it has many competitors.
The real question about American power is whether the realities that underpin it are shifting. There, Im afraid, the news for Americaphobes is grim. The US economy continues to grow at a pace that far outstrips its rivals in the industrialised world. Though China is growing at three times the pace of the US, Americas economy is so large $12 trillion annually that , even in the unlikely event that China will continue to grow at its current rate, it will take 30 to 40 years to catch up with America.
Despite the heated rhetoric, the US is not going bankrupt its fiscal deficit is falling and its accumulated debt is easily manageable. Compared with most other advanced economies, its demographics look indecently healthy. This month the US population passed 300 million; it will be 400 million in less than 50 years, and still relatively youthful.
If you want to understand the real enduring strength of America as a nation, look at the Dow Jones industrial average. Not the record 12,000 level reached this month that may last no longer than a day or a week. Look instead at the 30 companies that make up the Dow index. Only two of the original 30 companies in the index in 1930 General Electric and General Motors are still there today. Most of todays Dow components the Microsofts and Intels werent even around 50 years ago.
If you look at the relevant stock market indices for Germany, France or even Britain, you will find them dominated by companies that have been around for generations. America by contrast, has mastered the art of creative destruction. This vast competitive openness, combined with entrepreneurial spirit, keeps the country constantly innovating and regenerating.
Long after Iraq has established itself as some kind of punctuation mark in American history, Americas genius for renewing itself will surely have the last word. Some of you may be interested in reading - or even adding to - the comment section at the end of the article.
#3
America by contrast, has mastered the art of creative destruction. This vast competitive openness, combined with entrepreneurial spirit, keeps the country constantly innovating and regenerating.
Yup. It's why I don't have a problem with legal immigration. Our culture evolves, grows, assimilates, takes the best from all who come.
Illegal and uncontrolled immigration is an entirely different story. Not only does it erode the principle of rule of law, it also fails to hold those who come here responsible for contributing and belonging HERE.
Spot on, and in line with his writing on PCness/cultural marxism.
Btw, one french guy already had this topic well covered since a few years already, and has an ebook about anti-white racism in the french context, and also authored an another excellent ebook on hate-motivated rapes and gangrapes in Europe and elsewhere.
Posted by: ed ||
10/27/2006 10:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Dr. Kamau Kambon, former North Carolina State visiting professor of African Studies, told a forum at Howard University that: We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem. ( ) Im saying to you that we need to solve this problem because they are going to kill us. ( ) The problem on the planet is white people.
So, it isn't genocide when a person of color talks about it? Well, this certainly explains the Thundering Silence about Islam's desire to kill all the Jews.
The Caucasian race had best get over Whiteman's Burden. It's more than a little ironic that were it not for the contributions of "Dead White Males" like Wilbur and Orville Wright, the exceptionally bigoted Mr. Kamau Kambon most likely would never have set foot on American soil during his entire life.
Long ago I gave up feeling the slightest guilt over early American black slavery or the fate of the native Americans. I had no say in those events and have always fought against bigotry during my lifetime. Anyone who wants to condemn me for the actions of my ancestors had better do so from a safe distance.
When it comes to the self-loathing anti-American academics, Whiteman's Burden will remain one of their favorite clubs to bludgeon Western culture until someone forcibly takes it from their hands and snaps it in two. Fjordman is absolutely right to eschew the concept of "reverse racism" due to its inherently false suppositions. We may well be confronted with the need for real "White Studies" in its actual scholastic form to counteract the ongoing tide of intentional de-emphasis that is happening to Western culture.
According to Muslim reformist Bassam Tibi, Accusing somebody of racism is a very effective weapon in Germany. Islamists know this: As soon as you accuse someone of demonizing Islam, then the European side backs down.
A massive portion of the blame needs to be laid at the feet of Political Correctness. It has forbidden pride in all things white and glorified the degradation of Western culture. Islam knows this damn well and delights in making Europeans and Americans alike squirm under accusations of racism.
A quick review of Islam's history shows them to amongst the most notorious slavers. Saudi Arabia was the last country on earth to illegalize slavery, IN 1962. One look at Darfur is all it takes to know that bigotry is alive and well in Islam. The anti-Semitic filth spewed by Nation of Islam, Al Sharpton and so many other people of color show that bigotry is not the exclusive domain of Caucasians.
We cannot defend the West against Muslim immigration unless we defeat Political Correctness. And we cannot defeat Political Correctness until we have utterly demolished the ideas that all whites are racists if they defend their culture or desire self-determination, or that non-whites are only victims of racism.
Fjordman is right in stating that Political Correctness will have to be eliminated if there is to be any adequate defense of "white culture". So much is being done to erase it from world history, especially its positive contributions, in favor of demonizing the older colonial era, even (as Fjordman notes) a new era of "reverse colonialization" is happening that promises a whole new form of its own genocide. This one, a much more deliberate and intentional eradication of cultures, than that which proceded it and wholly without any distribution of beneficent technology. Islam's Global Cultural Genocide rides the coattails of Political Correctness, White Studies and academia's self-loathing anti-Americanism.
It is up to free thinking people to slash out these underpinnings from Islam's grim march upon Western civilization.
#5
I wouldn't be surprised in the least. They still promote it, just in much less well-defined terms. Abused Filipino guest workers and young camel jockeys spring to mind.
#6
Way back upon a time I told the story of a Filipino nurse that the guy who owned the apartment building I lived in, in al Khobar, had imprisoned in one of the apartments.
We were watching Southern No-Fly packages take off from Dhahran AB from the roof and heard her crying - between takeoffs - the "penthouse" apartment entrance was actually on the roof.
The door was padlocked from the outside. The bldg manager told us the owner was punishing her for something - and had left for Riyadh for a week. He had left her some Pepsi and rice, we were told. The Mgr, who was Indian, had the key, but was terrified and would not use it except in case of fire or similar. He also said the owner had several apt bldgs in town and in other cities - and was heavily connected - Big Wasta - so calling the police would do no good.
This was in 1992. The law meant nothing, so I guess the date is academic.
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.
