Very interesting, through I only browsed it; as far as I know, this is the first time there's a coherent statistical thinking about something that's frequently mentioned, but then only from empirical datas : the over-representation of muslim men among sex-offenders.
I was visiting family recently and the town has had an influx of Somalis. It's a shame, it was a happy little town with mostly whites and blacks with mexican immigrants. Because of its size it had few troubles and little gang activity. I felt bad for them, because I know what is coming their way in terms of rapes and gang violence.
Sir Henry Morgan has done us all a service. Sadly, his preliminary work will never see the light of day in the MSM.
I trust Zenster will take note of this artilce. It seems to tie in with a theory he has spoken of recently concerning the relationship between islam/jihad/ sexual perverts/ and the role or status of women in islam.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/13/2006 11:07 Comments ||
Agree, it won't see the light of day in the MSM. But they won't be able to keep this down. Expect them to attempt to explain it away. They won't be able to because people can see the trends for themselves.
It will be an emotional issue - most likely rape that will make the violence begin. Muslims lost the ability to take the high ground due their response to the Australian Mufti (Hilali) issue. The idea of gang rapes makes people afraid - as does terrorism. You mark my words - if the Muslims don't get a handle on this QUICKLY - and they probably won't, then the pitchforks and torches will come out. They were talking in another thread about not allowing people to celebrate Christmas creating hard feelings - but that is only a very small part of it. Crime, rape and terrorism all increase wherever they are. Why would anyone want them as a neighbor?
from the comments on this article:
And then we have the evidence from the rest of the world on the way Muslim males prey on females - Pakistan, where some 80% of the women in jail are there because they reported being raped but were unable to produce the required four male witnesses of good character (an impossible requirement - what men of good character would witness a rape occurring and not intervene?
As he says, this could be sorted out of the authorities were to release the data. Lacking that roundabout methods like this are the best that can be done.
The fellow is probably correct in assuming that sex offenses are disproportionately perpetrated by Muslims, but so also are many other crimes. I think the general crime level would track sex crimes closely.
He should also check vs the black population of his boroughs. I bet the correlations there are also very strong; he could also run correlation by income level and he would also get a strong positive. This is no fluke; Muslims and blacks in Britain tend to be poor and live in areas with that are undesirable. Extracting cause and consequence here (as per "West Side Story", are they depraved on account of they are deprived or are they deprived because they are depraved ?) is impossible.
These populations (black, poor, Muslim) make up the British underclass. I understand that the British prison population is disproportionately black and Muslim.
Consider yourselves lucky its not the historical Sir Henry Morgan whose emnity you have earned. He didnt understand the concept of mercy towards his enemies. When he did a hatchet-job he did it physically and an impressive job he made of it too.
Former Defense Secretary William Cohen interviewed in the Times of London, gives his opinion on many things, including Secretary Rumsfeld's near future and the likely accomplishments of his successor.
William Cohen as defense secretary to Bill Clinton was somewhat unique, a Republican serving in a sensitive cabinet post in a Democrat administration. After 31 years in public life, Cohen is now the chairman of the Cohen Group representing top level companies in the US, Europe, Australia, China and now India.
But his government background is never far away, so he has emerged as one of the key advocates of the US-India civil nuclear agreement. Here in a chat with The Times of India's diplomatic editor, he gives an insider's view of what could happen on Capitol Hill over the next few weeks, the chances for the nuclear deal and what would it mean if the deal failed.
Q: Talking of looking to the past, does former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld now look forward to months of testifying at investigation committees?
A: I doubt it. With his departure, there is little interest in going back to investigating where the mistakes were. Its pretty well known, books are coming out by the carload saying what the mistakes were in Iraq. I don't think much new would come out of an investigation. Its always helpful to have lessons learnt. That's always a good exercise. But to start Rumsfeld on testimonies... I don't think so. Going after Rumsfeld is not a good idea and I would not advise it. Its also not good for the country.
Q: You know the new defense secretary Bob Gates. What's your opinion of him?
A: I know him well. We worked closely when I was vice chairman of the intelligence committee. We worked hard to see him confirmed on the second posting. First time, he withdrew his name when he was originally posted for the directorship (of CIA). This was during Bush41. There were questions about the Iran-Contra affair and whether or not intelligence had been "politicized". Rather than go through the process, he said he didn't want to be source of controversy. He became deputy national security adviser. Then Bush again nominated him and we confirmed him.
Bob Gates is a very capable man. He's capable of dealing with a large bureaucracy of which the Pentagon is the largest in terms of being the largest agency in the country.
He's very knowledgeable. His agenda will also be very limited. In two years, he cannot have a whole list of here's-what-I-want-done stuff, say, in terms of transformation, which has been under way. It has been under way with Bill Perry, my predecessor, I continued it, Secretary Rumsfeld tried to accelerate it. Bob Gates will have that momentum. But he's got to progress on Iraq, Iran, North Korea, those are the big issues he has to contend with.
He has to look at how we can reconstitute the military force structure given the constraints on the budget, given that we're spending so much on Iraq $ 80-90 billion dollars just in supplementals. That's putting a tremendous strain on resources. He's going to have several big issues to contend with in a very short period of time. Much more at link.
Whoops -- that's the Times of India, of course, as anyone who so much as hovered their curser over the headline noticed. Easily confused though, after all both speak a kind of English, and both have Times in the name. Sorry!
. . . Both realism and progressivism have become misnomers. Realists deny reality, and embrace an ideology where talk is productive and governments are sincere. While 9/11 showed the consequences of chardonnay diplomacy, deal-cutting with dictators and a band-aid approach to national security, realists continue to discount the importance of adversaries' ideologies and the need for long-term strategies. And by embracing such realism, progressives sacrifice their core liberalism. Both may celebrate Mr. Rumsfeld's departure and the Baker-Hamilton recommendations, but at some point, it is fair to ask what are the lessons of history and what is the cost of abandoning principle.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
11/13/2006 6:33 Comments ||
but at some point, it is fair to ask what are the lessons of history and what is the cost of abandoning principle.
I'd agree with him, but I have ask, What principles do the progessives have, Mr. Rubin? Maybe they had some, years and years ago. But I'm being very honest when I say that other than anti-Americanism and hatred of conservatives, evangelicals and "zionists", I'm not sure what their principals are.
Magister has stated often in other LCC-related posts that the articles in the publication require approval by the Vatican's Secretary of State. That doesn't necessarily mean, I would think, endorsement of the opinions.
My take is that this editorial demonstrates the importance the Holy See has placed in the upcoming trip to Turkey. No chances are being taken to roil the waters more than they have been in the last two months. There have been unusually warm and cordial discussion taking places between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, and this trip has all the hallmarks of a summit meeting.
November 9, 2006: One of the immediate things known in the wake of the American November elections is that the media strategy employed by al Qaeda has succeeded. Having failed to disrupt three elections in Iraq, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups fought to hang in there, and shifted their aim to American newsrooms.
It was a logical choice. In 1968, the Tet Offensive led many in the media to believe that the war in Vietnam was failing. The most famous pronouncement was Walter Cronkite's declaration that the war was a stalemate. Lost in the media defeatism was the fact that American and South Vietnamese troops won the battle, and had delivered a crippling blow to the Viet Cong. Similarly, in 1993, American forces won a firefight with Somalian militias under warlord Mohammed Farrah Aidid but CNN footage of American casualties being dragged through the street led to a perception of defeat.
In this case, al Qaeda exploited what was already an inherent opposition to the war. Some mainstream media outlets had opposed the war from the start. The failure to immediately find weapons of mass destruction added to the media's growing doubts. As long as al Qaeda detonated IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan, they could increase the perception of a quagmire. By getting the media to focus on the IED-of-the-day, al Qaeda was able to bury the good news (like the training of the Iraqi Army and reconstruction efforts), and was able to weather the loss of senior leaders like Abu Musab al Zarqawi.
The other factor going for them was the fact that members of the mainstream media generally were not sympathetic to the U.S. government. In the last year, media outlets revealed several intelligence programs often spinning them in a manner that put the intelligence community and the military in a bad light. A reporter for Time magazine, who embedded with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, had his article completely rewritten by editors who felt his portrayal of American troops was too positive. The media did not even admit that documents, recovered during the liberation of Iraq, showing Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons, until it could be spun in a manner that made the Department of Defense look bad. The media even started to refuse to publish letters from Department of Defense officials which challenged misreporting on the war. Heroes like Paul Ray Smith, who was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously, were studiously ignored.
Now, the stage is set for al Qaeda to win a major victory. It was a simple matter of getting the American media to ignore the battlefield victories while accentuating al Qaeda's attacks. What could not be accomplished on the battlefield an American retreat from Iraq was instead achieved in American newsrooms.
EFL - read the whole thing, it's excellent. This guy really gets it.
No linky, gromky.
1000 CST: link fixed per Bobby. C'mon guys, provide links. AoS.
1. War involves battles. Wrong! Most of the "armies" in the world right now avoid battle and focus on killing civilians. This is the hardest thing for Americans to understand: armies that don't aim at victory and actually avoid battle.
2. You win by killing the enemy. Wrong, wrong, wrong. In this kind of war the enemy wants you to kill a lot of people. A lot of irregular warfare groups start their campaigns with a suicide raid, where they expect to be slaughtered.
3. Hi-tech beats lo-tech. Not lately it doesn't. Here again it's a matter of you hardware freaks facing hard facts. If we take Iraq 2003 as a familiar and painful example, you saw a classic outcome: our hi-tech beat their wanna-be hi-tech in the conventional battles. Then we started getting picked off by low-tech ambushes where the insurgents used homemade IEDs in combination with old, rugged Soviet weapons like the RPG-7 and Kalashnikov.
4. "Overwhelming force! Hit the insurgents hard enough, and they'll quit." Wrong. Americans are pretty well anti-death, but lots of other tribes are in love with the idea of the martyrdom thing.
5. People want democracy and peace and all that kind of stuff. No. In fact, HELL no! Look around the world and you'll see that people are divided into ethnic gangs, like the planet's one big San Quentin. All they want is for their gang to win. Half the population of Mogadishu turned on our guys who were trying to provide aid for the starving. They didn't want peace, democracy or any of that shit. They wanted their clan to win and the other clans to lose. And if stopping the aid convoys from getting food to those enemy clans was the only way to win, they were ready to make it happen. It's worth giving a moment to let that sink in: these people fought to the death against overwhelmingly superior US forces, because they wanted their clan to win by starving rival clans to death.
He's either preaching surrender or total all-out genocidal scorched-earth war. I think I know which...
Terrible, isn't it? Just terrible. What about our souls? What about our values? What about our sense of self and community - and all that rot that makes us special, makes us "us"? Well, only the folks with our life experiences and influences have a clue to what we're babbling on about - they have their own set of "holies" to get hinky about... effectively, then, they're all moot and, gulp, pointless as negotiating positions.
I empathize with those who freak out about this - and simply refuse to surrender their comfortable world-view - indeed, it's about as ugly as it gets. Anyone who knows how the island-hopping campaign in the Pacific was actually won - understands that point, for example.
Terrible? Indeed it is. Just like Sherman said. But better than the alternative, methinks.
It's War Nerd at www.exile.ru. He doesn't get into the hard part - what a winning strategy is. Other than "hearts and minds", which I'm not sure I've ever believed. (Can somebody give me an example of where "hearts and minds" worked?)
(Can somebody give me an example of where "hearts and minds" worked?)
I believe Vlad the Impaler had a pretty good "hearts and minds" strategy. He'd rip out hearts and drive spikes through minds.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
11/13/2006 9:37 Comments ||
that was enlightening to me. I bookmarked it. Nothing I didn't already know, but certainly made the picture clear in a way it wasn't before.
KISS - simple and dead on.
I still maintain that Christianity combined with Roman "Democracy" tempered the tribal aspect of human nature into what makes our society so peaceful today. For at least the last 1000 years, the concepts of tolerance and forgiveness were drilled into our Western heads at least once a week and allowed us to see the mutual benefits of tempering that gung-ho, to hell with them, tribal nature which non-Christians can think of as counting to 10 before we act and "letting it go".
He did not cover the result of scorched earth, where the following generations no longer have the will to fight (Europe). So, if we are having problems with Paki tribes, we pound them senseless, and their desire for war melts away.
No victory, no occupation, no followup relief, just breaking things ad nauseum, and assuring that everyone loses at least 3 friends, lovers, or kin. In Europe's case, that cycle was repeated 25 years later to a greater degree. Now, they desire peace at any cost. Asymmetrical Peace.
If we were to totally flame one bunch of troublesome bastards, others might think twice about giving us a hard time. As it is, all you have to do is spout a bunch of big talk on CNN and play a waiting game. When we get tired and walk away, they claim they won and drove us out. We need to start doing things a little differently.
This is the hardest thing for Americans to understand: armies that don't aim at victory
Wrong. Politicians who direct armies do not aim for victory. Armies do in fact know how to break and kill things. It is the leash in the hands of their civilian leaders that restrains them. You think that for all those decades with the missiles on standby that most of the boys wouldn't push the button if the command came down?
Someone want to point out a Carthaginian to the dude?
Procopius, you're misunderstanding the point of the piece. That bit you quoted isn't talking about the US (or Israeli) military, but rather the jihadis the terror masters. They're not interested in a military victory; a loss followed by chaos they can pump with random violence serves them just as well.
And it's easier.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
11/13/2006 12:33 Comments ||
He's actually dead wrong on this in many ways. I've been there and seen it. This guy obviopusly is armchair material.
Major battles ARE part of war. I challenge him to look at Fallujah and tell me it wasnt a battle, what an idiot. Simialr things have been done in fixed piece battles in many small towns along the rat-lines by the Marines, but they havent made the press nor have the penetrated this poor ignorant soul's head.
Hi-tech does beat low tech. Ask the bomb makers who have been ferreted out by electronic Intel, the bomb layers who have been demolished by night vision and predators, etc. Their reverting to a "string" to detonate the IEDs gets them killed, quickly. And thats if they can even get away with laying it. Locals are tipping off traps liek that, and obervation drones have been picking up them laying the traps. Recall the 3 guys trying to lay an IED that got introduced to a 500lb bomb here in viedo just a few days ago. US casualties went up in October, but the muj took HUGE losses.
And the RPG in an ambush as not been successful at all (what a stupid point to use)- our high tech guys analyzed it, produced a solution to it, then got that into production and distribution very quickly for the Strykers and other vulnerable vehicles.
You do win by killing the enemy. The author has this confused with killing everyone around the enemy, what a moron. Again, the IEDs are having less and less of an effect on US forces because we have managed to hunt down and kill the bomb makers faster than they can train good ones. That's why you are seeing an uptick in suicide bombs aimed at Iraqis instead of US forces. THEY are the ones killing indiscriminately and that will cause them to lose the locals who will turn them over. Happened again and again in Iraq already. And they cannot sustain that sort of thing. Look to Malaysia and the Brits way of handling it for similar situations.
Overwhelming force DOES work. Every time US has upped our troop levels, violence goes DOWN. EVERY TIME. Look at Fallujah - we went in there and kicked the crap out of them. After that it was very peaceful. We left, and it gets nasty. Same for Ramadi, etc. Sooner or later the tribes run out of martyrs when they see its futile. Sheesh how much of an idiot can that author be?
The only place he is anywhere near the mark is #5. Democracy needs to be developed in countries where it has never had roots. You have to break the clans, and that's not easy, but its doable.
That guy and his backers are so dead wrong - stop with the blood lust and engage your brains.
The one area where I could peripherally agree is that we need to involve their leadership and financiers. That means wet work in some places away from the battlefield. They need to have as much on the line as do thier stooges.
Once thats the policy, the terrorism will drop to a lower intensity fairly quickly. Finance and leadership are hard to replace.
And, all the while we are fighting the war as OldSpook points out, we could have our own teams planting IEDs around town to copy their tactics.
The problem with this tribal lunacy is that it may well be a lose/lose situation, after we break free of PC warfare.
OS: I agree with you that given a specific situation I would prefer to be on the US side of things. But at the end of the day, if the US backs down, I would whole-heartedly support the idea that the US lost and the terrorists won. They'll go about their business without interference, rearm, subjugate the population, and brainwash them into developing nukes for use on US soil. Which is what I think this guy is getting at. The ME terrorists are farther-sighted and are after the will of the shortest-sighted 51% of the American people, and are willing to sacrifice as many of their own human shields as it takes as long as those shields don't turn on them. Tribal thugs are shorter-sighted and are willing to accept hideous losses as long as in the end everyone around them is beaten down and they end up on top of the remaining pile of $hit. They aren't a problem after that except they are now fertile for extremism. Which could be a problem for the US further down the road. The US didn't get what they wanted, the thugs did, and the extremists can now move in. I would call this conflict a loss, too.
Unless the US actually grows a pair and goes after these guys big-time. Which I am beginning to doubt.
So I guess it really boils down to this: Is the US going to figure this out and deal with it before nukes proliferate? Will the US start employing the hard tactics that it will take to do this before it gets out of hand? Or will we wuss-out like this author is warning against, buying short-term quiet and long-term dark ages?
My take is that the US electorate will never figure this out, even if some of them are nuked. They will only get concerned when their electricity is off, there's no gasoline available at any price, and food deliveries to their area have been cut off. Then they will blame whoever's in charge at the time.
Although there are many battles in Iraq, the enemy is not trying to defeat us head on, they believe they don't have to. They looked at our history and understand or believe they just need to make the price of victory so high our government will not be willing to pay, just like Viet-Nam. Take note their joy of the Dems elected into office. They are fighting to fight, not to win on the battlefield. In the end they believe victory will come not from battle but from our lack of will. This is straight up insurgent war. Nothing new in history and the only thing really Asymmetrical is our, read MSM and political, misunderstanding as a nation of COGs both enemy and friendly.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/13/2006 15:02 Comments ||
The one area where I could peripherally agree is that we need to involve their leadership and financiers. That means wet work in some places away from the battlefield. They need to have as much on the line as do thier stooges.
If there is going to be one cost-effective solution in the War on Terror, this is it. "Hearts & minds" most definitely does not work. "Short & curlies" is the only way to go.
Wet work hunter-killer teams must begin the summary execution of Islam's major players. Saudi financiers, Pakistan's madrassah heads and a whole roster of jihadist clerics:
Just snuffing this dozen jihadist clerics would put a huge dent in terrorism. These are the connected ones. They are the eloquent and persuasive speakers. They have the credibility. They have the command structure. Strip out these key operatives and you've crippled a lot of the major impetus of terrorism.
An obvious side-benefit of this is that all other players would suddenly become a lot more circumspect about mouthing off. Especially so if we could arrange for these takedowns to be in front of huge crowds. This would cause a significant demoralizing effect when thousands of Muslims see their leadership rendered both highly vulnerable and exceedingly dead.
Hey OldSpook, let me rephrase the author "You don't defeat Arabs by beating them in battle, cause people been beating them in battles for 4000 years."
In fact, you cannot defeat them at all---it's like dealing with ants in your house, you just have to fumigate periodically.
Very interesting and fairly accurate observations.
It seems that if we finally reach the conclusion that president Bush cannot terminate the Nuclearization of Iran at the expense of an (imaginary IMHO) US-arab coalition, we may have to initiate some kind of attack on Iran, irrespective of the political and military price to the State of Israel.
I think that one very keen observation in the article is that the American people cannot really fully understand the deapth of the Israely fear of a "second holocust" (i.e a single nuclear device going off over Tel Aviv).
Even if someone succeeds in negotiating an agreement or an understanding with a nuclearized Iran, we all know how credible are arab or islamic promises or agreements.
While America will survive the nuclear devastation of New York or Chicago, Israel will not survive a nuked Tel Aviv.
Therefore, If Bush cannot or does not want to act decisively on the Iran, Israel will have to do so independently within the next couple of years, at the risk of going against American inteterests (or at least what the State Department BigWigs think is the American interests).
We will have to do it with a heavy heart but we will neverthless do it because it is necessary to our survival.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
11/13/2006 6:28 Comments ||
Elder of Zion: I hope you realize how many of us pray for Israel to defend itself. It is a source of personal shame to me that Canada does not send arms, men and money to stand beside you. Israel may be all that stands between us and the coming darkness.
Israel has a trump card in the US. That is, with its 200 or so nuclear weapons, Israel could obliterate most of the Moslem world. And yet their foolish enemy do not truly grasp this finality, and seek to challenge them. It is irrational.
However, the US sees the reason of what the Israelis threaten, and can see that they mean it, and can enforce it. An alternative horrifying to the US.
So to prevent this threat from becoming reality, the US must stand up and act conventionally against the irrational, as a ironic proxy for Israel.
But it is not involuntary, or in any way coerced. It truly is something that cannot be ignored by the US. And though Israel benefits, it is far from the only beneficiary.
But Israel, at the same time, is also very wrong in not creating circumstances that will eventually end this contention. It is like living in the same room as a violently mentally ill person. You must guarantee that they take their medicine and behave, or you have to kill them; or eventually they will kill you. There is no choice of "live and let live", or "you stay on your half of the room, and I'll stay on mine."
Those are agreements between the sane. They have no meaning when one of the parties is insane, or irrational.
So again, this is why I say the Israelis must confiscate, permanently, land, each and every time the Paleos commit acts of violence. And they must be crystal clear that this land will never, ever be returned. It not may be for Israeli use, but it shall never again be for Paleo use.
In this way, though it take another 50 years, either the Paleos will give up their violence, or they will be kicked out of the country.
Would that Iran could be dealt with so conclusively.
The number of people who would be upset if Israel defended itself equal the number of people who listened to Air America and thought it was just great! That's not enough to float a radio station in any major city nationwide.
What changed? We lost the election by a small margin. Don't listen to the media or read Kos to find out what Americans think. This is a big country. We would be happy to see you pull a David.
oh, and one last thing you should know about our "lefties". You know how they always talk about how much the care(TM) about the soldiers and the poor and the hungry. Well, they don't. The proof of this is their demand to pull out of Iraq for political revenge. It is more important to them to gloat in victory than to worry about the the lives of millions of Iraqis. Many others just don't know, don't care, and haven't been paying attention.
They just want someone to wave their magic wand and make the bad man go away. If you do it, they will be shocked!, Shocked! But in the end, they really don't care unless it affects them personally.
Christopher Monckton created considerable controversy last week with his article questioning the science that claims human activity is responsible for climate change. Now he challenges the economic assumptions of the Stern report See link.
Not to be cynical (which means that I am about to be cynical and know that it is annoying) - but what difference does it make? Global Warming never was about science anymore than snake oil was ever about baldness, weight loss or impotence.
It is about selling a lie and about making sure that no matter what channel you are on - you can blame the Republicans. Even the weather is George Bush's fault - don'tcha see. (Oh... and send money to my global warming foundation or your house will be flooded in 40 days.) Sports will be next - they just haven't figured out how to do that yet.
The only clue that many of the lazy folks have is that when the storyline changes in some important fundamental way, like the slapstick shift from global warming to cooling to warming to cooling - and finally to "change" (lol), they notice that the meme's baseline premise remains the same, completely above the fray, so to speak, despite the evolving "facts".
Of course it's puredee entertainment to those who are actually reading, following, and researching to try to figure it out for themselves. The CogDis on this one was equivalent to serious whiplash, lol.
The "hudna" that Muslims make with non-Muslims can never be more than temporary, and is entered into only because the Muslim side feels it is too weak to conduct open warfare, and would benefit from a respite from open hostilities. Alternatively, a Muslim polity may enter into a hudna with non-Muslims if it has a reasonable expectation that those non-Muslims will soon adopt Islam.
If the hudna is undertaken in order to give the Muslims time to gather their strength, then the Muslim side is then not merely allowed, but required, whenever it feels strong enough, to re-engage in open hostilities. And of course all during the period of the "hudna" it may conduct whatever operations not involving combat that it is capable of, including economic boycotts, diplomatic offensives, and suchlike -- which is exactly what all Muslim states do engage in to weaken Israel, whether or not they are still in an official state of war, or have signed, as have Egypt and Jordan, so-called "peace treaties."
This is not imagined. This is not a fabrication. This can be found by looking in any text of Muslim Law of War and Peace. It can be found, for example, by looking at Majid Khadduri's authoritative text War and Peace in Islam. Fouad Ajami is the "Majid Khadduri Professor." Yet Fouad Ajami has perhaps never understood, never cared to investigate, the Law of War and Peace in Islam about which Majid Khadduri (and a thousand others) wrote.
Why not? Why doesn't the very fluent, and mediagenic, Fouad Ajami, recipient of Bradley Foundation prize money and a dozen other similar emoluments, who can appear whenever he wants in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, or on the Charlie Rose show, discuss -- openly, soberly -- the Muslim law governing all agreements and treaties with Infidels? Why doesn't he simply quote Majid Khadduri, and explain that, as with so much in Islam, the relevant and governing model for such treaties is that made by Muhammad with the Meccans in 628 A.D., that agreement known by the name of the place where Muhammad and his followers stopped -- the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya?
Why doesnt Ajami do that? Why doesnt someone -- anyone -- in the entire American government bring all this to the attention of those who have spent their lives so fruitlessly trying to engage in this "peace process" (unless they were indifferent or even hostile to Israel, as Brzezinski and Carter and William Odom and Scowcroft and James Baker all so clearly were and are)? This peace process has led finally to its current version, the Two-State Solution. And as I never tire of saying, it must be a solution because otherwise they wouldn't have called it a solution, now would they? And this is the result after Kissinger Plans, and Rogers Plans, and silly Dennis Ross to-ing and fro-ing, and Clinton having Arafat as his most frequent foreign guest, and after the "Camp David Accords" that had Israel giving up tangibles -- territory, infrastructure, oil fields, airbases, strategic depth -- in return for promises almost immediately broken.
Follow the link to the rest of this article. Its a good one to present to those who refuse to see...
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.