I recently read the book The Reformation by Owen Chadwick, about the Protestant Reformation and the situation in 15th and 16th century Europe. It is fascinating to read about Western Europe during a period when it was genuinely dynamic, not the anemic and self-loathing continent it is now. But still, I was also struck by how many similarities there are between the situation then and now. This was also during a period of Muslim aggression, as the Turks made inroads into the Balkans and Central Europe, eventually threatening even Western Europe.
Ironically, this period was also when the Greco-Roman heritage was rediscovered in the West. The classical heritage had been preserved in the East for a thousand years after the Western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, and with the pressures from Muslims, many Greek Byzantine scholars brought their texts with them to northern Italian cities such as Venice, thus fuelling the Renaissance.
However, the overall picture was one of Western division. Spain, which was probably the strongest nation in Europe during the 16th century, was after expelling Muslims from their own peninsula in 1492 more interested in looking westwards to the Americas rather than eastwards to the expanding Ottoman Empire.
#1
I always wondered what would have happened if the Spanish took their New World money and continued the reconquest across North Africa instead of fighting Protestants.
#3
The French even allied with the Muslims for their own short-term gains. According to Chadwick, "the French king had not hesitated to attempt alliance with the Turks when it suited his political need, and once allowed a Turkish admiral to celebrate the fast of Ramadan in the streets of Toulon."
Quelle surprise!
People from Russia, a country which was once under the Tartar Yoke, should understand the Islamic threat. So why are the Russians helping The Islamic Republic of Iran with missile and nuclear technology that will eventually be used to intimidate non-Muslim countries?
Something that Ive always been intensely curious about.
Some of the Russian skepticism towards the West is understandable. As long as Western nations pander to Muslims, why shouldn't the Russians do so, too? The reaction of European Union officials to the grotesque Islamic Beslan massacre of Russian school children, almost blaming it on the Russian security forces instead of the Islamic terrorists, rightly upset many Russians.
But they still dont get it and triangulate against the West while abetting their most dire enemies. Is it any surprise that Russia is such a post-communist hellhole?
Elena Chudinova, the author of the dystopian novel The Mosque of Notre Dame de Paris, says that if the Muslims were to succeed in establishing their own rule in Moscow, then Russian culture, Russians as a people and Russia itself would cease to exist.
Marco Seliger, editor-in-chief of "loyal," a Bundeswehr reservists' magazine, praised German military training. Nevertheless, there's no guarantee that soldiers won't make mistakes in threatening situations, he added.
DW-Word.DE : How would you compare the Bundeswehr's training with that of the US armed forces?
That's a comparison that can't be made. But I'll make a couple anyway...
The Bundeswehr attaches greater importance to intercultural competence and the soldiers are familiarized with local culture and conditions. That's something the Americans have neglected for a long time.
We also provide medical training and teach our soldiers how to avoid hidden explosives. And we bring up the question of whether to shoot or not to shoot. Our soldiers don't just crawl around on the battlefield and practice military things, which some people associate with US training. "...military things" Chocolate makers...
#1
"That's something the Americans have neglected for a long time."
Nonsense. When I was in the Navy in 1972, we had to have a cultural briefing before we went on a show the flag tour to South America and Africa. And the fellow who did the presentation had been doing it a long time.
#2
An this is why the German troops have been utter coawrds and sucked badly in the very few combat situations that have arisen in their very easy sector in Afghanistan. They tend to break contact and run away rather than confront.
Its almost like the police in the movie "Demolition Man".
Rommel and Frederick the Great and all those tough as nails German soldiers trhoughout history must be doing several thousand RPM right now.
#3
My direct military experience was limited to a year as a draftee in the command company of a combat engineer regiment in the French Army. Meaning that we were near the bottom of the barrel (I fired less rounds in a whole year than a Marine fires in two days of training). But in 2003 I was appalled to find German soldiers shopping for alcohol in a supermarket and that 11am in a working day and in uniform. It wasn't the uniform for soldiers on leave but combat uniform meaning that they were probably not off duty. And this was not an isolated incident as two years later I saw again groups of soldiers in supermarket.
My feeling was that the Bundeswehr has fallen still lowest that my bottom of the barrel French regiment
#7
Perhaps the Bundeswehr should "attach more importance" to, ya know, "military things" like being able to fight and secure an objective. All I've heard re Afghanistan has been similar to what OldSpook said. Pathetic.
And it's not like other European countries, where their military does outstanding work in Iraq (and schemes and begs and cheats to get there, and go back again), and thinks it the zenith of their professional lives to work with the US military in an important conflict zone - even while their political class back home barfs on our noble efforts and tut-tuts about something or other in ridiculous fashion. I'm sure there must be some, but I've yet to see/hear a German politician say something sensible or supportive of the US.
Gotta keep the Bundesmarine in mind, though. Hear tell they've done fine work in the Indian Ocean since 9/11.
#3
Fascinating that Bjorn Lumborg says: "Man-made climate change is, of course, real, and constitutes a serious problem." I can imagine he doesn't want a fight over every paragraph so he conceded that one but "of course?" I think their is some debate on the man made part and I think the debate is picking up.
The real Euroopean Dirty Little Secret is the benchmark numbers were chosen as 1990 so that the filthy East German numbers would make it easier for Germany (which had already cleaned up East Germany by the time Global Warming discussions began) to comply and it still messed up the German economy.
#4
Here is an excellent encapsulation of some of the AGW issues, written very clearly and succinctly by Jim Manzi, an MIT professor whose name has been getting some press recently.
#2
I disagree with Fjordman on one point. He wants to stop the world war from happening, while I am convinced that without a world war, Islam will continue to flourish, bomb, burn, hate, seeth, stone, deface, behead, enslave, murder, and rape it's way into the twenty-second century. Draw the line now, let's end this.
#4
Here, Mark Steyn is wrong, which indicates that he doesnt fully understand Islam. The entire project of spreading democracy was a mistake from the very beginning, because democracy cannot be exported to an Islamic country such as Iraq. It is stupidity to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on Muslims while Islamization continues apace in the West.
Steyn also does not fully understand the issue of demography. Islamic countries are parasitical. Even the massive population growth is only an advantage as long as Muslims are allowed to export it to infidel lands. Deprived of this opportunity, and of Western aid, the Islamic world would quickly sink into a quagmire of overpopulation. This is a long-term solution, to demonstrate to Muslims the failure of Islam.
The entire project of spreading democracy was a mistake from the very beginning, because democracy cannot be exported to an Islamic country such as Iraq. It is stupidity to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on Muslims while Islamization continues apace in the West.
Deporting non-citizen Muslims will have much more positive effects in the West than fighting it on their own turf.
Steyn also does not fully understand the issue of demography. Islamic countries are parasitical. Even the massive population growth is only an advantage as long as Muslims are allowed to export it to infidel lands. Deprived of this opportunity, and of Western aid, the Islamic world would quickly sink into a quagmire of overpopulation. This is a long-term solution, to demonstrate to Muslims the failure of Islam.
With even more Muslims returned to their utopic cesspools, we can bring about this worthwhile "quagmire" a whole lot sooner.
Theodore Dalrymple thinks that Islam has nothing whatever to say to the modern world, and states that Personally, I believe that all forms of Islam are very vulnerable in the modern world to rational criticism, which is why the Islamists are so ferocious in trying to suppress such criticism. They have instinctively understood that Islam itself, while strong, is exceedingly brittle, as communism once was. They understand that, at the present time in human history, it is all or nothing. ( ) Islamism is a last gasp, not a renaissance, of the religion; but, as anyone who has watched a person die will attest, last gasps can last a surprisingly long time.
As Wretchard says, this is "Islam's Golden Hour". Indeed, it will be and they have made it, an all or nothing proposition.
If Europe is saved, it will be because of the Internet.
I've said the exact same thing and no truer words can be spoken.
Islam is an all or nothing religion which cannot be secularized.
See above.
The good news is that Islam may not be able to achieve the world dominance it desires. The bad news is that it may be able to achieve a world war. We can only cage it as much as possible and try to prevent this from happening.
If it's war they want, it would be churlish of us to deny them. Sadly we do not currently possess the political will to answer in kind. Containment and other less effective measures will have to suffice ... For now.
Thompson, who was also a Watergate prosecutor, had previously discouraged suggestions he run. But he is now considering the race, amid indications his conservative record combined with a blue-collar, pickup-truck appeal, to independents and moderate Democrats might make him the right guy at the right time.
"He could run as a common sense Washington outsider with Ronald Reagan-class communications skills. Thompson's name recognition is still limited, but his celebrity means his face recognition is unusually high and very favorable.
"He'd have instant credibility within the party and would be a very formidable candidate against any Democrat in November," said former U.S. Sen. and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, who is neutral in the nomination fight. "He has a very solid conservative record, but like Reagan, he has been able to charm many who may not agree with him on every issue."
Bob Beckel, who managed 1984 Democratic nominee Walter Mondale's campaign, called Thompson potentially a Democratic electoral nightmare because of his communications skills and ability to appeal to swing voters.
Rep. Zach Wamp said Monday that former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson is very likely to run for president.
The Third District congressman told the Chattanooga Pachyderm Club, "I had a follow-up conversation with Fred Thompson, and there is a real, real strong possibility that he will run."
Rep. Wamp said he has already lined up over 40 members who are interested in the Thompson candidacy.
Fifty-one years ago, then-Sen. John F. Kennedy published "Profiles in Courage" -- a chronicle of political figures whose convictions prompted them to adopt unpopular stances for what they perceived as the nation's larger good.
One of the finest contemporary examples of such courage is Sen. John McCain's steadfast advocacy of American success in Iraq and absolutely correct, if unfashionable, warnings of the costs of failure. To his credit, when asked about the possibly catastrophic price such a profile might inflict on his presidential ambitions, the senator has declared, "I would rather lose an election than lose a war."
Continued on Page 49
#3
The Tree of Liberty isn't dead yet, but it's in dire need of being watered with the blood of the petty tyrants who are determined to turn this country into a welfare state.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/20/2007 7:27 Comments ||
Top||
#6
when you elect the elite of the elite, well... you morons, you get what you get, you think the uber rich care about your petty concerns boys, think again!
#7
Do tell us peasants more Mr. Soros, Lewis, and Bing.
Posted by: ed ||
03/20/2007 13:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The Tree of Liberty isn't dead yet, but it's in dire need of being watered with the blood of the petty tyrants who are determined to turn this country into a welfare state.
#9
American liberty will die if we let it. I think one of the biggest errors of the day is that those in the seats of power do not realize that we know what they are up to. The Supreme Court allowed the Kelo family to be screwed out of their property, but we allowed the court to walk away from that dreadful act of personal property abuse. Every one of these leftist bastards should be held accountable for their decisions regarding our freedoms. When a judge forces the ten commandmants off a wall, someone should break his freggin ribs with a nine iron at the next golf outing. It's up to us to bring them down to the level of the citizen. It's this high class allowance that insures they can screw us without response. The elite are out of touch and they will remain out of touch unless and until we touch them. I don't advocate violence, it's just necessary. Look at what the blacks do in their little riots, how about the Greens, the Mexicans, the CAIRofasists. They all break stuff and make demands and threats. We don't, so we get screwed.
Put that on a T-shirt.
YES: Helping Americans is pretense for despicable dictator James L. Martin
WASHINGTON -- Former Massachusetts Rep. Joseph Kennedy II has been playing a strange game of political footsie with the virulently anti-American Venezuelan caudillo Hugo Chavez, who is in the final stages of turning a once-flourishing democracy into a South American replica of Fidel Castro's Cuba.
He is willing to turn a blind eye to the repression of 26 million Venezuelans because Chavez ordered state-owned Citgo to donate millions of gallons of discounted heating oil to Kennedy's non-profit Citizen Energy Corp. for distribution to low-income households.
Kennedy has been featured in Citgo TV ads running in 16 major markets touting the heating oil program as an example of a socially conscious corporation helping the downtrodden.
The ads show grateful elderly Americans bemoaning their inability to buy heating oil at "affordable" prices. Kennedy then steps forward as a shining knight of altruism saying: "I'm Joe Kennedy. Help is on the way ...heating oil at 40 percent off from our friends in Venezuela and Citgo."
Good ole Joe singing the praises of a thug who is ruining his country.
As the head of a national senior citizen's organization, I have testified before Congress on the need to increase energy funding to help low-income senior citizens stay warm in the winter. Yet aiding and abetting a thug who hates America ought to be well beyond the pale.
Kennedy's timing is less than impeccable. He ought to know that Chavez already has moved to nationalize most of Venezuela's industries and is brow-beating their owners to accept pennies-on-the-dollar compensation.
He might also be aware that Chavez routinely claps his political enemies in jail and confiscates privately owned newspapers and TV stations that criticize him. Just this month, he persuaded his stooge-packed parliament to give him what amounts to dictatorial powers for the next 18 months.
How's that for "power to the people," Mr. Kennedy?
It's the kind of 'power' Joe Kennedy most appreciates.
Citgo's "gift" of home heating oil to needy Americans at bargain-basement prices could stand a little truth-in-advertising clarification.
Far from being an act of altruism, it is merely a cynical propaganda ploy -- although one that doesn't register on a former five-term congressman whose uncle had the courage to face down two of the 20th century's most despicable dictators -- Nikita Khrushchev and Fidel Castro.
Kennedy seems oblivious to the rapid decline of freedom in Venezuela -- a nation created in 1830 by the great South American liberator Simon Bolivar, using the United States as his model.
In addition to shilling for Citgo and Chavez on TV, Kennedy has accompanied the Venezuelan ambassador and Citgo's CEO to poor urban neighborhoods on the East Coast -- touting his buddy Hugo as a true friend of America and social justice. Social justice apparently doesn't begin at home.
Kennedy's cozying up to an oppressive dictator who provides him with discounted oil and strokes his personal vanity demonstrates both a lack of courage and judgment.
#4
Anyone with the last name of Kennedy should be barred from politics. Genetically, they are incapbale of understanding the difference between "good" and "evil". John was the misfit.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/20/2007 16:14 Comments ||
Top||
The comic book movie 300 about the Spartans and the Persians in 480 BC is still breaking box-office records. Now it seems the rulers of modern-day Persia, Iran, are not amused.
300, shows a small band of Spartans saving the lives of their countrymen AND the seeds of modern Democracy by kicking the much larger Persians forces effectively in the backside at Thermopylae until the sheer numbers overwhelmed them. If I remember my history, thats exactly what happened.
But the Iranians have filed a flurry of complaints with the United Nations, claiming 300 is cultural and psychological warfare.
Who are these guys who are getting all flushed over our cultural insensitivity?
People who want to blow Jews off the face of the earth. The regime that stormed our embassy in 1979 and kept Americans captive for 444 days. Irans Hezbollah puppets have killed more Americans, than any other terrorist group except Al Qaeda. Explosive devices from Iran are being used right now against our soldiers in Iraq. Theyre clearly more skittish about cultural warfare than the sort that actually kills people like the one against Israel that Iran financed just a few months ago.
I must say that Im impressed that Hollywood took on a politically incorrect villain. Must have run out of neo-Nazis. So now these sensitive souls in Iran think that Hollywood is part of a U.S. government conspiracy to humiliate them into submission. I can only wish we were that effective.
#8
Oh the Muzzies would be pissed about that movie if it got made - Charles "The Hammer" Martel is still hated to this day for stomping their butts, slaughtering them in droves, and driving them out of the main part of Europe.
The Persians in the movie are PAGANS. Zoroastrians. Worshippers of Ahura Mazda. The descendants of this faith were EXPELLED by the muslims, and are the Parsis of India, of whom one of the most famous was Zubin Mehta, who conducted the ISRAEL Philharmonic, among other orchestras. The residue of that faith among ordinary Iranians is the Persian New Years festival, which the mullahs barely tolerate.
These are the guys who were BEATEN by the muslim Arabs at Khadissiyah.
#14
I can't believe you banned me for speaking my mind. Is that the Rantburg way. What ever happened to freedom of speech where everyone can state an opinion. For all the readers out there know that i got banned for only stating, "thats what happens when you have a Jewish controlled Hollywood". That was the only statement i said in regards to the movie 300 in which the Persians are portrayed as blood thirsty monsters. I also had my rant removed.
Now, if you have a problem with that statement don't ban me for it but rather instead debate me on it. Thats what free speech is all about. What ever happend to letting people rant. Please follow the name of you website and allow poeple to express their opinions with out censorship.
Posted by: the Prophet ||
03/20/2007 23:29 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Thats what you get with a Jewish contrlled Hollywood.
Posted by: the Prophet ||
03/20/2007 18:19 Comments ||
Top||
Why the U.S. and other Western powers need to modernize their arsenals
The problem with nuclear weapons today can be summed up as follows: They are going out of fashion where they are needed most and coming into fashion where they are needed least.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair eked out what is likely to be the last significant legislative victory of his government on Thursday when parliament approved funds, over the objections of 88 Labour MPs, to begin design work on the next generation of ballistic missile nuclear submarines. Whether the subs and their missiles will actually be built remains a question for a future parliament to answer.
At nearly the same time, the Bush administration awarded a contract to the Lawrence Livermore Lab to design something called the Reliable Replacement Warhead--basically a retinkered version of the previously tested but never-deployed W89 warhead--to replace the current mainstays of the U.S. arsenal, particularly the 100-kiloton W76. But with Democrats in control of Congress, the RRW will surely face funding hurdles of its own. The New York Times has already chimed in with an editorial denouncing RRW as a make-work scheme for nuclear scientists based on the supposedly bogus rationale of " 'aging' warheads."
Too bad the Times didn't rely on its own fine reporting of the issue: "As warheads age," noted the paper's William J. Broad in a 2005 exposé, "the risk of internal rusting, material degradation, corrosion, decay and the embrittling of critical parts increases." Too bad, too, that British anti-nuclear activists fail to consider the dire consequences for their collective poodledom should they relinquish their independent deterrent.
Still, these ironies are of small account and at least the left maintains its scruples. No similar scruples inhibit the nuclear ambitions of other nations. Russia is fielding a new land-based missile called the Topol-M and building a new generation of ballistic-missile submarines. The Chinese are upgrading their land- and sea-based nuclear forces with multiple warheads and solid-fuel propulsion technology. Pakistan last month successfully tested its Shaheen-II ballistic missile, capable of lifting a nuclear payload to a range of 1,250 miles. Iran is reportedly within months of developing an industrial-scale uranium enrichment capacity of about 3,000 centrifuges, which in turn puts it on track to acquire a bomb's worth of fissile uranium by the end of 2008. The progress of North Korean arms is well known.
Why are the world's responsible powers in such doubt about the necessity of nuclear deterrence when the irresponsible are seeking as never before to enlarge or improve their store of weapons? One answer was offered in these pages in January by former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, who noted that the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty committed non-nuclear powers not to develop weapons in exchange for a promise by the nuclear powers to "reduce and eventually abolish their arsenals." "If this reciprocity is not observed," he wrote, "then the entire structure of the treaty will collapse."
As a matter of rhetoric, Mr. Gorbachev is surely right, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be clever to press the point when he makes an appearance before the U.N. Security Council later this month. As a matter of reality, the argument is wrong on facts and dangerously solipsistic: Messrs. Kim and Ahmadinejad have better reasons to seek nuclear weapons than pique at American (or British) "hypocrisy." As it is, both Russia and the U.S. have reduced their arsenals from Cold War peaks by as much as 80%--much of the reduction being achieved by the current administration--yet that has done little to incent rogue actors not to seek their own weapons of mass destruction.
A more serious objection to the American and British modernization plans is that they offer no realistic security against terrorism. Suppose al Qaeda detonates a nuclear bomb in Times Square. Suppose that the weapon was stolen from an old Soviet depot, meaning no "return address" for purposes of retaliation. Suppose, also, that al Qaeda threatens to detonate five other bombs if the U.S. does not meet a list of its demands. What use would deterrence be then? Against whom would we retaliate, and where?
This scenario does not invalidate the need for a nuclear deterrent: There would still be conventional opponents to deter, and it's odd that the people who tell us we can "contain" a nuclear Iran are often the same ones who insist we can forgo the means of containment. But the question of what to do after a nuclear 9/11 is something to which not enough thought has been given. We urgently need a nuclear doctrine--and the weapons to go with it--for the terrorist age. The RRW, which simply prolongs a Cold War nuclear posture through the year 2050, amounts to a partial solution at best.
What would a sensible deterrence strategy look like? "Even nihilists have something they hold dear that can be threatened with deterrence," says Max Singer, a collaborator of the great Cold War theorist Herman Kahn. "You need to know what it is, communicate it and be serious about it."
Would it hinder Islamist terrorists if the U.S.'s declared policy in the event of a nuclear 9/11 was the immediate destruction of Mecca, Medina and the Iranian religious center of Qom? Would our deterrent be more or less effective if we deployed a range of weapons, such as the maligned "bunker buster," the use of which a potential adversary might think us capable? How would the deployment of a comprehensive anti-ballistic missile shield alter the composition of a credible deterrent? Does it make sense to adhere to the NPT regime when that regime is clearly broken?
One needn't have answers to these questions to know it requires something more than pat moralizing about the terribleness of nuclear weapons or declaring the whole matter "unthinkable." Nothing is unthinkable. But whether the unthinkable remains the undoable depends entirely on our willingness to think clearly about it, and to act on our conclusions.
An Interview with Asiya Andrabi Born in 1963 in Srinagar's Khanyar locality, Asiya Andrabi was more interested in science than spirituality in her youth. Today, however, she leads Dukhtaran-e-Millat, an all-female group that is older than both the Taliban and Al Qaeda and which the Indian government has branded a "soft terror" group. Dressed in her habitual dark Burka and black leather gloves, an engaging and fervent Andrabi welcomed Kashmir Observer correspondent David Lepeska into her home on a recent Friday morning. Over tea and biscuits the two discussed the justice of sharia law, the progress of Kashmir's independence movement, and the assassination of the President of the United States.
KASHMIR OBSERVER: I've read that as a teenager you wanted to be a scientist but were diverted and became interested in Islam. Could you tell me about that?
ASIYA ANDRABI: : After my graduation I was planning to go to India for my studies because biochemistry was not offered in Kashmir University in those days. My brother, who is a doctor, didn't allow me to go to India for further studies as he was aware of what was happening in India to Kashmiris, especially to Muslim girls. So after a few days I went into my father's library and found this book, "The Inner Feelings of a Woman," compiled by Indian author Miya Faribad. One of the lead stories was of Mariam Jamilah and how she converted to Islam from Chistianity. She had a conversation with Maulana Maudoodi and they spoke and wrote letters and she was converted. When I read this whole it was the turning point of my life. And I made up my mind that Insh'allah I too would spend my whole life devoted to Islam. Before that I did not even know the ABC's of Islam, and that too from such a family that was known for their prominence in Islam (Andrabi's say they are part of the Sayyid clan, originally from Afghanistan ). And then I decided that a Muslim is incomplete unless he or she knows Arabic, because most of the books and key Islamic works are in Arabic. So I started reading Arabic. My father too was an Arabic scholar, and he guided me very properly, and I graduated in Arabic from Kashmir University.
KASHMIR OBSERVER: And soon after that you started Dukhtaran-e-Millat?
ASIYA ANDRABI: In 1981 I started a school, a madrassa in Srinagar, and the response was very warm from the women folk. And then I started my organizational work. I went door to door and I went to the mosque and delivered speeches from the loudspeakers. I talked to women just to tell them the status of women in Islam, and how we were exploited by West as well as East everybody exploits us. So let us see what Islam has given us.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/20/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Once again, Radical Islam will accept no compromises or reforms, it is the World = all Humanity which must surrender, + it is a great honor to kill Dubya, the Man that refuses to surrender = won't stop hurting Islamist feelings by NOT allowing Amer to be attacked at will.
#2
So the intellectual poison of Islam turns yet another young person from a promising potential scientist into a murderous religious fundamentalist. That interview should be required reading in classrooms across the world.
#3
My brother, who is a doctor, didn't allow me to go to India for further studies as he was aware of what was happening in India to Kashmiris, especially to Muslim girls.
Yep.. they get an education, find a husband, settle down.
Quite a few "seperatist" leaders have children with medical educations financed by the Indian government that they so hate. Most don't even live in Kashmir anymore, setting up their private practices in more lucrative areas like Mumbai.
When the bus service was started, many Pakistani kashmiris were shocked to see the medical facilities and universities on the Indian side. Nothing like that exists on the Pak side.
The DeM has a fair share of PhDs.. education and terroism actually go hand in hand.. witness Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, Mohammed Atta etc.
Posted by: John Frum ||
03/20/2007 7:04 Comments ||
Top||
I have read his reporting and commentary for years and find him the sole Palestinian writer I consider worthwhile
Even before the Palestinian "unity" government was sworn in Saturday at least five European countries announced that they would resume their business with the Hamas-led coalition.
The U.S. has endorsed Israel's position on the Palestinian government--namely, that its political platform does not meet the conditions set by the so-called "Quartet" of the U.S., EU, U.N. and Russia for ending the boycott. Washington is now under heavy pressure from its Arab allies in the Middle East to deal with it.
But the U.S. should stand firm. The Palestinian government is not committed to the Quartet's demands that it renounce violence, recognize Israel and abide by agreements signed with Israel in the past. The speeches delivered by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his new Hamas partner, Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, at Saturday's parliamentary session show that the Palestinians are determined instead to continue their strategy of double-talk.
#1
There is no point in pouring millions of dollars on the "unity" government as long as it's not prepared to make a clear and firm commitment to halt terror and recognize Israel's right to exist.
And there's no point even if that "government" does, and manages to impose its will on the Palestinian "People".
(a) Arabs are the most "self-determined" People on Earth --- there are, already, 22 Arab states. One of them, Jordan, is the Palestinian state---with imported Bedouin ruling class.
(b) No way "Palestine" can be made economically viable.
Responding to a UPI article published last week on Saudi Arabia's worries over mounting Iranian influence in the Arab world, a well-informed Saudi source told United Press International that the reality on the ground offered a very different picture. "The situation has radically changed in the Gulf, and especially between the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) and Iran. Iran is at best a second-grade power and slowly slipping into a third-grade power," said the source, who requested anonymity. He added, "Saudi Arabia is more than ready at present to directly deal with the Iranians in many different ways, and this is what has got them so nervous. I've pointed out a time or two here that Iran fought a 10-year war with Iraq that ended in a draw. We demolished the Iraqi army twice, once in 100 hours, the second time im two weeks. Our military is at this time a bit worn down by Iraq and Afghanistan, but on the other hand we have a very high proportion of veterans. An American combined arms operation against Iran would take about 10 days to take the entire country. An attempt at guerrilla warfare ala Iraq would be vastly unsuccessful, since there would be no safe haven country like Iran to fund it and arm it.
"It is Iran that is on the defensive and has realized it has way overplayed its hand," said the official. This fits with recent reports from Iran that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was accused by some mullahs of "making enemies" for Iran. "Iran has already tried many times to stir trouble in our eastern province and failed for many reasons," said the source. "So we are not very concerned about this currently." Now it is Iran who is worried, said the Saudi source. "They are very worried about the 8 million-plus Sunni community in Iran and the recent unrests in the Sunni areas."
Refuting earlier UPI analysis that stated Saudi Arabia would be dependent on the U.S. military to guarantee its independence, the Saudi source said: "Saudi Arabia does not need to be supported by anyone to deal directly with Iran." Soddy Arabia would be approximately as vulnerable to Iranian aggression as it was to Iraqi aggression. Iran is an historical regional power - the impetus behind its present delusions of adequacy - and Arabia isn't. There are reasons for that.
Saudi Arabia's lack of fear of Iran has been proven "over and over again over the past several weeks," added the source, referencing a "dressing down" of Ahmadinejad during his recent visit to the kingdom by King Abdullah as "the most recent and visible example of this."
In stressing Saudi Arabia's position of strength vis-à-vis Iran, the Saudi source pointed to the following statistics:
While it's true that Iran dwarfs Saudi Arabia in population -- 68 million vs. 25 million -- and its military is far more powerful, developed and experienced in combat than the Saudi military, the Saudis carry greater economic, diplomatic and strategic clout.
The Saudis dwarf Iran in gross domestic product. According to the CIA's 2006 estimates, the Saudi per capita GDP is $13,800; Iran's is $8,900.
Economically, Saudi Arabia's free-market economy is no match for Iran. Iran's economy is plagued by a bloated and inefficient state bureaucracy that is over-reliant on the oil sector. Its statist policies further hamper development. Private-sector activity is typically limited to small-scale workshops, farming and services.
Saudi Arabia leads in oil production and exports. In a report carried by Arab News, Abdullah Jumah, the president and chief executive of Saudi Aramco, said the kingdom's oil output reached 10.7 million barrels per day by the end of 2006. Aramco also added an additional 3.6 billion barrels of oil to its reserves in 2006 and boosted its natural-gas holding by 10.4 trillion standard cubic feet, more than double its initial target.
Iran, according to Oil Minister Kazem Vaziri Hamaneh, increased its crude-oil production by 55,000 barrels per day in the last year, bringing total output to 4.08 million bpd.
Additionally, unlike Saudi Arabia, Iran lacks the capability of refining its own crude oil, relying instead on foreign refineries, principally India.
To the world's 1.4 billion Muslims, Saudi Arabia carries greater religious importance as the center of Islam's two holiest shrines -- Mecca and Medina -- where Sunnis and Shiites carry out their pilgrimage, one of Islam's five requirements. The holy shrines in Najaf and Karbala in Iraq, as well as in Qom and Mashhad in Iran, are generally exclusively sacred to the Shiites. While Iran has a Shiite majority, Shiites account for only about 15 percent of the Muslim world. And repeated attempts by Iran to drum up support among the Saudi Shiite population of approximately 1 million yielded little success.
A Saudi security expert instead sees Iran's Sunni community of close to 8 million as a "huge fifth column." The expert remarks on the differences between Saudi Shiites, who are Arabs and thus ethnically similar to Saudis, and Iranian Sunnis who, unlike the country's Shiites, are not Persian but Arab.
Counter to what many Arabs fear, according to this usually very reliable source, "The hypothesis that they (Iran) are or will become the regional power is laughable and highly delusional." Leading U.S. military strategist Anthony Cordesman thinks Iran's current military capabilities are "outdated" and "present little current threat to its neighbors."
Posted by: Fred ||
03/20/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"It is Iran that is on the defensive and has realized it has way overplayed its hand," said the official.
I maintain that overreaching itself is one of the, if not the most principal hallmarks of Islam. Delusions of adequacy dont even begin to address the monumental hubris and overweening aspect of Muslim self-perception. Islams myriad violations of human rights render its pious exhortations as so much sanctimonious blather.
Counter to what many Arabs fear, according to this usually very reliable source, "The hypothesis that they (Iran) are or will become the regional power is laughable and highly delusional."
Hitler was delusional too, but that didnt stop him from killing millions. Consider what Hitler would have accomplished with nuclear weapons in his arsenal then place that sort of power into the hands of a fanatical madman like Ahmadinejad. Frightening doesnt even begin to describe it. How the remaining world manages to deceive itself on this score amounts to a willful blindness not seen since World War II. The specter of Nazism is looming once more and being steadfastly ignored just as perilously.
#2
Wel-l-l now. lets see, OSAMA BIN LADEN conspired in 9-11, and event which klled 3000, and was filmed orally promising to do anything + everything to bring about the defeat and destruction of America, ERGO HE'S SEEMINGLY NO THREAT 'CUZ HE SEEMINGLY HAS "NO NUKES/NUCLEAR MISSLES"???
#3
While it's true that Iran dwarfs Saudi Arabia in population -- 68 million vs. 25 million -- and its military is far more powerful, developed and experienced in combat than the Saudi military, the Saudis carry greater economic, diplomatic and strategic clout.
The Saudi's just bribe people to fight for them but are not invincible to Iran, as the speaker suggests.
#4
WORLDNEWS > BAHRAIN: GULF STATES CAN DEFEND THEMSELVES/ MILITARILY RESPOND IN CASE OF IRAN ATTACK - will retaliate mil in kind and btw, SSSHHHHH, will also dev own nukes iff need be. *OTOH, WAPO [paraphrased] > US MILITARY IN "DEATH SPIRAL". US Army, Marines are not prepared for other/multiple conflicts; + US MILITARY IS HIRING FELONS WHILE ELIMINATING GAY PATRIOTS.
* O'REILLY > THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE FAR/HARD LEFT IN AMERICA IS USING THE WOT AND PRESIDENT BUSH'S TROUBLES TO ATTACK THE [CONSTITUTIONAL?] RIGHTS OF AMERICANS INSIDE THEIR OWN COUNTRY AND IMPOSE A SECULAR SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE AGENDA IN AMERICA. As said before, the WOT > WAR FOR SOCIALISM, espec Socialism upon America. A War against forms of FASCISM, i.e. Ultra-Rightist Socialism, is in antithesis A WAR FOR COMMUNISM, i.e. Ultra-Leftist Socialism. Remember, CLINTONISM > FASCISM IS THE "NEW COMMUNISM", at least for time being, ERGO WOT > [collectively] WAR FOR FORM OF COMMUNISM, i.e. LIMITED COMMUNISM vz FULL COMMUNISM, LIMITED TOTALITARIANISM [Fascist "Authoritarianism"] vz FULL TOTALITARIANISM, ...........etc.
#5
"I've pointed out a time or two here that Iran fought a 10-year war with Iraq that ended in a draw. We demolished the Iraqi army twice, once in 100 hours, the second time in two weeks."
Of course we could defeat Iran militarily fairly easily. But what our experience in Iraq should teach us is that nation-building in that part of the world may not lead to what we would hope for. Germany, although authoritarian, had been a highly advanced nation around 1900 and Japan has had a highly adaptive culture for many decades (and it had already begun to modernize in the Meiji period). They were more amenable to a radical change in culture and governance.
At some point we would need to hand control of Iran back over to its people, and that society is far more likely to produce a next-generation Ayatollah Khomeini than a new Mustafa Kemal Attaturk.
#6
But what our experience in Iraq should teach us is that nation-building in that part of the world may not lead to what we would hope for.
America needs to get out of the nation-building busines, forever. Especially so with respect to the MME (Muslim Middle East). From now on, we should go in, break the bad boys' toys and depart just as swiftly. Our only lingering obligation is that, should Iran try to establish another theocracy, we will rinse and repeat however often as needed.
Defeating the Iranians militarily and then not staying would put the onus on them to come up with a system that meets their needs and doesn't cause us to come back. It's their country. They're free to screw it up any way they want, with the exception of causing grief to their neighbors, who have a similar right to misgovern themselves.
I actually have a certain affection for the Iranians. I can't recall ever meeting one who's been a loon - but I've always met them here or in Europe, outside the Khomeinist element. The ayatollahs are busy trying to destroy the Persian parts of their civilization, to make them into non-Arabic speaking Arabs.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/20/2007 8:22 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Every nation in the Middle East is better off than the Saudis. Food is grown readily in Iraq, Syria, Iran, even Egypt. The Saudi desert doesn't grow much, and there's not a lot of potable water. Without proper logistics, no nation can wage modern warfare. Iran has a problem refining gasoline and other combustables. Kind of hard to fight a mechanized war without gasoline to fuel it. Neither side can fight the other and hope to win - unless they're really, REALLY lucky, or have a nuclear weapon advantage. Iran says it can close the Straits of Hormuz, but who would that hurt the most? Iran is a net IMPORTER of gasoline - is Soddy aRabida? Neither country could last ten days against a concentrated push by the United States, especially a three-pronged push from the west, east, and south. Even Russia couldn't intervene fast enough to save them. Soddy aRabida would last about 20 minutes after the nuke went off over Riyadh.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/20/2007 16:39 Comments ||
Top||
A year ago the biggest issue in education after budgets was whether Intelligent Design should be taught in the nations schools. Opponents called it a form of creationism and the press dubbed the ensuing legal battle as the biggest clash between faith and science since the Scopes Monkey Trial. In a stinging rebuke to the religious right, a Pennsylvania judge ruled that Intelligent Design had no place in classrooms because it was a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory, thus violating the separation of church and state.
Yet at that very moment professors in American universities were teaching a form of secular creationism as contrary to the findings of modern science as the Biblical claim that the God had made the world in seven days.
The name of this theory is social constructionism, and its churches are Womens Studies departments situated in universities across the United States. The feminist theory of social construction maintains that the differences between men and women apart from obvious anatomical ones -- are not biologically determined but are created by a patriarchal social structure that is designed by men to oppress women. It is patriarchal society that turns naturally bi-sexual infants into male and female personalities by conditioning them from birth to adopt gender roles -- the one aggressive, masculine and destined to command, the other passive, feminine and slated to obey.
Critics of feminism such as Christina Hoff Sommers and neuroscientists such as Harvards Stephen Pinker have pointed out that this view contradicts the findings of modern science -- evolutionary psychology, neuroscience and biology in particular. Men are known to cluster in significantly greater numbers at the high end of testing for mathematical aptitude, though they cluster in greater numbers at the low end of that bell curve as well. The scientific evidence is summarized in a recent book, Sex Differences in Cognitive Ability, whose author, Diane Halperin, is president of the American Psychological Association and was a social constructionist herself before reviewing the scientific literature. She concludes: Socialization practices are undoubtedly important, but there is also good evidence that biological differences play a role in establishing and maintaining cognitive sex differences, a conclusion I wasnt prepared to make when I began reviewing the relevant literature. Similarly, male aggression and competitiveness are not created out of whole cloth by a patriarchal system of dominance, as Womens Studies feminists argue, but are to a significant degree hormone-inspired. In short, according to modern science, the fault lies not in patriarchal hierarchies but in the genes.
Yet, here is a typical statement from the official course description for Feminist Political Theory 433, as taught at the University of Arizona by a full Professor of Political Science and recipient of a coveted MacArthur Foundation fellowship: Because gender is socially constructed, it is instructive to study how gender ideologies -- which profoundly shape todays intellectual inquiries and political realities -- have been articulated in the form of political theory. Obviously the premise of this course must be accepted by students or there is no course. Yet this statement asserts a claim that is not scientifically founded, and in fact is scientifically contradicted. In other words, students are required to believe a religious myth in order to get their academic grade.
Here is a parallel statement from the Kansas State University catalogue: To qualify for a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Science in Womens Studies at Kansas State University, students will have demonstrated their familiarity with key Womens Studies concepts such as the social construction of gender, oppression of and violence against women, heterosexism, racism, classism, and global inequality.
In other words, a student cannot graduate from the Kansas State Womens Studies program unless they believe in the ideology that makes up its core, and demonstrate that they do believe in it. Yet the ideological premise is scientifically challenged -- a fact that the program does not acknowledge. Yet in the catalogue descriptions of more than a hundred Womens Studies courses which I have personally examined, these are common themes.
Indoctrination in dogmatic creeds such as gender feminism was once alien to the very idea of a modern research university. Now it has become an orthodoxy. Problematic dogmas have become the basis of entire programs funded by taxpayers. This is made possible by university authorities who have abdicated their responsibility to enforce university standards, while professional scholars who observe those standards are intimidated by academic radicals who will denounce as sexists, racists and homophobes, anyone who gets in their way.
#1
Feminist theory has no business in an academic setting that I've seen. It's indoctrination, sexist tribalism, victimization, and man-hate at it's worst. At least they can graduate and spew venom in HR Departments
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/20/2007 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Careful there, Frank. Them's heresies. You'll be down at HR watching the Sexual Harassment In The Workplace video all afternoon.
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.
