MUAMMAR Gaddafis son has stated only the obvious when he said the other day that his country lacked a free Press and proper form of democracy. His promise, on an optimistic note, is that a new plan currently under way will evaluate the past and start anew with a new determination and new strategy.
Dear readers, Libya has come some way, and not a long way, since it gave up its plans for nuclear and chemical weapons three years ago and bought peace with the West. That was the turn-around that led to full restoration of diplomatic relations with the US earlier this year. Yet, the changes within remained both cosmetic and half-hearted, as was seen from the firing of a reform-minded prime minister in March last.
Saif Al Islam, clearly, is more realistic as compared to Gaddafi who mostly lived in a world of illusion; and hence his claim a while ago that his country was the only real democracy in the world, where, according to him, fake and farcical parliamentary and representative democracy prevailed.
Much of the world however looks at Libya as a military dictatorship, simply for the reason that dissent is not allowed in his so-called democracy, and the human rights scenario remains questionable. If son Saifs new plan aims at reforms, both political and economic, that will be a real step forward.
Clearly, Saifs speech has only reflected the general mood of the nation. Gaddafis socialism and the governance on the lines of his Green Book are seen by many Libyans as being outdated. This is for the reason that the countrys enormous oil wealth and its geographically ideal location abutting the Mediterranean Sea have not translated themselves into a winning combination for the nation and the people.
Libyas beauteous beaches could have attracted millions of tourists but for the lack of infrastructure and the isolation that Libya had to contend with for the past several years. That would have given Libyas economy a big boost, and fetched jobs and income for its people. With unemployment currently running at over 13 per cent, the economy cannot be said to be in any good shape. Nor can Gaddafi claim to have worked wonders.
Dear readers, Saif seeks, and rightly so, a seriousness in the implementation of the new plan. In the least, it must make sure that Libya changes with the times. Simply put, Libyans seek a happier existence: they want a constitution that will guarantee them the basic rights, which also include freedom of expression and freedom of Press.
After all, how long can a nation go on and on with socialistic controls that retarded progress, on the one side, and curbs on freedom, on the other, that allowed no more than the state-owned media that sings praise of Gaddafi and the government? Libyas governance should be guided by a sense of realism.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/24/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The son is much different than daddy? WTF
Posted by: Captain America ||
08/24/2006 6:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Things aren't going to happen over night, but I think Libya is heading the right way. 10 years ago who woulda thought they'd be where they are now?
The Battle of Britain was not won by the RAF but by the Royal Navy, military historians have concluded, provoking outrage among the war's surviving fighter pilots.
Challenging the "myth" that Spitfires and Hurricanes held off the German invaders in 1940, the monthly magazine History Today has concluded that it was the might of the Navy that stood between Britain and Nazi occupation. The view is backed by three leading academics who are senior military historians at the Joint Service Command Staff College teaching the future admirals, generals and air marshals.
They contend that the sheer numbers of destroyers and battleships in the Channel would have obliterated any invasion fleet even if the RAF had lost the Battle of Britain. The idea that a "handful of heroes saved these islands from invasion" was nothing more than a "perpetuation of a glorious myth," the article suggests. "Many still prefer to believe that in the course of that summer a few hundred outnumbered young men so outfought a superior enemy as solely to prevent a certain invasion of Britain. Almost none of which is true," reports Brian James, the author.
Continued on Page 49
#3
I could make a case that the Battle of Britain was won in the Manchester factories that were working flat out to build radars. Radars that removed the element of surprise that aircraft always had in warfare until that point.
With radar, the British always knew when the German aircraft were coming and were in the air waiting for them when the German planes arrived.
#4
Oh and Britain might have produced more planes, but they were not producing more pilots. You can have all the planes in the world, but no pilots planes just sits there.
#5
Then there was the mid-war episode when the Germany Navy sailed 2 warships and accompanying support vessels, through the English Channel. The RAF lost scores of fighters when they engaged, while the German ships were barely touched. The Royal Navy played no part.
#6
AFAIK the RAF did not lost scores of fighters during the Scharnhost and Gneisenaau escape. IN fact despite warnings by the resistance a number of blunders caused that the first time the German ships were attacked they were already near Calais (ie they had nearly crosssed the Channel and were on the verge of entering the North Sea) and successive attacks were weak and uncoordinated so the fast German ships had no trouble evading them.
BTW British torpedo boats and I think destroyers tried to attack the German fleet but were repelled so the Royal Navy did play a part.
The British lost about 100 planes during the ill-fated raid agsint Dieppe but as I said AFAIK tehre were no major air to air battles during the Scharnhost and Gneisenauu escape.
About destroyers stopping a German landing, just remind what happenned during eth evacuation of Crete where a far smaller number of German aircraft crippled the British fleet.
#7
Yes, thank you very much, but - you see - we really didn't need you pilots after all. You can read all about it in our new book. We will be selling them, you know.
Historical Revisionists
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/24/2006 6:06 Comments ||
Top||
#8
There is a lot to this theory.
During the Crete campaign, when the Germans had total air surpremacy, the RN was still able, from far distant bases, to sink or drive off every convoy they tried to push through. Yeah, they suffered losses, but they accomplished their mission. (They couldn't stop the paratroops, of course, nor correct for the blunders of the ground commanders.)
During the Summer of 1940, the RN also sailed over to the French side and bombarded ports. Some ships actually sailed into harbors, and some BBs stood off other ports for hours shelling them. None was lost to air attack.
It would have taken all night long to sail across the Channel in those river barges. The DDs and CLs could have made it all at night. Even if the LW had driven off the RAF (arguably they did succeed in gaining local superiority in the Dover area), they would have been virtually powerless at night.
Also, during this time, German torpedoes were very unreliable, so the U-boat screen would have been questionable.
I don't want to denigrate what the RAF accomplished, but to say that even if they had been defeated, it was hardly all over.
#9
If WWII taught us anything, it taught us a new reality that Air supremacy made land and sea supremacy possible. Leave it to the eggheads and 'academics' who never fought in a battle to say otherwise.
#11
During the Crete campaign, when the Germans had total air surpremacy, the RN was still able, from far distant bases, to sink or drive off every convoy they tried to push through.
Right, except the total number of attempts was one. The convoy got delayed and the night fell so it was no longer under the protection of the Lufwaffe. Then the British found it. At dawn the German airmen found a few surviving Axis ships pursued by the British ships and a single Italian destroyer fighting a xdesperate delaying action. The intervention of the Stukas forced the British to call off the pursuit.
Also so many British units were lost or put out of service for months during the evacuation of Crete taht for a time their Esat Mediterranean Fleet was not an effective force.
For the Battle of Britain, no admiral or Sea Lord had any doubt that the RN would be unable to prevent the landings if the Luftwaffe had gained air supremacy. RN's role was however crucial because it raised the stakes for the Germans: they couldn't content with air superiority, they needed total and undisputed control over the channel in order to attempt the crossing. If the RAF was able to cover the Navy even for just a couple hours then this would wipe away the feeble German escorts and tens of thousands of German soldiers would drown. Put the Navy out of the panorama and the Germans could have contented with the kind of air superiority they enjoyed from the fall of FRance until the transfer of units eastwards in preparation of Barbarossa.
#12
Of course, it is one thing to say that the Germans would cross and another one that they would be able to land. They had no D-Day like barges (these were invented later). And no PLUTO or Mullberries so they depended on taking a harbour fast in order to get supplies.
#14
Luftwaffe's dual failure to develop a Douhet-inspired "battle-plane" (something like the B-17 Flying Fortress with its compliment of initially 10, then eventually 13 .50 machineguns) and fighter-escorts capable of sustained time over the UK, doomed the Germans.
Also, Hitler's ill-fated decision to shift bombing RAF airdromes to cities gave the Brits a badly needed reprieve.
The claim that the Royal Navy won the Battle of Britain is yet another case of selling more issues of a magazine (in this case) blended with good ole historical revisionism.
#15
The RAF won so the RN didn't have to. If it takes the RN 60 years to get the public relations boys going they are pathetic. More likely someone waited until enough memories had faded before making the claim.
#16
I don't think it was either the RAF or the RN that won the battle. Rather it was lost by Hitler and Goering, who decided to switch from hitting military targets like airfields and radar stations to civilian targets like London. They came very close to forcing the RAF airfields to relocate away from southern England, then the RAF hit Berlin, Hitler had a trademark hissy fit, and the Luftwaffe was tasked with hitting cities in retaliation.
Posted by: Dar ||
08/24/2006 12:44 Comments ||
Top||
#17
"#16 I don't think it was either the RAF or the RN that won the battle. Rather it was lost by Hitler and Goering, who decided to switch from hitting military targets like airfields and radar stations to civilian targets like London. They came very close to forcing the RAF airfields to relocate away from southern England, then the RAF hit Berlin, Hitler had a trademark hissy fit, and the Luftwaffe was tasked with hitting cities in retaliation."
*Ahem* *cough* Airdromes is Brit-speak for airfields. Okay, so I neglected to mention the Luftwaffe's failure to continue their raids on radar installations. Otherwise ...
#19
*ahem* *cough* I was still editing my comments and doing some research for confirmation before posting so I didn't see your comments posted at the time. But as you can see I generally agree.
Posted by: Dar ||
08/24/2006 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#20
"#18 Aw, cmon don't be modest. Everybody knows it was the LANCASTERS that won the battle."
Arrgghhhh! Nothing more beautiful than the sound of Lancasters over Dresden!
Speaking of Dresden, ABC the other night had a follow-up special on those brainwashed Nazi twins, Prussian Blue girls, and they mentioned that their divorced mommy has named her new-born son Dresden. What a chucklehead!
#22
What war? It was all just an inter-European squabble until the Yanks got involved because they feared the United Europe they knew would result. Damn Yanks!
#26
Its silly to point at one service and say they get all the glory. Winning wars is a team effort. Plenty of congragulations to go around. Air, Navy and every common Briton can hold their heads high.
#27
Contrary to popular opinion,it wasn't the lack of long range bombers that doomed the Luftwaffe. It was the lack of long range fighters that could roam the legnth of Britain that did them in-that and Fighter Command,etc. The ME-109s could only stay a few minutes over London before they had to turn back. Numerous German fighters ran out of gas before they could get home. The bomber bit is left over propaganda from the big bomber enthusiasts in the RAF and USAF who then and now tried desperately to justify their huge cost.(one of the great little known stats from WW2 is before the revamped P-51 started flying escort missions less than a third of 8AF bomber crews completed their 25 mission tour. After the introduction,over two thirds of bomber crews completed tours,which were extended to 30 missions.)
Posted by: Stephen ||
08/24/2006 18:29 Comments ||
Top||
I "fixed" the original misleading wimpy title: Troop Pledge Vexes Europe Hesitation on Lebanon Forces Tests Ability as Peacemaker
Europe's difficulties in raising enough troops to enforce the cease-fire in Lebanon have exposed some hard truths that are testing the Continent's ability to serve as a global military power and Middle East peacemaker.
Europe was expected to take the lead in manning a 15,000-strong force called for in the French-U.S.-brokered resolution to police the Aug. 11 truce between the Hezbollah militia and Israel. But France has since hesitated to commit a significant number of troops for the force amid concerns that they will end up fighting Hezbollah; so far Paris has offered only 400 soldiers, and Europe is having trouble raising as many ground troops as the U.N. says it needs to create a balanced force of troops from European and Muslim countries.
Yesterday, European diplomats struggled again to drum up a significant contribution to the United Nations contingent. Today, French President Jacques Chirac is expected to convene a cabinet meeting during which he could commit more troops to Lebanon beyond the 400. Tomorrow, European Union foreign ministers meet with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to firm up their contributions to the peacekeeping force.
*A poseur is a person who adopts the dress, speech, and/or mannerisms of a particular group or subculture generally for attaining acceptability within the group. A poseur does not often share or even understand the philosophical underpinnings of whatever group he or she identifies with, unless it is at the most trivial of levels. Most subcultures view what they regard as poseurs with varying degrees of mistrust and scorn, inauthenticity being the nadir of human expression for many such groups.
#2
Without American umbrella, these SOB's are virtually defenseless, which Muzzies recognize. These fools need to raise armies just to control their internal populations. France, for instance, better have sufficient armed military ready to stomp on the growing enclaves once they decide to take over the country.
#4
This is also an article about the UN. The UN will not necessarily do what the US wants done, but it can do nothing without the US.
It is also why the sale of that LPD to India is such a big deal. As Britain goes Euro, they are on the road to becoming the second greatest military power projector in the world. What Bush has done for our relationship with India will come to be seen as being at least as important as the GWOIF.
The following is based on a very perceptive post by someone named John Moore, which I found through a link to a link on Dr. Sanity's grand rounds of the psychosphere today.
It looks as if it were hastily composed in a manic burst of inspiration, but it's so good, and so accurate, that it deserves wider dissemination. I've taken the liberty of cleaning it up, editing it a bit, adding a few things here and there, and putting it in the format of the DSM. However, most of the credit is due its perceptive author, the above-referenced John Moore.
I've also taken the additional liberty of altering the name of the condition, from his "Cognitive Disorder of Progressives" to "Progressive Personality Disorder." . . .
Another attempt at a scientific description of moonbattery. Go read it all.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/24/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I'd argue that the syndrome described results from behavioural neotony (neotony is the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood).
A plausible case can be made that behaviour is a sort of accelerated evolution. Neotony is a very common evolutionary mechanism. But bear in mind that evolution has countless thousands of failures for every success.
If neotony is at work in the evolution of behaviour we should expect the same very high failure rate in the behaviours it produces.
BTW, while Progressives may believe in evolution, hardly any of them understand it. Most think evolution is like Marxist historical determinism, which it most definitely isn't.
Please check a dictionary. As I already noted a few days back, neotony is something else either related to tonus (then it would be neotonia) ot tone => neo-new; tone-sound.
Democrats are calling on Wal-Mart to repudiate a statement by a talk show host and Wal-Mart proponent likening the party's leading lawmakers to members of a terrorist group, Hezbollah.
In a column published Tuesday, the commentator, Herman Cain, repeatedly used the term "Hezbocrats." Mr. Cain defined them as "a roaming band of militant guerrillas seeking their party's 2008 nomination for president" and said they were lobbing "rhetorical bombs at Wal-Mart."
Senator Kerry of Massachusetts denounced Mr. Cain, who serves on the Georgia steering committee of a Wal-Mart-funded advocacy group, Working Families for Wal-Mart.
"I won't stand for the 'Swiftboating' of working people and Democrats who ask tough questions of big corporations," Mr. Kerry said.
Branded as "Hezbocrats" in the column were Senator Biden of Delaware, Senator Bayh of Indiana, and Senator Clinton, as well as Governor Richardson of New Mexico. Mr. Cain made no reference to Mr. Kerry.
"Herman Cain is not a spokesperson for Wal-Mart," the company said in a statement. "We understand that he has a long-standing column and the views he expresses in that column are his own."
A spokesman for Working Families for Wal-Mart, Catherine Smith, noted that Mr. Cain was a volunteer.
"Hezbocrats was simply referring to the militant rhetoric liberals constantly use against capitalism and our economic system," an aide to Mr. Cain, Ericka Pertierra, said.
The new flap came just days after the resignation of the chairman of the same pro-Wal-Mart group, Andrew Young Jr. The civil rights leader stepped down after telling a reporter for the Los Angeles Sentinel that Wal-Mart was a boon to inner city residents because mom-and-pop stores run by Jews, Koreans, and Arabs have "ripped off" African-Americans. "Hey, I'm relevant, too! I'm important! Call me a name!"
#3
"I won't stand for the 'Swiftboating' of working people and Democrats who ask tough questions of big corporations," said John Kerry, the only person ever "swifboated".
I simply will not stand for it. Good DAY to you sir!
Posted by: Mark E. ||
08/24/2006 12:36 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"I won't stand for the exposing of fakes and liars for the frauds they are 'Swiftboating' of welfare working people and Democrats who ask stupid tough questions of those demon evil big corporations I pretend to hate but get the majority of my campaign money from," Mr. Kerry said.
#7
Yeah, I had to check for a "scrappleface" or "Iowahawk" link when I was about a third of the way down. But it was all real. ROTFLMAO
Is it officially silly season already?
Throughout the Internet over the last few years, those who have been in the personal presence of W.... always have the same message of John at Powerline. It was, in short, the most inspiring forty minutes I've experienced in politics. And I think I remember, he was one of those predicting defeat for W in '04.
Meet W from this article..... then from Powerline the post titled, "Hail to the Chief" and repeat, "Let Bush be Bush."
They both may be right, but I'd like to submit an alternative explanation for Bush's linguistic deficit.
Language barrier.
This theory occurred to me not long ago at an off-the-record luncheon with Bush and a hundred or so of his supporters. I was the guest of a guest, and welcomed the opportunity to observe the president in his natural habitat.
What I witnessed was revealing. Not only was the man fluent in the English language and intellectually agile, he was knowledgeable on a wide range of subjects raised during a 90-minute Q&A. Someone apparently had been slipping intellectual-curiosity tablets into Bush's cola.
Toward the end, one of the guests said, "Mr. President, I think if Americans could hear you speak the way you have today, you'd have a 95 percent approval rating.''
#2
John from Powerline's comment that Bush is a fine communicator up close and personal tracks with something I read a few years back - that GWB was kind of a 180-degrees-out-of-phase version of Reagan. Ol' Ronnie was incomparable in front of a crowd, but in front of a small group, he came across as awkward and even a little confused. Dubya, on the other hand...well, we've seen him trying to do the mass communcation thingy with somewhat mixed success. But in the one-on-one, or small group environment, Dubya's persuasive ability has few equals. Now if he could just work out how to talk to 300 million people as if he was talking to each of them individually...
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
08/24/2006 1:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It is a failing of the Bush advisors to create a format that works for him - leave the man's style alone, allowing him to connect with his audience - which he can certainly do. Reagan was Hollyweird trained - and loved the camera, audience or no. Clintoon was adept at the small "townhall meeting" format, where he could check out the "babes".
I figure George is at his best at a Texas BBQ, excelling at the one on one or small groups in an informal setting - talking Texican. Hell, even when he's "into" a press briefing at the WH like on Monday, you can tell he can connect - with everyone but petrified Helen and the real assholes. The drawback there is that those asshat MSM reporters are falling all over themselves trying to force sound bytes, create a mistake posing their "Do you still beat your wife?" BS, rather than posing intelligent questions and taking the President's response as given.
Shucks, somebody on his staff shud get it by now. They shud jus' leave 'im be. Tell 'im to let his hair down and have fun. Let Bush be Bush. Let 'im do a little rip-snortin' and ass-kickin'.
Let the Beltway Boobs and the MSM go fuck themselves.
#4
those who worry about how ideas are communicated rather than what is being communicated are fools.
those who don't worry about if their effectiveness in communicatiing are foold. This has ever been the great strength of the left: care about communication and not miss an opportunity to send the message. So while America slept, the left has turned the world against she.
#5
those who worry about how ideas are communicated rather than what is being communicated are fools.
This is nonsense. How you communicate is at least as important as what you communicate. This is common sense. If you don't believe this, try telling your wife how much you care about her, but do so in an angry or lacadaisacal tone. Try telling your boss all the correct information, but do so in an unpolished and unprofessional manner. Have you ever taken a speech class, ferchrisakes? Think before you speak, please. This is Rantburg.
#6
"Texas English"? Bush is from Connecticut. He was educated in the finest Northeastern blueblood schools. He went to freaking Harvard, for chrissake.
#7
And while at Harvard he took a class called Management Communications (MC, ta da). He has been shown to communicate well to over 50% of the voting public.
#8
It's clear that Mr. Bush went native when he moved down to Texas, and that the local patois is more natural to him after all this time than that he was born to. Some people are like that -- you should hear me after spending some time with Mr. Wife's Indian colleagues (with your eyes closed you'd think I was wearing a sari with a bindi stuck over my "third eye") or after we'd lived in Germany a little while (one of Mr. Wife's colleagues there was relieved to learn that he'd brought me with him from America rather than being a local "souveneir" that had subsequently been in a brain-damaging car accident -- my Americanness was clearly not apparent to eye or ear).
#9
My brother attended one of these get-togethers with W and reported the same thing. Especially how fired up he gets when he talks about doing what he believes is the right policy.
Posted by: FWIW in DC ||
08/24/2006 16:42 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Al Gore ||
08/24/2006 03:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I give it a 95. It has a good beat and I can dance to it.
Posted by: Dick Clark ||
08/24/2006 8:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
GrouchyMedia?
By the way, check the comments, I find the "we'll continue to flood into your country, and the poor and oppressed will become our fellow brothers, and your empire will crumble and we'll reign supreme" a very frank admission.
#3
By far the best "snuff a hajji movie" I saw while deployed had the songs "die motherfucker die" and "scum of the earth" on it. I'm not sure what the video was named but it wouldn't surprise me if it was one of the aforementioned songs.
But Pakistan chooses to spend billions on jihad against India and Afghanistan, nuclear weapons and conventional armaments
By Masooda Bano
Recently, a father left his four daughters at Data Darbar in Lahore because he did not have the economic means to provide for them. After being evicted from their rented accommodation, the father brought the girls to Data Darbar and never returned. These girls are unlucky, but they are still luckier than many who continue to be killed by their fathers due to their inability to cope with the economic hardship of providing for their daughters. The number of such incidences is on the rise. The fact is that these desperate scenarios are now becoming more rampant due to the dire state of economic affairs in the country. What is saddening is the government's completely apathy to this situation.
The government might play with statistics to show a decrease in poverty ratio and inflation, but people experience the reality in their day to day living. Also, simple calculations reveal the desperate state of affairs. The doubling of sugar and lentil prices is not the only indication; a challi (corn) that used to cost five rupees in Rawalpindi till last year now costs double that.
How many Pakistanis, especially those belonging to poor and the low-income families, have seen their incomes double during this period? Clearly, the outcome is that items that were once affordable are increasingly becoming unaffordable for a large number of families. And these are not things of luxury but rather very basic items. The issue is no longer about having to make choices but rather that one is not in a position anymore to make a choice at all.
A woman from a lower-middle income family, whom I recently interviewed for a research study, summed it up well. "Before we could say that fine we cannot afford chicken, so let's have lentils. Now, when lentils have come close to the price that we formally paid for chicken, what should we eat?" she said. People now don't have even the basic minimum to survive. Even in one's own surroundings, the number of people requesting financial help is constantly rising. But, how many can anyone support on charitable giving? The state has to shoulder its responsibility, but we are being led by a government of clowns.
What else should we call leaders who are so disassociated with the state of public distress and who constantly pat themselves on the back for having brought economic growth and reforms to the country despite the reality on the ground. The massive amount that the government spends on the federal cabinet, the prime minister and the president is offensive given that Pakistan is a poor country.
Much money has been spent on governance reform but it has not brought any change. As a leader of a teachers' union recently told me: "We have to pay a bribe to get leave approved, to get a posting, to get anything approved." But, who is going to check this corruption at the lower tiers when those at the top of the hierarchy are not exactly very clean themselves?
The current government has increased the quantum and number of taxes. Sales tax has not only increased the price of all goods and services, it has also dramatically increased the taxation burden on many businesses. But, what is worse is that there is no accountability of where all these taxes collected are being spent. Where are all the billions collected through taxes, the privatisation proceeds, the increased foreign aid, and the money recovered through National Bureau of Accountability spent? It can be safely said that much of it is not being spent to further the public good.
The author is undertaking post-doctoral research at Oxford University.
Posted by: john ||
08/24/2006 19:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Dr. Kahn recomends you eat plutonium. He likes his medium rare, a little pink inside.
Originally published at the Volokh Conspiracy. by David E. Bernstein, Wall Street Journal
A reader, sympathetic to Israel but troubled by its existence as "Jewish state," asks: "Can you point me to any case in any example where you would say '[Country A] has the right to exist as a [Race B] or [Religion C] state?' I can think of numerous claims like this by societies in the past, which are now widely condemned."
Actually, many, many countries have an official religion, including not only "backward" countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia that enforce religious law, but "progressive" liberal bastions such as Norway, Denmark, and Iceland (all Lutheran). By contrast, Judaism is not the official religion of Israel. Jewish holidays are government holidays, but that's like Christmas in the U.S. (Family law is controlled by religious bodies, but that's true for Muslims, Christians, et al., as well as Jews, and is an artifact of Ottoman and British rule. My understanding is that most Jews in Israel are against the religious monopoly on family law, but it survives because the religious parties have disproportionate power. The Arab community, which is far more traditional in its religious practices than is the Jewish community, almost certainly is more supportive of this arrangement than the Jews are, so this has really nothing to do with Israel being a "Jewish state," as such.)
As for the question of "race," the problem can't be "self-determination" of a group, because the propriety of that principle seems rather well-accepted. "Jewishness" is not a racial identity, but complaints about Israel being a "Jewish state" are often put in terms of the Law of Return being "racist." The Law of Return is based on ethnic (not racial) heritage and grants anyone with a Jewish grandparent automatic citizenship (the Israeli Supreme Court has held that one is not eligible for the Law of Return if one has adopted the Christian religion, because in the complex area of Jewish identity, Jews who become Christians have left the Jewish people). Non-Jewish immigrants with no ethnic Jewish background can become citizens, with some difficulty, as can, automatically, non-Jewish immigrants closely related to Jews (e.g., spouses), many of whom have recently arrived from the former Soviet Union. Arabs who lived in Israel during the War of Independence (and thus presumptively accepted the existence of Israel and were not engaged in warfare against Israel) and their descendants have full citizenship rights, but they are relieved of one of the major obligations of Israeli citizenship, military or other national service . . . . Hit the link and read the rest of it; there's a lot of information on comparative immigration law, and proof that a lot of things everybody "knows" are wrong.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/24/2006 06:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Never ceases to amaze me that muslims complain that a "Jewish state" is racist.
Saudi Arabia: No churches (and of course no synagogues!) allowed
Malaysia: Just today, the NYT had an article about a Malaysian woman who converted from Islam to Christianity - it was not allowed because of the Sharia laws governing Malaysia. (and of course, she received the obligatory death threats that go hand in hand with the ROP).
Not to mention the Islamic Republics of Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc. . .
But a JEWISH state....well, that's unacceptable. Just ask the UN.
#4
Nah, Arabs don't mind Jews, so long as they know their place and don't get "uppity."
Posted by: James ||
08/24/2006 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Nah, Arabs don't mind Jews, so long as they know their place and don't get "uppity."
I disagree - I think the very existence of Joooos drives the Arabs batty - look at the progress (technological, geographical, economical) made by them Jooooos vs the Arabs. If the Arabs didn't have oil, they'd be dung-burning hut-dwellers and camel caravaning still....
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/24/2006 19:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Peretz admits Lebanese refugees into Israel
group of Lebanese relatives of former members of an Israeli-allied militia crossed into Israel Thursday night, seeking refuge from possible revenge attacks by Hizbullah in the wake of the latest fighting between the Islamic guerillas and Israeli forces.
#1
coooooooool! this is what the gen-x skater/hacker generation sounds like when it goes to war. killer 120bpm devil music, perfect for wearing down gitmo detainees or flushing out holed-up jihadis.
Posted by: ST ||
08/24/2006 19:34 Comments ||
Top||
WITH the best intentions, President Bush recently declared that it's racist to say that Arabs can't build democracies.
Is it?
I made the same claim in the run-up to the first Iraqi elections, when Western leftists desperate for Iraq to fail tried to block the vote by claiming that the population wasn't ready.
Iraqis deserved their chance. They got it. They voted. Three times. Each time along confessional or ethnic lines. They elected ward bosses, not national leaders. We could have skipped the balloting and apportioned legislative seats by population shares.
Iraq doesn't have a democracy in any meaningful sense. It isn't even a nation. Iraqis didn't vote for freedom. They voted for revenge against each other.
In the immediate aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom, I argued that the only realistic solution was to break Iraq into three pieces. What we lacked the guts to do, elections have done. The pretense that an Iraqi national identity exists or ever will exist can be sustained no longer.
Iraq doesn't have a government. It has a collection of warlords, demagogues and thieves with official titles. It's time to put our own politics aside and face reality: If Iraq's elected leaders won't stop looting their country long enough to pull together and defeat the foreign terrorists, internal insurgents and militias killing Iraqis, we should not ask our troops to defend them.
Iraqi democracy hasn't yet failed entirely. But it looks as if it might. President Bush needs to face that possibility. Managing the regional and global consequences will be his responsibility. We will have to fight on elsewhere - with more realism and, regrettably, less idealism. The fools who hope Iraq will fail will face more wars, not fewer.
Meanwhile, the test for Iraq's elected government is straightforward: Can it excite Iraqis to a spirit of mortal sacrifice in defense of a constitutional system? The terrorists, insurgents and militiamen will die for their beliefs. If other Iraqis will not risk their lives - in decisive numbers - to seize their unique chance at freedom, there is no hope.
And Iraq is the entire Arab world's last hope.
As for the charge of racism leveled at skeptics of the Arab propensity for democracy, it would be true if the discussion were about individuals. Arabs in the United States are as capable of functioning within a democratic system as anyone else. They're just as American as any other citizens - because their families escaped the Middle East.
Arab states are another story: Their social, political, economic and cultural structures leave them catastrophically uncompetitive with the developed world. Societies divided down the middle by religion, inhibited by tribal loyalties and conditioned to accept corruption can't build healthy democracies.
Above all, societies and cultures that refuse to accept responsibility for their own failures can't build democracies.
As difficult as it can be to discern in the hype-and-gripe Internet age, our own system works because we shoulder the burden of our errors, seek to understand what went wrong - and fix the problem (the same may be said of Israel, the only successful democracy in the Middle East).
A culture of blame prevents moral, social and political progress. This is a self-help universe. The nonsensical Arab insistence that all Arab problems are the fault of America and Israel (or the Crusades) ignores the fact that Arab civilization has been in decline for 700 years - and has been in utter disarray for the last 200.
This is a homemade failure. Through their own choices, cherished beliefs, values and norms, Arabs have condemned themselves to strategic incompetence. No society that oppresses women, denies advancement on merit even to men, indulges in fantastic hypocrisy, wallows in corruption, undervalues secular learning, reduces its god to a nasty disciplinarian and comforts itself with conspiracy theories will ever compete with us.
The question has been asked before: Despite the massive influx of petrodollars over a half-century, where are the great Arab universities, the research institutes, the cutting-edge industries, the efficient, humane governments, the enlightened societies? The Arab world has behaved as irresponsibly as a drunk who won the lottery, squandering vast wealth and creating nothing beyond a few urban theme parks.
Even the seeming bright spots, such as Lebanon, aren't true democracies. The Lebanese voted for clans, tribes and faiths, not for policies and programs. The Gulf emirates are mere playgrounds for Saudi debauchees and face the rise of a nuclear Iran. In Saudi Arabia, religious hatred has long surpassed oil as the number one export.
Surely, if Arab societies were capable of producing and sustaining democracies, we would see at least one. Where are the massive rallies in favor of tolerance, that indispensable lubricant of democracy? Where are the militias fighting for constitutional government? Where are the insurgencies demanding female enfranchisement?
It would be racist to claim that Arabs are genetically inferior. It is simply the truth to admit that Arab societies are volatile disasters.
Arab terrorism isn't about redressing wrongs. It's about revenge on a successful civilization that left the dungeon-cultures of the Middle East in the dust.
We've done what we could in Iraq, and we've done it nobly. We should not withdraw our troops precipitously, but the clock is ticking. It's now up to the Iraqis to succeed - or become yet another pathetic Arab failure. If Iraqis are unwilling to grasp the opportunity our soldiers and Marines bought them with American blood, it's their tragedy, not ours.
We did the right thing by deposing Saddam Hussein. The Arab Middle East needed one last chance. Iraq is it. If Iraqi democracy fails, there will be no hope, whatsoever, for the Arab world.
Ralph Peters' latest book is "Never Quit the Fight."
#1
"We did the right thing by deposing Saddam Hussein. The Arab Middle East needed one last chance. Iraq is it. If Iraqi democracy fails, there will be no hope, whatsoever, for the Arab world."
Is Peters suggesting that failure will lead to total destruction of the Arab world as in a modern-day irradiated version of Carthage? With nuclear ambitions spreading in Pakistan and Iran - two non-Arabic Muslim countries, it is only a matter of time before the Saudis purchase a nuke or two. What then? Sunni versus Shiite?
Democracy is not easy. Recall Germany's first attempt.
I don't personally believe that any Arabic country is prepared for democratic elections of stable governments, but that's not to say they never will be. They've got to start somewhere.
#4
I once argued that it was stupid not to break them into three countries. Now I think that the fact that they have competing interests and power structures provides their best chance for becoming a funtioning Republic.
Peters makes some valid points here - but he's falling into that trap of declaring that somehow - despite all historical precident to the contrary - that Iraq should just magically turn itself into a democracy overnight. Poof! Democracy, children playing, kites and ponies for all.
The best example of showing why George Bush's plan for democracy is the best plan we've had to date is, IMHO, the Palestinians. They voted for Hezbollah - they got what they asked for - a chance to wipe Israel off the map. It's really not working out so well for them. Better luck in the next election. Maybe they will be wiser then.
Unless Ralph is brilliant and has a better way - we really don't have a better idea than representative government. They are 700 years behind - it might take them awhile.
#6
Is Peters suggesting that failure will lead to total destruction of the Arab world as in a modern-day irradiated version of Carthage?
Suggesting? No. Implying, for those with eyes to see? Absolutely. I think Mr. Peters was on some talk show or other a few days ago (Charles whatsisname on PBS, perhaps, or on NPR?). As I flipped past I caught him (or some other name I'm familiar with as being reasonably knowledgeable on the subject-- I'm sorry to be so vague, but I really wasn't paying attention, and my memory has been a bit porous) saying that we are forced to the conclusion that Iraq is a total failure and we should simply present the Iraqis with a shape up or we ship out ultimatum, and see which they choose.
While this feels written in white heat, and while I respect much of what he says, he misses a key point as he talks about the invasion of Iraq: we did not invade just to set up the first Arab democracy. We went in there to depose Saddam Hussein, thus ending what was the most vicious of the Muslim despotisms, the strongest supporter of Arab terror groups warring against Israel and the West (remember the US$10,000 - 25,000 checks to the families of successful Palestinian suicide bombers, the terrorist training center at Salman Pak and elsewhere, the free housing for Palestinian and other terrorists seeking sanctuary [was it Abu Nidal who committed suicide just before the invasion by double tapping himself in the back of the head?], the research and development of WMD technologies, and the meetings with Al Qaeda representatives requesting portable WMDs for their group's use?), the wannabe hegemonist who warred for a decade against Iran, then turned around and conquered Kuwait as prelude to Saudi Arabia and a stranglehold on the world's oil production. And of course to obtain bases for our military in the center of the Arab world to facilitate the active phase of our definitive response to the Muslim World's attack on the U.S. on 9/11/01. And, of course, to end the eleven-year drain on our resources, and well of corruption of the corruptible around the world, that was the UN Oil for Food program.
Setting up a test to see if Arabs can create a functioning, stable democracy is only the frosting on a very large cake. Or course, that's just the opinion of a little Midwestern housewife, so the reader will know best how to weight what I've just written.
#9
well said, TW. I have repesct for Ralph - but he should be very embarrassed that "a little Midwestern housewife" (oh - we know better ;-)should be able to see and express it so more clearly than he.
But that's what the internet is really all about, isn't it? Ralph would be wise to acknowledge your point and move forward.
#10
Is Peters suggesting that failure will lead to total destruction of the Arab world as in a modern-day irradiated version of Carthage?
Actually I think he is suggesting that if Iraq splits apart into ethnic parts other nations might follow suit (possibly in Africa as well). Since the third world is filled with borders cutting through ethnic groups it could get messy.
On the other hand I think the world would be far more peaceful when the dust settled.
#11
The problem isn't Arabs but Islam. Islam CANNOT accomodate democracy: it tells that women are inferior to men, dhimmis to free men and that slavery is legitimate. And this is not the teachings of a Church but in the Koran itself, taht taht Koran who was NOT created but existed along God himself of all eternity and CANNOT be changed. A;lso while neither Christ or the apostles held positions of power Muhammad ruled and he didn't rule as a democratic ruler but as your basic dictator.
There aare also questions like free speech (not tolerated by Muhammad) or freedom of religion including apostasy. So Islam and democracy cannot mix (even if some non-practicing Muslims can be pro-democracy).
Compounded to that is that unlike say, Turks, Arabs have remained tribal so they vote for what the leader of the tribe says while democracy implies that you vote as individuals and also that you care about the ideas of the candidate not about where it comes from.
So Irak has elections and perhaps freedom but it is still faaaar from democracy.
#12
rjschwarz, after the dust settles there will be approximately 50% fewer ethnic groups, however.
2b, I am almost -- almost! -- 5' tall (that's 152cm for those outside our borders), I live in the outer suburbs of Cincinnati, Ohio, and I retired seventeen years ago (y'know, this is the first time I calculated how long it'd been -- I'm shocked!) to the joys of housewifery, mothering and tea/dinner parties. Before that I held a variety of jobs while trying to figure out what I was meant to do, the highest paid of which was as a research lab technician. I think I've described myself honestly -- I haven't anything like the credentials of a good many posters here, not to mention our illustrious lurkers (*waves to the silently serious men and women in their exceedlingly serious suits who check on our progress from time to time*). That I can synthesize from what y'all have been saying is a credit to those from whom I've learnt.
#13
Peters links the less-than-stellar performance of the Iraqis so far, and the notion that this is the Arab world's (I prefer "Muslim world's", but whatever) "last hope."
I don't think the two are linked any more.
Whether Iraq turns out well or not-- or just kind of half-assed, as I expect-- I doubt any future American President, after seeing the grief George Bush has taken, is going to undertake another "nation building" exercise like this one in response to any future terrorist attack on American soil.
What he would do is anybody's guess; but he's not going to do this again. And in that sense, Iraq most certainly is the Muslim world's last hope. No more training wheels or water wings.
Next time, it's going to be sink or swim-- at best.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/24/2006 18:18 Comments ||
Top||
#14
TW, I think you are one of the most eloquent posters here at RBU. I, for one, look for your comments. I would guess that I am not alone.
BTW, I am coming to your fair city tomorrow for a weekend wedding. It should be a lovely affair. All the right clubs, addresses, etc. My mom grew up there.
After living overseas for my early years we moved to Indianapolis, a city that was at the time far less urbane than Cincinnati. We would have to travel the 2 hours to Cincinatti to get a proper young man's suit. No Brooks Brothers in Indianoplace at that point.
If you're out on the town Friday night, I'll be the one weaving in pink pants and blazer. Pardon in advance if I offend.
#15
TW, you left something out; in addition to housewifery and tea parties, you've taken on a public service. Your secondary retirement occupation of systematically, almost surgically dismembering trolls here at RB has been a great benefit to the readership. It's truly been a joy to behold and is very much appreciated (except, I'm sure, by the trolls). Your work on NAH, by the way, was absolutely classic; I suspect he now shudders every time he even sees a keyboard. Thanks!
Posted by: mac ||
08/24/2006 18:49 Comments ||
Top||
#16
don't listen to her lies - she's a trained killer (all wives are) :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/24/2006 19:14 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Another vote of confidence here for trailing wife. The grace with which she dispenses the ocassional troll is something to be admired. Now on to the money quotes:
A culture of blame prevents moral, social and political progress. This is a self-help universe. The nonsensical Arab insistence that all Arab problems are the fault of America and Israel (or the Crusades) ignores the fact that Arab civilization has been in decline for 700 years - and has been in utter disarray for the last 200.
This is a homemade failure. Through their own choices, cherished beliefs, values and norms, Arabs have condemned themselves to strategic incompetence. No society that oppresses women, denies advancement on merit even to men, indulges in fantastic hypocrisy, wallows in corruption, undervalues secular learning, reduces its god to a nasty disciplinarian and comforts itself with conspiracy theories will ever compete with us.
The question has been asked before: Despite the massive influx of petrodollars over a half-century, where are the great Arab universities, the research institutes, the cutting-edge industries, the efficient, humane governments, the enlightened societies? The Arab world has behaved as irresponsibly as a drunk who won the lottery, squandering vast wealth and creating nothing beyond a few urban theme parks.
Considering that, petroleum exports excluded, America imports more manufactured goods from HongKong than all of the Arab Middle East combined, what further indicator is needed of just how irresponsibly the Arab governments handled their massive wealth?
As noted by Dave D.:
I doubt any future American President, after seeing the grief George Bush has taken, is going to undertake another "nation building" exercise like this one in response to any future terrorist attack on American soil.
I, too, agree that the era of nation building is over. Iraq epitomizes the near-impossibility of laminating the democratic process onto an essentially tribal society. America owes it to itself to adopt a new military doctrine of simply "breaking things".
Whenever any bad boys pop up on radar, we go in and break their toys. No rebuilding, no Marshall plan, no foreign aid, just the stark guarantee that if another hostile regime arises, it's time to rinse and repeat. This policy needs to be unveiled with Iran. They are the pluperfect example of why such a revision is necessary.
#18
Trailing Wife, I disagree with the 50% fewer ethnic groups. The Croats and the Serbs fought tooth and nail until they managed to move so that they no longer shared ethnically mixed neighborhoods and had some defensible borders to guard. A similar thing will happen. Sunni and Kurds will flee Baghdad for example and head to their own areas. It might look like the Indian partitian at times, but when the dust settles things will be quieter as the world deals far better with nation on nation violencce than it does with internal slaughter.
#22
Y'all are darlings -- and truly I couldn't synthesize if you hadn't given me such good and useful information to synthesize from.
rjschwarz, I would ever so much rather you were right than I, and your argument makes sense. I'll just think of the, what? ten million Hindus and Muslims who died on the road trading India for Pakistan in both directions, and try to remember to be glad that only some of each died, and not all of one or the other. john has mentioned the number several times, and posted pictures the other day that tore my heart at the vicious stupidity the Muslims there/then insisted on setting in motion, just as too many Muslims here/now are doing, but the actual numbers escape me, I'm afraid.
remoteman, I'm sure you'll look just right. Congratulations to the groom and best wishes to the bride -- may their joy in one another grow with their years together!
#23
tw, I tip my hat and give yet another vote of confidence to you. Your tea parties are to die for. Maybe, just maybe, we could send you to Iraq to "settle" things? I forsee great tea parties there (at least, after all the dust settles).
I, myself, keep bouncing back and forth between Iraq as a nation and the proposal to split it in 3. I don't think Americans can take much more of this war, and like Dave D., it should (if they thought about it, but that's the whole cause/effect thingy) signal to the Arabs that next time, we're just breakin' stuff and leavin'. I personally don't want to see any more suffering for the "average Iraqi" (who's probably just trying to make do...remember the so-called insurgents are all either ex-Saddamites or Furriners), but this has gotta stop and I now think, if we do leave soon, we need to split it in 3. Everyone here knows how quickly the Kurds moved on w/ life, why can't the Sunnis/Shias?
Posted by: BA ||
08/24/2006 23:16 Comments ||
Top||
Interesting, though the nuke part should be salted as deemed necessary.
By Jamie Glazov
Frontpage Interviews guest today is Regnar Rasmussen, a former military interpreter and interrogation specialist trained at the Danish Armed Forces' Specialist School. For more than ten years, he worked as a translator in the Danish Central Police Department (immigration department) as well as in several criminal investigations departments. He affirms that, through his experience, he learned of the many ways in which the Soviet system trained the Islamist enemy we now face in the terror war. More frightening yet, he claims that his sources informed him back in 1992 that the Soviets sold the Iranian Mullahs nuclear warheads in autumn 1991. Rest at link.
Sign of the times: Type "naked woman cuddling dead pig" into Google, and your first result is not one of those horrid pervy sites whose pictures make you want to bleach your eyeballs. No, you get a review of a British performance artist. For four hours she hugged a porker while spectators filed past and thought: "There's something you don't see every day, a fact that might be conclusive evidence of a benevolent God."
Naturally, she got a grant for the project; public pounds paid for the dead pig, which she stabbed with a knife in order to bond with the corpse. Bring the kids! And the next time you're in the grocery store holding some bacon, consider taking off your clothes and selling tickets. You might make enough money to make bail.
You're thinking: so? It's this year's Mapplethorpe-painting-with-elephant-dung-dunked-in-urine story. People have been complaining about modern art since that hack Marcel Duchamp hung some bathroom plumbing and called it sculpture.
True. But. It's hard to convince Britain's radicalized immigrants to assimilate if it means they must pay for some naked lady getting jiggy with piggy. These are the values of the West? We must pay for this, and you call it freedom?
Good question. What is Western culture all about these days, anyway? Little but narcissism, lassitude, sneers and muted despair, it seems. No, correct that; it's European/U.S. elite culture that seems unmoored. Standard lowbrow American culture is quite clear about what it likes: snakes on planes, loud cars going around in circles with the occasional airborne detour into the stands, high-quality TV shows, mediocre pop music, naked people without the whole arty pig thing.
It's generally confident and not particularly self-reflective, which leaves the "elite" stratum of the arts worlds to face the true hard issues of our times. Like pig-hugging and the threat to democracy posed by Joe McCarthy.
Really. One well-reviewed play in a recent Scottish festival, "Mickey Mouse Is Dead," concerns the efforts of some brave, scrappy cartoonists who attempt to unionize the Disney shop at the height of the Red scare. Will Mean Old Walt report them to the junior senator from Wisconsin, as required by the National Overblown Paranoia Act of '51? Probably not, since the Disney studio actually unionized in the '40s, rendering the entire point of the play moot. No matter; you get the point.
Mickey Mouse was founded on a lie! The dark side of America contains more truth than the bright! Thomas Jefferson owned slaves! Everyone is corrupt, grown-ups are hypocrites -- the usual adolescent rant. The play was performed by an American troupe, which knows the route to Euro-love. Tell 'em how much you hate your daddy.
Ah, but it's an analogy for our times, you see. Folks in the '50s were paranoid for no reason, since Communism was later revealed as a practical joke played by mischievous Russians. So our current "concern" over "terrorists" who blow up "buildings" must likewise be a spasm of nervous Nellie panic brought on by regimes that seek to rule through fear.
Of course, one could make the case that the greatest threats to the freedoms of the West are posed by the head-choppers, plane-exploders, their many merry supporters, and the nuke-seeking state that supports them.
But don't expect the artists to make the case. They saw what happened to that Theo Van Gogh fellow. Pay no attention to that imam behind the curtain. Here's the ghost of Eisenhower. Booga-booga!
The artists seem more concerned with a culture that won't let gays marry than one that won't let them live. They fear the charge of "Islamophobia" or cultural insensitivity, lest they have to explain a joke to a stone-faced Belgian court. ("It is the verdict of the court that you stink" doesn't look good on the handbills.)
They take the easy way out, these brave souls; they'll perform "The Diary of Anne Frank," but only because now some people think it has a happy ending. They cradle their illusions like a big dead pig, singing them lullabies.
Hey, maybe it's a metaphor after all! Give that woman a grant.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/24/2006 10:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
they'll perform "The Diary of Anne Frank," but only because now some people think it has a happy ending.
*frustrated sign* If only I could write like that, darn it!
#2
What is Western culture all about these days, anyway? Little but narcissism, lassitude, sneers and muted despair, it seems.
Describes our prema-adolescent liberal "elites" to a tee. I'm tired of them. I'm tired of our news media thinking they are too important to just report news and instead try to influence elections to make themselves feel more important. I'm tired of their constant demand that we all conform to a tired, aging, popular culture that is about as deep as a naked woman cuddling a dead pig. Drip, drip, drip.
I grew up in SOCAL and know that cynical, sneering attitude. I actually grew up thinking that was just the normal way to be. Then I went away to a rural area - where the people were friendly and down to earth and it actually shocked me that they didn't hide behind the mask of cynicism to feign cool. Those people were so much more confident and happy-go-lucky. Ha! I didn't know it was ok to be like that.
I guess that's why liberals disgust me so much. I'm like a non-smoker. Or maybe it's about disliking most in others what you dislike most in yourself. Whatever. I see through it and anyone who actually is willing to identify themself as a "liberal elite" is just an insecure geek who with an under-inflated sense of self-worth and not confident with their own identity. Thus they hang with the bullies of popular culture and act like Mean Girls. In a nutshell it's - If you're stupid - then I'm smarter than you.
But what's wierd is that they refuse to grow up in a world that is getting so dangerous that they really need to get over it and suck it up for their children and grandchildren. But the Cindy Sheehans and other liberal know-it alls are so invested in their own sense of inferiority that to acknowledge they are wrong would be to acknowledge they are just ordinary. And they can't be ordinary, because if they are just ordinary and not special - and then, HORROR! that means that they are just same dorky, insecure, geek that they were as a child. They can't face it. So they cling to their adolescence until they die.
Cynicism is a very negative force. I hope our country can move past it and regain it's sense of can-do optimism. We all need to do it one individual at a time.
While Muslims practise ethnic cleansing in their own failed states, they pour into the Free World. They bring with them contempt for disbelief in Islam, and jihad duty to Muslim terrorists. Why is it that only 39% distrust Muslims? It should be 100%.
Inside the First Amendment: Islam is not the enemy By CHARLES C. HAYNES
When I argued in my last column that demonizing Islam threatened religious freedom, I assumed the vast majority of Americans would agree.
I may have assumed wrong.
To borrow from Orwell: only an intellectual would say this. No ordinary person would be so stupid.
According to a USA TODAY/Gallup poll released last week, 39 percent of respondents believe that American Muslims arent loyal to the United States. A third believes American Muslims are sympathetic to al-Qaida and 22 percent dont want Muslims as neighbors. This despite the fact that millions of Muslims in America are hardworking, civic-minded, taxpaying citizens some of whom are fighting and dying as members of the U.S. armed services even as I write these words.
And we thank them for their service. And we acknowledge that there are indeed good Muslims who are loyal Americans.
We also saw the thousands who marched in D.C. in support of Hezbollah a week ago. We hear the comments of their representatives like CAIR who are trying to play both sides. We hear the apologists who condemn everything done by Christians, Jews and seculars and nothing done by Muslims. We see our other immigrant neighbors -- Nigerians, Hindus, Vietnamese, Hmongs, Mexicans, Hondurans, Haitians -- going about their lives peacefully and wonder why in hell can't the Muslims do the same?
It doesnt help, of course, that the latest headlines are about the arrest of 24 British Muslim suspects in an alleged plot to blow up planes bound for the United States. That so many young Muslims are seduced by extremism is not only a grave danger to the West, but it is also a challenge of enormous proportions for the Muslim world.
Having acknowledged that yes, indeedie there's a problem for the Muslim world, Mr. Haynes walks away from it, having done his minimum duty. He then proceeds to the real agenda which is to attack his countrymen. It's the liberal-progressive way.
More Americans than I imagined, it appears, are so frustrated, fearful and angry about the terrorist threat that theyre no longer willing to sort out what is and isnt authentic Islam.
It's not completely up to us to understand them. It's up to them to demonstrate, in word and deed, that there is a difference between the 'authentic' Muslims and the head-choppers. It's a natural human response to be concerned about all Muslims in the absence of any explanation to the contrary ...
For growing numbers of people in this country, the war on terrorism is now seen as a war on Islam.
A "War on Samoans" just doesn't ring true ...
This characterization of the war is exactly what al-Qaida has worked for years to achieve in its battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims worldwide...
It would be nice if the authentic, moderate Muslims would help us out in the sorting. They're out there, but they aren't challenging the local spittle-spewers. I suspect it's because they've absorbed the liberal lesson about how one shouldn't get involved.
The challenge is to convince our public schools that learning more about Islam and other religions is not only an important part of a good education its also necessary if we hope to live together as citizens of one nation.
One of the best classes I ever took in college was a survey of world religions. I'd encourage every public high school to offer a similar class, and I'd want every Muslim teen to learn the lesson.
In the meantime, here are steps every American can take: Become acquainted with your Muslim neighbors and co-workers. Visit a local mosque or Islamic center. Learn firsthand what Muslims in America actually believe and practice. The more we know, the safer American Muslims will feel and the better off our nation will be.
And conversely, here's what our moderate Muslim citizens could do: become acquainted with the Jewish and Christian neighbors and co-workers. Visit a synagogue and Church (no, don't take notes). Learn firsthand what it means to be an American, and why it's important to hit behind the runner with less than two outs. The more they know about all of us, the safer all ofus will feel.
#1
Muzzies will tell you islam's not a religion, religion being an infidel concept, but a deen, whatever the f#$k that is.Never heard that freedom of DEEN is protected in the Constitution.
#2
Well Charlie Haynes, instead of asking Americans to bend over backwards for muslims once again, why not ask muslims to become Americans first. Better yet, why not yet off your politically correct, see no evil ass and commission a poll of US resident muslims and get their perspective of America. For comparision here is a corresponding UK poll: Many British Muslims Put Islam First 39 percent of (American) respondents believe that American Muslims arent loyal to the United States
UK: When asked, "Is Britain my country or their country?" only one in four say it is. Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law.
A third believes American Muslims are sympathetic to al-Qaida and 22 percent dont want Muslims as neighbors.
UK: Forty-five percent say 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American and Israeli governments. This figure is more than twice as high as those who say it was not a conspiracy. Tragically, almost one in four British Muslims believe that last year's 7/7 attacks on London were justified because of British support for the U.S.-led war on terror.
Also concerning freedom of speech, as the NOP Research survey reports, "hardcore Islamists" constitute nine percent of the British Muslim population. A slightly more moderate group is composed of "staunch defenders of Islam." This second group comprises 29 percent of the British Muslim population. Individuals in this group aggressively defend their religion from internal and external threats, real or imagined. The scary reality is that only three percent of British Muslims "took a consistently pro-freedom of speech line on these questions."
More Americans than I imagined, it appears, are so frustrated, fearful and angry about the terrorist threat that theyre no longer willing to sort out what is and isnt authentic Islam.
UK: Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state. This comports with last year's Daily Telegraph newspaper survey that found one-third of British Muslims believe that Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to end it.
The news is no less alarming on the question of freedom of speech. Seventy-eight percent support punishment for the people who earlier this year published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who "insult Islam." When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not.
^^^^^^^
The challenge is to convince our public schools that learning more about Islam and other religions is not only an important part of a good education its also necessary if we hope to live together as citizens of one nation.
The more I learn of Islam and muslim thought, the more I am convinced islam can not coexist with any other political or religious system. The only solutions are complete separation or total war. To do nothing is to be picked off at the time and place chosen by muslims.
Posted by: ed ||
08/24/2006 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Every one of this guy's arguments are irrelevant. I demonize Islam because it's a religion of demons. Is a doctor mean, cruel or bigoted when he correctly diagnoses a cancer?
Islam is utterly incompatible with the concepts of freedom, liberty, tolerance and personal choice. As such, it should be rejected outright by the west. We're just pussy-footing around.
Try a little test: Ask an American muslim if his loyalty is to the US, or to Islam. Since the two are incompatible, he will have to pick one. Guess which one?
More Americans than I imagined, it appears, are so frustrated, fearful and angry about the terrorist threat that theyre no longer willing to sort out what is and isnt authentic Islam.
No, I consider Islam a threat because I've sorted out what is and isn't authentic Islam.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/24/2006 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"I demonize Islam because it's a religion of demons" -- solid gold quote.
#7
If it only takes one policy for most lefties to justify burning the flag in protest and villifying the US why should it take more evidence for the American people to justify burning the Koran in protest and villifying the Islamic people?
#8
Maybe if there was some other group planning to blow up planes and tunnels besides Muslims, we would stop equating them with terrorists. Just a thought.
#9
"And conversely, here's what our moderate Muslim citizens could do: become acquainted with the Jewish and Christian neighbors and co-workers. Visit a synagogue and Church (no, don't take notes). Learn firsthand what it means to be an American, and why it's important to hit behind the runner with less than two outs. The more they know about all of us, the safer all ofus will feel."
Absolutely. Instead, we get the smary Saudi prince Bin Waleed plunking down $40 million for "slamic-Christian Understanding"programs at Harvard and Georgetown U. The premise: Christians are too stupid and intolerant toward Islam, but of course, the Wahhabi Muzzies are oh soooooo open and tolerant.
We should have told the smary one: We'll let you finance a Wahhabi-front in the USA the moment you permit Churches and Temples in Soddy. If not, bugger off!
"In 2001, he offered New York City a donation of $10 million towards relief efforts after the September 11, 2001 attacks. This was rejected by Mayor Rudy Giuliani because he construed the prince's subsequent issuance of a statement that the United States "must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack" as a justification of the terrorist incidents."
"In December 2002, Al-Waleed donated $27 million to a Saudi Government telethon raising money for Palestinians."
"In December 2005, Prince Al-Waleed donated $20 million each to both Harvard University and Georgetown University. The donations will finance promote Wahhabi-Islamic studies at both universities. The $20 million to Georgetown is its second largest donation in history and among the 25 largest for Harvard."
#11
A muslim's only loyalty is to his cult"religion". Even when starting off as a young fun-loving easy going one he'll soon be pressured by his peers to conform to the rules of the ummah as their numbers increase like lemmings.
Catherist bastids living in ivory towers cluelessly make your world into a very dangerous place.
#14
Muzzies will tell you islam's not a religion, religion being an infidel concept, but a deen, whatever the f#$k that is.Never heard that freedom of DEEN is protected in the Constitution.
Maybe they're referring to Howard Deen. [/snarkasm]
This whole article merely convinces me that I have been right to alienate so many of the liberal people I know by consistently demonizing Islam and the left's inability to discern what global sharia portends.
At a recent dinner party one person made an oblique reference to the "idiotic government of a North American nation". I suggested Canada's leadership who were considering allowing sharia family law in court rulings. In a frustrated tone, the person then said that they were referring to a country that was a bit further south. I mentioned Vincente Fox's hyper-corrupt government of Mexico and they really got spun up.
In light of constant evidence presented here at Rantburg, I am obliged to conclude that the liberal left's vision of human utopia relies so heavily upon nanny state politics that it may as well be some form of communism socialism. A real corker was the "Progressive Personality Disorder" posted yesterday.
#16
I don't think the Islamists should feel safe. This whole issue is like so many others in our PC, identity driven society today. PC is not really about tolerance. It is about forcing a uniformity in thought. What is Islam but "Submission" to a particular pattern of thought? One commonality between the modern left and Islam is that they both believe that people should be forced to do things in conformity to their idea of right.
If the West finds ever finds its courage, this war will become a death struggle between Islam and the West. If it comes to that, the Left will likely be collateral damage, because the West, aka the Enlightenment, or free inquiry, or Freedom, will no longer tolerate the intolerant. Islam will reform or die. I would prefer that Islam reform, but I will settle for die if necessary.
#18
The whole thing that gets me with the LLL's fascination of the muzzies, SR71, is that they'll be the FIRST to be fed to the sharks when/if muzzies take over. Those homo-lovin/tree-huggin/spittle spewers will be beheaded quickly, because they (the LLL) don't believe in any form of defense.
As to the mods' comment about visiting a moskkk, I've got a personal story on that one. Used to ride to work with 2 Muslims. Both from Bangladesh (originally). The older one (mid-late 40s w/ 2 high school kids) was VERY Americanized, and yet, had probably lived in B'desh longer than the younger. The younger used to go into immediate full fledged hissy coniption fits when I'd even bring up the "Israeli situation." Even though he'd NEVER set foot in the Middle East (much less Israel proper), he was full fledged supporter of suicide bombings, etc. Now, he was born in B'desh, but raised in NYC, and subsequently moved here to ATL. He also used to "joke" about how I should treat my wife. I now look back and think, man, he wasn't kidding about that.
Long story short, their moskkk is literally 1 mile from our subdivision (the younger one lives just a few doors up from me). After 9/11 (I believe at the 1 year anniversary), our Church was having "open doors" all day long for prayer/rememberance and then a non-religious ceremony that evening. I call him (the younger one) up and say, "Hey, my church is having a memorial service for 9/11, no preaching, just time for some quiet to remember those 3,000 souls who perished. Would you like to go w/ me?" "Nah," he replied.
A few weeks later, I had really began to get into the Islamic teachings of jihad and even the true history of big Mo. So, I asked him, "Hey, man, could I go with you to the mosque sometime. I'd just like to see what Islam's all about and try and understand your religion." He told me he "wouldn't feel comfortable" bringing me to the mosque. Reading between the lines, it was because (I honestly believe) i was white and didn't "look" Muslim. So, this thought of just visiting the local moskkk is a lot of hooey. Yeah, a select few mosques may hold "open" days, but I imagine a LOT of the stuff going on there is hidden/cleaned from view during those select days. Everything else is very secretive to me.
Posted by: BA ||
08/24/2006 23:00 Comments ||
Top||
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.
MUAMMAR Gaddafis son has stated only the obvious when he said the other day that his country lacked a free Press and proper form of democracy. His promise, on an optimistic note, is that a new plan currently under way will evaluate the past and start anew with a new determination and new strategy.
