Late last year, at the invitation of Nato, and in the company of a small band of globetrotting pundits, I travelled to Afghanistan to witness first-hand the allied operation to reconstruct the benighted country.
After a day of briefings in Kabul, our friendly Nato hosts flew us by military transport to Herat, on the western border with Iran. We were due to spend a day touring a Nato post in the city and then fly back that evening to the capital. But the Danish plane that had taken us developed propeller problems and was grounded. As we cooled our heels outside the airfield , we waited for word of the aircraft that was supposed to come for us: a German C-130.
It soon became clear that the replacement plane was not coming. The reason, it turned out, was that the Germans would not fly in the dark. German aircraft are not permitted by their national rules to undertake night flights.
Now to those who survived the Blitz and Barbarossa, the news that todays Luftwaffe will not fly at night in potentially hostile environments might be regarded as a welcome historical development. But when you are trying to fight a war against a ruthless band of terrorists who operate 24/7, never pausing to consider the dangers of venturing out in the dark, limiting yourself to daytime operations is a little constraining.
The Germans are not alone. Many of the European nations with forces in Afghanistan are operating under similarly ludicrous restrictions. Though their soldiers and airmen are highly capable and indeed eager to take the fight to the Taleban, their governments are desperately fearful of the public reaction should their soldiers suffer significant casualties. They dont think that their voters will stomach it. And the tragedy is, they are probably right.
I was reminded of my unscheduled night in Herat, and what it said about Europes dwindling commitment to its own survival, by a series of disheartening developments in the past week on the political and diplomatic front.
Last week we had the tragicomic spectacle of European Nato countries lining up to decline politely the request to beef up their forces in Afghanistan, many of whom are now fighting in perilously under-resourced conditions against a resurgent enemy.
Then on Monday Jacques Chirac went to New York to upend the long, delicate diplomacy designed to deny Iran nuclear weapons. He said France no longer thought the UN should impose sanctions if Iran did not end its uranium enrichment programme.
Various explanations were offered by commentators for this volte-face from the thought that France might be fearful of the economic consequences of sanctions, to the possibility that M Chirac was trying to curry favour with sanctions-opposing Russia and China, to the suggestion that Paris worries that its new peacekeeping force in Lebanon might come under fire from Hezbollah if France acted tough with its Iranian sponsors.
Whatever the proximate cause of this latest French surrender, the basic reality is that Europeans have been extremely reluctant to press Iran with sanctions all along the same noises are coming out of Berlin now and are content instead to acquiesce in the nightmare of a nuclear-armed Tehran.
Then, of course, we have had the predictable European outrage following the latest apparent provocation of Islamic extremists by free speech in the West Pope Benedict XVIs remarks last week on Islam.
I actually heard a senior member of the British Government chide the Pope this week for what he described as his unhelpful comments. This minister went on to say that the Pope should keep quiet about Islamic violence because of the Crusades.
It was a jaw-dropping observation. If it was meant seriously its import is that, because of violence perpetrated in the name of Christ 900 years ago, todays Church, and presumably todays European governments (who, after all, were eager participants in the Crusades) should forever hold their peace on the subject of religious fanaticism. In this view the Churchs repeated apologies for the sins committed in its name apparently are not enough. The Pope has no right, even in a lengthy disquisition on the complexities of faith and reason, to say anything about the religious role in Islamic terrorism.
It is apt that Pope Benedict should have received such European opprobrium for his remarks. His election last year looked like a final attempt by the Church to revive the European spirit in the face of accelerating secularisation and cultural morbidity.
But the scale of Europes moral crisis is larger than ever. Opposing the war in Iraq was one thing, defensible in the light of events. But opting out of a serious fight against the Taleban, sabotaging efforts to get Iran off its path towards nuclear status, pre-emptively cringing to Muslim intolerance of free speech and criticism, all suggest something quite different.
They imply a slow but insistent collapse of the European will, the steady attrition of the self-preservation instinct. Its effects can be seen not only in the political field, but in other ways the startling decline of birth rates across the continent that represent a sort of self-inflicted genocide; the refusal to confront the harsh realities of a global economy.
It may well be that history will judge that Europes decline came at the very moment of its apparent triumph. The traumas of the first half of the 20th century have combined with the economic successes of the second half to induce a collective loss of will. Great civilisations die not in the end because of external force majeure but because internally the will to thrive is sapped.
The symptoms of this moral collapse may be far away from the affluent and still largely peaceful cities and towns of the old continent in the mountains of Afghanistan, the diplomatic reception halls of Tehran and the angry Pope-effigy-burning streets of the Middle East. But there should be no doubt that it is closer to home where the disease has taken hold.
#1
No amount of appeasement or placating of 7th century barbarian rabble is going to prevent Europes reckoning. They seem content to watch over their own impending slaughter.
#2
The problem Mike is that Poland is in Europe. They have literally been in the fight. They have been there along side of us. They hear the Pope.
Unlike the French and British in 1939*, I wouldn't be happy letting them hang with the rest.
* For those who want to point out that geographically the British and France couldn't stop the Polish offensive, note well, the Germans striped the Western defenses to throw as much as possible against the Poles. The 'allies' elected to sit on their asses and really do nothing. It was called a 'phony war' for a reason. Had the allies made a serious effort at that point, the Germans, as in 1914, would have had to shift serious manpower out of the Polish campaign or forfeit land west of the Rhine. As it was, the Poles inflicted more casualties on the Germans than the French would do in 1940.**
** And as expected European comments about America's participation, let me point out the whining and moaning from Europe today complaining about being dragged into America's conflicts with little or no say. It applies in reverse to America being dragged into Europeans ones twice in the 20th Century.
#3
You have a point TC. The Poles have always managed to be plucky and unfortunate at the same time. Perhaps my comment should have referenced Western Europe, because it was primarily aimed at France, Spain, Germany, the Low countries, etc.
But my sentiment remains the same, if they want to roll over, screw them - I won't.
#4
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan press release for October 1, 1939: "The UN deplores the recent violence in Poland but hopes that the situation there will return to peace and that Germany and the USSR will treat the population with decency. We commend Britain and France for seeking peaceful alternatives to attack and wish that the quiet established over the Franco-German border will continue."
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/22/2006 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#5
It is, indeed, a pathetic spectacle to watch. Hopefully, the US will observe the unfolding catastrophe in time to prevent the same here. Once Iran has a weapon and a dependable missile, I have no doubt they will order the EU to surrender all nukes. Then, they will demand complete submission to sharia over the entire continent. When you look back in a historical perspective these types of events are difficult to fathom. When you are living through them, they are even more mystifying.
#6
SOP35/Rat, I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I have to remind myself what planet I'm on. I've been thinking that the reason we are eager about the future is that we love life and crave the everyday enjoyment of being alive. Possibly, Europeans are no longer pleased with their lives and they are in decline simply because they have lost their will to face tomorrow. They have no more joy, no more pride, no more mountains to climb.
#7
...todays European governments (who, after all, were eager participants in the Crusades)...
Hmmm, apparently the time machine has been perfected. Why wasn't I informed?
Anyone see the movie Final Countdown? Do you remember the F-14s vs. Zeros scene? Wasn't that cool? What would happen if a modern European warship was transported to the time of the Crusades? Would they join up? And on whose side?
"The events of September 11, 2001 were a wake-up call.
Not just to Americans but to all people in free and democratic nations." Prime Minister Stephen Harper, May 17, 2006.
Has it been five years?
The surreal September morning can't be that long ago?
To put it in perspective, the children who were in their second week of Grade 8 when the towers came down will be partying this weekend as part of university Frosh Week festivities.
Although where they were on the morning of 9/11 is clearly etched on everyone's minds, it has become a distant memory for many.
While the prime minister calls 9/11 a wake-up call it seems many have hit the snooze button.
The World Trade Centre may have come crashing down, but either by ignorance or denial many either wish or believe that Canada is living in a pre-9/11 world.
#1
What utter bullshit of an article. Whoever wrote this has his head stuck in the sand (the pic is appropriate, but for other unintended reasons). Great job at fear-mongering, but dude, the election is in the states, not here!
Posted by: Rafael ||
09/22/2006 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
Greg Pollowitz, "Sixers" blog, National Review Online
For close to six years now, the left in this country (except for a few weeks around 9/11) has done everything possible to discredit President Bush. From statements that Florida was stolen to the present day attacks that President Bush lied us into a war with Iraq to steal their oil. These statements have ramifications. One of those ramifications came to a head with Chavez's address to the UN yesterday.
Charlie Rangel's comments on the Chavez speech seem to have been generated during Chavez's trip the next day to Harlem. Why was Hugo Chavez in Harlem yesterday anyway? The answer is he was there to promote Venezuela's donation of heating oil to NYC. A program that Charlie Rangel, in my post yesterday, was widely in favor of. . . .
Why is NYC taking the oil in the first place? Republicans and Democrats in Maine have come together and have said no to Chavez's donations. Why are Democrats in NY not doing the same thing? Hillary, Chuck, Eliot, Charlie and the rest are releasing statements on how awful Chavez's statement was, but will continue to take the donations. Memo to a certain GOP hopeful sitting in Albany right now: SEND THE OIL BACK. Make Democrats defend the oil donations from the man all of America has seen exposed as the two bit dictator he really is. . . .
These propaganda stunts are no different today than they were years ago when done by the Soviet Union. Hugo Chavez has been a darling of the left in this country for years, but now Democrats are in the uncomfortable position of distancing themselves from what is in effect a creation of Democratic anger toward President Bush.
Rangel's soundbites are getting a lot of play in the media and they're strong soundbites, I'll admit. But here's part of the written statment Rangel released yesterday:
I feel that I must speak out now since the Venezuelan government has been instrumental in providing oil at discounted prices to people in low income communities who have suffered increases in rent as heating oil prices have risen sharply. By offering this benefit to people in need, Venezuela has won many friends in poor communities of New York and other states. I am surprised that American oil companies have not stepped up to provide that kind of assistance to the poor.
To paraphrase Rangel, "Keep giving me the oil, as it makes Bush and big oil look bad, but stop with the silly statements."
Democrats are afraid right now. Bush's poll numbers are going up and the latest generic ballot has it tied. Something has changed in the country where, I think, voters have had about enough "bash Bush" that they're going to take. I think Rangel knows this and this faux outrage is the defense that Democrats are putting up against further voter anger against their attacks on the President.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/22/2006 12:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Demo's have a problem when third world dictators start using your talking points and the majority of Americans see it on tv. :)
When is this open season on Islam and Muslims going to end? Not anytime soon; any astute observer of international politics can see that.
The faith is vilified because it serves the needs of so many important actors on the international scene. Way to dodge responsibility Akmed.
First, to a large number of conservative Americans and, by extension, the Bush administration, Islam has come to represent a threat more potent than communism. Ah Hell, the answer is obvious to me. Stop blowing stuff up, chopping heads, and acting like a spoiled 4 year old having a temper tantrum everytime some one from the civilized world points out one of your numerous faults. More whining at link.
Posted by: kelly ||
09/22/2006 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If they think Bush with all his religion of Peace and Great Religion talk is villifying Islam they are (a) not paying attention (b) impossible to satisfy short of having us submit.
The real question is when is open season on Islam going to start. I say after the next 9/11 scale attack.
#5
I agree: "Stop blowing stuff up, chopping heads, and acting like a spoiled 4 year old having a temper tantrum everytime some one from the civilized world points out one of your numerous faults."
This is a PLANNED operation aimed at demoralizing the West. They've been studying us for years, and know that fairness and niceness, and virtue is really important to Americans and Europeans. THAT'S why they're pumping the "poor us, you guys are meanies" message 24/7.
Truth is the only antidote.
Too bad the MSM has taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker. Hard to get the other side.
#9
Wait ! Stop the train. Did I miss this ? I've been waiting for a declaration of open season on Muzzies. When did this occur ? Can we drop any we spot ?
#11
In the past few nights jokes about baseless Muslim seething were made by Jay Leno, John Stewart and likely several others who headline the late-night talk shows from which apparently a great many Americans get all their news. I'd say this seether and his fellow taqqiya artists are knee deep in trouble, and getting deeper by the day.
#12
Right now, GWB is about the best friend Islam has got. If things keep going the way they are, they're gonna look back on these as the good old days.
#17
Ya' know...tu3031 really has a point there, but I unfortunately believe it's better worded as,
When we stop liking being slapped in the face by you and everybody else and wake up, then you'll freakin' know what an open season on Islam really is!
These foolish people tend to forget how many armed citizens there really are in this country.
They think our media with their shots of New York and San Francisco and Miami and LA are really showing what it's like in an inner city or in the southland or the Bible belt. I really do think they haven't got a friggin' clue about how mad Americans can get and what an American militia force might be capable of (or even few armed civilians) if these idiots ever started something here - they probably wouldn't last a day in southeast Ohio where I grew up let alone in downtown LA)!
One of the more interesting developments in the post cold war world has been the endless comedy engendered by various thugs, hypocrites, dirty necked galoots, and bloodthirsty tyrants who have been thrown up by mobs, mullahs, and militaries across the world since the wall fell.
The entertainment value in watching the rank anti-Americanism, the twisting of history, the deliberate lies and exaggerated rhetoric has been immense better than the first episode of Survivor anyway. And in their own ways, Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have shown that each have missed their calling in life. Instead of being brutal tyrants oppressing the masses of their people, they very well could have been paired up to star in their very own sit-com. Or better yet, how about The Hugo and Mahmoud Comedy Hour?
The physical contrast is funny enough; Chavez big, beefy, goat face ugly with a personality that seethes below the surface, ready to erupt at a moments notice. And Ahmadinejad small, slight, elfish with that mischevious Leave it to Beaver smile as if to say Dont turn your back on me or Ill drop a nuke in your soup!
Wall Street Journal Edited to get to the money quotes.
America has seen this before, seen Krushchev bang his shoe on the table and say "We will bury you." We grew up watching our flag being burned on TV. So it's tempting to think this is part of a meaningless continuum.
But the temperature of the world is very high, and maybe we're not stuck in a continuum but barreling down a dark corridor. The problem with heated words now is that it's not the old world anymore. In the old world, incompetent governments dragged cannons through the mud to set up a ragged front. Now every nut and nation wants, has or is trying to develop nukes.
Harsh words inspire the unstable.
Coolants are needed. Here is an idea. Don't try to ignore Chavez, answer him. With the humility that comes with deep confidence, with facts, and with some humor, too.
There is an opportunity for the Democratic Party. Some Democrats responded with spirited indignation the day after Chavez spoke. It was rousing. But Chavez's charges were grave, and he claimed America's abuses could be tracked back a century. If the Democrats seek to speak for America, why not start with a serious and textured response, one that isn't a political blast-back but a high-minded putting forward of facts? This would take guts, and farsightedness. Rebutting a wild-eyed man who says you can find redemption reading Noam Chomsky is a little too much like rebutting a part of your base.
Which is why Rangel and Pelosi are being villified as traitors to the cause on the Angry Left websites even as we speak. Sad to say, but even most of the grownups in the Dem party (and there are some)are afraid of the moonbats and of Soros' millions.
As for the administration, it is so in the habit of asserting, defending and repeating, it barely remembers how to persuade and appeal. It speaks starkly and carries a big stick. It feels so beleaguered on a daily basis, and so snakebit, that even its mildest players have taken refuge in gritting their teeth and tunneling on. They take comfort in this: They think Chavez helps them. See what we're up against? But that's not a response, it's a way not to respond. It doesn't help, because it doesn't even try to cool things down. Which is no good, because the temperature of the world is very high.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/22/2006 06:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So, how many applications have been submitted at the American Embassy in Carracas?
Here's how you play the game. Have a sign like McDonald's outside the US Embassy. x thousand severed daily. Jam a big one into the tranzies and issue a big quota for Venezuelan applicants, pointing out that we support LEGAL immigration. These new one's aren't Mecha and will contrast nicely with those who parade with Mexican flags in our streets. And its not like exluding one nationality for another in this case could be labeled 'rascism'.
#2
Peggy's problem here is that she doesn't recognise that we are not the target of Chavez's rants. We are only the subject matter. His audience thrives on this and the more we try and act like an adult the more he will rant. The gang leader doesn't gain in stature by allowing his opponents calm words to cool the situation. A gang leader gains in stature by constantly turning up the heat.
Both Chavez and Dinnerjacket are trying to become the new gang leaders.
#4
Peggy's problem here is that she doesn't recognise that we are not the target of Chavez's rants.
Peggy recognizes that and that the response should be made to the audience of the undecided. That is why she calls for an answer with humility, confidence, facts and humor. Her point that the administration responds only with unpersuasive defensiveness that only contributes to raising tempers is spot on.
Bush's PR has been terrible. The only positive public images of Bush I can think of is him with NYFD firemen and the bull horn telling Osama & friends they'd be hearing from us and the Christmas in Baghdad. Cheney and Rumsfeld are Secretaries of War. The closest thing he's got is the brilliant but underexposed Tony Snow. And that's too little too late. But that's the kind of PR blitz that is needed 24/7 in multiple foreign venues.
#5
Just the fact that this is written by Peggy Noonan points out what
should have happened.
One can just imagine old Reagan chuckling his way through a Noonan backhanded, beautiful putdown of Hugo.
His audience is not those undecided between him and Bush. His audience is all the other crazies. He's campaigning for the UNSC and leadership (replacing Castro) of the anti-American "non-aligned" movement.
I agree that Bush's PR sucks. But, I would ask what Noonan thinks this will accomplish? I don't recall RR laughing off Qadaffi. Unless those bombs had jokes on them.
I think that Tony Blair's latest about how the Euros and others better be careful or they'll get what they want and the US will retreat within and leave the rest of the world to their own devices. His point is that nothing good can come without the USA involved. That's the kind of talk we should be touting.
#7
Nope. No visas. The Venezuelans elected him. Now they can get to enjoy him up close and personal, just like we do from afar. Providing visas justs provides pressure release valve for pathological regimes, as has been done for years for Cuba and Mexico.
Posted by: ed ||
09/22/2006 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#8
AlanC
Where can I find the text of Blair's speech. ?
Posted by: ed ||
09/22/2006 14:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11129 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
John Esposito, Georgetown University Professor and doyen of American apologists for jihadism, has repeatedly identified Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi as one of the most influential contemporary Muslim thinkers. The immensely popular Qaradawi reaches an enormous audience during his regular appearances on Al- Jazeera television broadcast to tens of millions of Muslim sympathizers across the globe. This past February 3, 2006, in a sermon calling for an earlier rage (or what I termed a Jackass Jihad; see below ) against the publication of 12 rather tame Danish cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad, Qaradawi exhorted his millions of Muslim followers to rage in anger. He maintained,
"It is told that Imam Al-Shafi' [d. 820, founder of the Shafiite school of Islamic jurisprudence] said: 'Whoever was angered and did not rage is a jackass.' We are not a nation of jackasses. We are not jackasses for riding, but lions that roar. We are lions that zealously protect their dens, and avenge affronts to their sanctities. We are not a nation of jackasses. We are a nation that should rage for the sake of Allah, His Prophet, and His book. We are the nation of Muhammad, and we must never accept the degradation of our religion."
We need to do one of two things with reapect to Qaradawi;
Either we off this slimebag asshole right away ...
Or we take him at his word and begin addressing all Muslims as a "nation". This is what they want, this is what they should get. This would alter our ROE and permit attacks wherever in the Muslim world they would do the most good. I'll concur with Qaradawi about the need for a "Muslim nation". I just doubt very much that he'll like the conclusions I reach.
#3
Unfortunately, I see a future where many of today's irreligious and agnotcics will see the shallowness and futility of thier lives and instead of "coming to Jesus", so to speak, will "come to Allah." That will not be a pretty thing to watch.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/22/2006 18:03 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Sgt D.T., I think you might need to clarify your terms. Most agnostics neither confirm nor deny the existence of the Almighty. All of the self-proclaimed agnostics I've met actually confirm a higher being but don't believe in a real formal way to worship that being - which actually makes them more like Deists. They are usually not out looking for an organized religion to bring meaning to their life. Hate to disagree w/you but most of the folks I know are irreligious or agnostic - they don't buy into any organized religion. I, for one am not religious, spiritual in my own way, but not a part of any organized religion anymore. Me, and folks like me have a pretty strong distate for islam, to say the least.
Now, if what you're really talking about is those "lost" folks trying to find themselves (i.e. college age kids or new age groupies) w/no spiritual convictions what so ever or those that keep looking for some institution to tell them how to live their lives then I'd concede to you that they may find islam appealing. However, for the rest of us Deists or old school Unitarians (not to be confused w/the Universalist nut jobs) if we had some heartburns w/parts of the bible we are certainly not going to leave cultural western christianity (i.e. the golden rule, 10 commandments, & love thy neighbor) and make the leap to the insanity of the koran and its surahs.
#8
If you notice in history that Muslim countries have not progressed much since the 7th century and if it were not for the oil revenue they would still be living in the dark ages.
Posted by: Joe of the Jungle ||
09/22/2006 23:39 Comments ||
Top||
Religious fanatics, regardless of what name they give their jealous god, invariably have one thing in common: no sense of humor. Particularly about themselves. It's hard to imagine Torquemada taking a joke well.
Today's Islamists seem to have not even a sense of irony. They fail to see the richness of the following sequence. The pope makes a reference to a 14th-century Byzantine emperor's remark about Islam imposing itself by the sword, and to protest this linking of Islam and violence:
· In the West Bank and Gaza, Muslims attack seven churches.
· In London, the ever-dependable radical Anjem Choudary tells demonstrators at Westminster Cathedral that the pope is now condemned to death.
· In Mogadishu, Somali religious leader Abubukar Hassan Malin calls on Muslims to "hunt down" the pope. The pope not being quite at hand, they do the next best thing: shoot dead, execution-style, an Italian nun who worked in a children's hospital.
"How dare you say Islam is a violent religion? I'll kill you for it" is not exactly the best way to go about refuting the charge. But of course, refuting is not the point here. The point is intimidation.
First Salman Rushdie. Then the false Newsweek report about Koran-flushing at Guantanamo Bay. Then the Danish cartoons. And now a line from a scholarly disquisition on rationalism and faith given in German at a German university by the pope.
And the intimidation succeeds: politicians bowing and scraping to the mob over the cartoons; Saturday's craven New York Times editorial telling the pope to apologize; the plague of self-censorship about anything remotely controversial about Islam -- this in a culture in which a half-naked pop star blithely stages a mock crucifixion as the highlight of her latest concert tour.
In today's world, religious sensitivity is a one-way street. The rules of the road are enforced by Islamic mobs and abjectly followed by Western media, politicians and religious leaders.
The fact is that all three monotheistic religions have in their long histories wielded the sword. The Book of Joshua is knee-deep in blood. The real Hanukkah story, so absurdly twinned (by calendric accident) with the Christian festival of peace, is about a savage insurgency and civil war.
Christianity more than matched that lurid history with the Crusades, an ecumenical blood bath that began with the slaughter of Jews in the Rhineland, a kind of preseason warm-up to the featured massacres to come against the Muslims, with the sacking of the capital of Byzantium (the Fourth Crusade) thrown in for good measure.
And Islam, of course, spread with great speed from Arabia across the Mediterranean and into Europe. It was not all benign persuasion. After all, what were Islamic armies doing at Poitiers in 732 and the gates of Vienna in 1683? Tourism?
However, the inconvenient truth is that after centuries of religious wars, Christendom long ago gave it up. It is a simple and undeniable fact that the violent purveyors of monotheistic religion today are self-proclaimed warriors for Islam who shout "God is great" as they slit the throats of infidels -- such as those of the flight crews on Sept. 11, 2001 -- and are then celebrated as heroes and martyrs.
Just one month ago, two journalists were kidnapped in Gaza and were released only after their forced conversion to Islam. Where were the protests in the Islamic world at that act -- rather than the charge -- of forced conversion?
Where is the protest over the constant stream of vilification of Christianity and Judaism issuing from the official newspapers, mosques and religious authorities of Arab nations? When Sheik 'Atiyyah Saqr issues a fatwa declaring Jews "apes and pigs"? When Sheik Abd al-Aziz Fawzan al-Fawzan, professor of Islamic law, says on Saudi TV that "someone who denies Allah, worships Christ, son of Mary, and claims that God is one-third of a trinity. . . . Don't you hate the faith of such a polytheist?"
Where are the demonstrations, where are the parliamentary resolutions, where are the demands for retraction when the Mufti Sheik Ali Gum'a incites readers of al-Ahram, the Egyptian government daily, against "the true and hideous face of the blood-suckers . . . who prepare [Passover] matzos from human blood"?
The pope gives offense and the Mujaheddin al-Shura Council in Iraq declares that it "will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the 'jizya' [head] tax; then the only thing acceptable is conversion or the sword." This to protest the accusation that Islam might be spread by the sword.
Last weeks announcement that the World Health Organization lifted its nearly 30-year ban on the insecticide DDT is perhaps the most promising development in global public health since well, 1943 when DDT was first used to combat insect-borne diseases like typhus and malaria.
Overlooked in all the hoopla over the announcement, however, is the terrible toll in human lives (tens of millions dead mostly pregnant women and children under the age of 5), illness (billions sickened) and poverty (more than $1 trillion dollars in lost GDP in sub-Saharan Africa alone) caused by the tragic, decades-long ban.
Much of this human catastrophe was preventable, so why did it happen? Who is responsible? Should the individuals and activist groups who caused the DDT ban be held accountable in some way?
Rachel Carson kicked-off DDT hysteria with her pseudo-scientific 1962 book, Silent Spring. Carson materially misrepresented DDT science in order to advance her anti-pesticide agenda. Today she is hailed as having launched the global environmental movement. A Pennsylvania state office building, Maryland elementary school, Pittsburgh bridge and a Maryland state park are named for her. The Smithsonian Institution commemorates her work against DDT. She was even honored with a 1981 U.S. postage stamp. Next year will be the 100th anniversary of her birth. Many celebrations are being planned.
Its quite a tribute for someone who was so dead wrong. At the very least, her name should be removed from public property and there should be no government-sponsored honors of Carson.
The Audubon Society was a leader in the attack on DDT, including falsely accusing DDT defenders (who subsequently won a libel suit) of lying. Not wanting to jeopardize its non-profit tax status, the Audubon Society formed the Environmental Defense Fund (now simply known as Environmental Defense) in 1967 to spearhead its anti-DDT efforts. Today the National Audubon Society takes in more than $100 million per year and has assets worth more than $200 million. Environmental Defense takes in more than $65 million per year with a net worth exceeding $73 million.
In a February 25, 1971, media release, the president of the Sierra Club stated that his organization wanted a ban, not just a curb on DDT, even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." Today the Sierra Club rakes in more than $90 million per year and has more than $50 million in assets.
Business are often held liable and forced to pay monetary damages for defective products and false statements. Why shouldnt the National Audubon Society, Environmental Defense, Sierra Club and other anti-DDT activist groups be held liable for the harm caused by their recklessly defective activism?
It was, of course, then-Environmental Protection Agency administrator William Ruckelshaus who actually banned DDT after ignoring an EPA administrative law judges ruling that there was no evidence indicating that DDT posed any sort of threat to human health or the environment. Ruckleshaus never attended any of the agencys hearings on DDT. He didnt read the hearing transcripts and refused to explain his decision.
None of this is surprising given that, in a May 22, 1971, speech before the Wisconsin Audubon Society, Ruckleshaus said that EPA procedures had been streamlined so that DDT could be banned. Ruckleshaus was also a member of and wrote fundraising letters for the EDF.
The DDT ban solidified Ruckelshaus environmental credentials, which he has surfed to great success in business, including stints as CEO of Browning Ferris Industries and as a director of a number of other companies including Cummins Engine, Nordstrom, and Weyerhaeuser Company. Ruckelshaus currently is a principal in a Seattle, Wash., -based investment group called Madrona Venture Group.
Corporate wrongdoers like WorldComs Bernie Ebbers and Tycos Dennis Kozlowski were sentenced to prison for crimes against mere property. But what should the punishment be for government wrongdoers like Ruckleshaus who, apparently for the sake of his personal environmental interests, abused his power and affirmatively deprived billions of poor, helpless people of the only practical weapon against malaria?
Finally, there is the question of the World Health Organization itself. Whats the WHO been doing for all these years? There are no new facts on DDT all the relevant science about DDT safety has been available since the 1960s. Moreover, the WHOs strategy of mosquito bednets and malaria vaccine development has been a dismal failure. While the death toll in malarial regions has mounted, the WHO has been distracted by such dubious issues as whether cell phones and French fries cause cancer.
Its a relief that the WHO has finally come to its senses, but on the other hand, the organization has done too little, too late. The ranks of the WHOs leadership need to be purged of those who place the agenda of environmental elitists over the basic survival of the worlds needy.
In addition to the day of reckoning and societal rebuke that DDT-ban advocates should face, we should all learn from the DDT tragedy.
With the exception of Rachel Carson (who died in 1964), all of the groups and individuals above mentioned also promote global warming alarmism. If they and others could be so wrong about DDT, why should we trust them now? Should we really put the global economy and the welfare of billions at risk based on their track record?
Hassan Nasrallah is showing clear signs of dejection, melancholy and depression, according to the editors of the Lebanese daily al-Safir, who are counted among the most steadfast supporters of the leader of Hizballah. Alongside a tiresomely long interview with him, published on September 5, they note that the man radiates a sense of disappointment and distress.
It is no trifling matter that Nasrallah, who is always punctilious in demonstrating self-confidence and determination, comes across this way to those visiting him in his hideout. I myself dont even know where I am, he told his interviewers. They have moved me from one hiding place to another dozens of times.
Nevertheless, his words were as polished and considered as usual, and included the now-familiar remarks about Ehud Olmerts stupidity, fictional accounts of his ongoing communications with fighters on the frontline during the war, and wild exaggerations about his achievements in the last round. This is the same Nasrallah that we have known for years, and at the same time, a different Nasrallah than we have seen before. An analysis of the text helps solve the riddle of why Nasrallah is so frustrated even as he claims victory, and what the source of his anxiety is, even though, in his assessment, he succeeded in defeating the Israeli army.
#2
Iff GERALDO's comments on O'REILLY are any measure, where the Muslim ME-World is concerned, there's Moud, Shia Islam and Radical Iran; AND THEN THERE'S NO ONE ELSE. GERALDO > MOUD wants Iran to have a seat on the UNSC - NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTS.
#3
Hassan Nasrallah is showing clear signs of dejection, melancholy and depression, according to the editors of the Lebanese daily al-Safir, who are counted among the most steadfast supporters of the leader of Hizballah. Alongside a tiresomely long interview with him, published on September 5, they note that the man radiates a sense of disappointment and distress.
Pobracito! Nothing that can't be cured by a quick dose of high velocity lead.
#9
Sounds like a case of wabbit wabbies. The fear of wabbits or the sound of wabbits. Hmmmmmm, I wecomend filling your time with constwuction pwojects.
#1
"And one of the greatest dangers is that on their side, they are firm and convinced and resolute. Whereas on our side, we are weak and undecided and irresolute. And in such a combat, it is not difficult to see which side will prevail."
Kind of like the US in 1940, isn't it? But the US prevailed in WWII. 9/11 just wasn't enough of a Pearl Harbor. Maybe an Iranian nuke exploding in a US harbor will be enough.
"V for Vendetta" is one strange film that, among other things, depicts someone getting beaten and hauled away by the authorities and has a Koran hidden in his home. The Koran, the victim says, is a beautiful book filled with poetry. In real life, it serves as inspiration for those who want to kill us. Does silly nonsense like this film have an effect on the American people? The Warner Bros. film grossed $70 million at the box office.
The main theme is that a conservative administration takes power and uses fear of terrorism to control the populace. The scene is Britain and there is even a reference in the film to the war in Iraq. Meanwhile, a terrorist called "V" who wears a smiling mask wages war against the state, bombing buildings in the name of freedom from oppression. He comes across as a hero, murdered in the end by the cruel agents of the state as his corpse rides a train filled with explosives that blow up the British parliament.
The film is worth watching only because it sheds some light on the mindset of Hollywood elites who fear Bush more than radical Islam. And it highlights the role of the media in brainwashing the population. The insight is that, in the modern age, Hollywood tries to play such a role. If impressionable young people come away from this film thinking that Islamic terrorism is not a threat, then Hollywood will have accomplished its sinister objective.
In the film, the people rise up against the government, as thousands wear the "V" mask and take to the streets. Government forces, confused about how to respond, do not fire their weapons. The "people," presumably, take back control of their government.
Its sounds like a fairy tale, and it is. It is a world in which the American people-and the populations of other Western democracies-have nothing to fear from the Muslims or anybody else. The only thing we have to fear, the film says, is our own government.
I detest an expanding federal government as much as the next conservative or libertarian. But under our Constitution, it is only the federal government that can protect us against foreign threats. That is the one thing that the federal government is supposed to do-provide for a national defense.
The real issue is not that the government has gone too far, but that it hasn't gone far enough. Our national sovereignty is under assault by the U.N. and our national borders have been decimated by illegal aliens. If anything, President Bush has been too weak in addressing these serious problems.
The website for "V for Vendetta" says "Join the Revolution." But the American revolution has been fought and won. The film ends with the Rolling Stones song about the need for fighting in the streets and violent revolution. In this context, it sounds like a justification for Islamic Jihad.
It's another indication that Hollywood, which was on our side in World War II, has abandoned the cause of freedom in World War III.
and a sign that the Wachowski brothers are now completely delusional. Whatever happened to the guys who made 'The Matrix'?
#2
What cracks me up is the belief in Hollywood that the folks are just waiting for a big emergency to elect a theocrat for life. That's what V has happen and same for Escape from LA.
Not gonna happen. We might elect an "ass kicker for the duration" but that's a different beast.
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.
"The events of September 11, 2001 were a wake-up call. 
One of the more interesting developments in the post cold war world has been the endless comedy engendered by various thugs, hypocrites, dirty necked galoots, and bloodthirsty tyrants who have been thrown up by mobs, mullahs, and militaries across the world since the wall fell.
