Town Commons: 06/03/07

Saturday, June 9, 2007

Protesting Oil Dependence

The World Naked Bike Ride is an event that takes place in 60 cities world wide to protest oil dependence and its alleged impact on global warming. The BBC is covering the London leg of the bike ride:

About 700 cyclists in various states of undress have cycled through central London in another leg of the World Naked Bike Ride.

The naked cyclists - and others with strategically-placed body paint, sticky tape or bum bags - were highlighting the damage caused by car dependency.

They were also promoting the environmental benefits of cycling.

Earlier on Saturday, more than 200 naked cyclists rode through Brighton and Hove in East Sussex.

Read the whole story here. Given that a goodly portion of the money paid for every gallon of gas pumped into cars worldwide goes to support radical Islamists from Khamenei to the Salaifists, every person in the western world should whole heartedly support ending our dependence on oil. That makes this one of those few times when the agenda of the radical environmentalists, the interests of all Americans, and naked women on bikes intersect. Who could not possibly support such a nexus?

God Bless the naked bikers and God bless America, I say.

Dems & The "Don't Ask Don't Tell" Policy

There is an agenda among the more aggressive gay and lesbian groups to ensconce their lifestyle as completely acceptable within society, protected as a civil right and equal in all respects to heterosexual relationships and lifestyle. This is clearly evident in the push for gay marriage coupled with a rejection of the concept of civil unions." That push for acceptance has also been raised in regards to whether homosexuals should be allowed to openly serve in our Armed Forces:

The presidential candidates are dividing starkly along party lines on one of the signature fights of the 1990s: whether the 14-year-old policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should be repealed and gay men and lesbians allowed to serve openly in the military.

In back-to-back debates in New Hampshire this week, every Democratic candidate raised his or her hand in support of repealing that policy, . . . Democrats argued with striking unanimity that it was time to end the uneasy compromise that President Bill Clinton reached in 1993, after his attempt to lift the ban on gay men and lesbians in the military provoked one of the most wrenching fights of his young administration.

Republicans countered that the policy should not be changed, certainly not in time of war.

It is a dispute that underscores the continuing power of social issues — like gay rights and abortion — in each party’s nominating contest, even as the larger debate revolves around a divisive war. And it shows the Democrats returning to yet another issue that confounded them in the past — like universal health care — with the conviction that the public is more ready for change this time.

Democratic leaders have been moving away from “don’t ask, don’t tell” for some time now . . .

The issue flared anew because it came up in this week’s debates, not because of any big new campaign initiative on either side. But aside from policy considerations, there is a political rationale for the Democrats’ stance: Gay men and lesbians make up an important part of the Democratic Party’s political and fund-raising base, and voters in general are increasingly tolerant on gay issues related to employment and discrimination, analysts say. While gay marriage remains deeply divisive, allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in time of war has a far more centrist appeal, advocates and analysts say.

. . . [I]n the view of some Republicans, the issue feeds into the criticism that surfaced in the early 1990s — that the military should not be a laboratory for social engineering. . .

Read the entire story here.

As to the charge of social engineering, leaving aside for the moment that we are in the middle of hostilities, that is not necessarily a valid argument. Our military is the most integrated of all institutions in America and, indeed, it has, more then any other single institution, served as the engine of integration in America. It has been the premeir engine of integration since Harry Truman ordered the military desegrated 59 years ago. That was an exercise in social engineering. It worked spectaulalry.

There can be no claim made that homosexuals can not or do not make every bit as good soldiers as their heterosexual counterparts. Some of the most famous military men of history were either homosexual or bisexual (Julius Caeser, Alexander, many of the Sparatans). For myself, I both commanded and served with a few men in the military whom I strongly suspected or came to know were gay. They were all good soldiers and I was proud to have served with them. Being gay has no bearing on whether a man or woman can be a good soldier.

The penultimate question is not morality, nor is it a question of civil rights. The sole question must be what effect would allowing openly gay soldiers to serve have on unit cohesion? Unit cohesion is an issue of supreme importance in the military. That question was asked and answered fourteen years ago during hearings on this precise issue. The answer was that it could significantly impact unit cohesion and change the dynamics of how our units operate. Having been an infantry company commander, in light of what I know of the average soldier and military life, I concur.

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that arose out of the 1993 hearings was completely appropriate. It does not punish or keep out homosexuals who wish to serve in the military. The policy merely asks gays to keep their sexual preferences out of the unit. It is functional and it works. And the fact is, we are at war. The time to engage in a grand experiment in social engineering is absolutely not while hositilities are ongoing.

But that is not what Democrats nor their radical constituency want. To understand their agenda and how far they are willing to go to achieve it, you need look no further then the Democrats treatment of Marine Corporal Matt Sanchez, a man who wanted to serve his country but then was outed and criticized by the liberal media for having previously appearing in gay porn. It was truly a low point. The agenda of the Democrats must be resisted.

Update: The best line coming out of the Democrat Presidential candidates' embrace of ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Policy," comes from Conan O'Brian who speculated that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' will be replaced by the new policy, 'Don't Tell Me You're Wearing Those Boots With That Gun.'"

Iraq - Target Practice on Iran's Proxy Rocket Teams, Strange Allies, & Briefing on Iraq

To start with, the Iranians are training and supplying Mahdi Army elements with rockets . . . and providing our Apache crews with target practice.

In the Amiriyah neighborhood of Baghdad, there is ongoing "red on red" fighting - Sunni insurgents fighting al Qaeda - that Iraq the Model discussed several days ago. Today, the Washington Post gives us a clearer picture of the fighting, including a Sunni insurgent's call for U.S. logistical help fighting al Qaeda:

The worst month of Lt. Col. Dale Kuehl's deployment in western Baghdad was finally drawing to a close. The insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq had unleashed bombings that killed 14 of his soldiers in May, a shocking escalation of violence for a battalion that had lost three soldiers in the previous six months while patrolling the Sunni enclave of Amiriyah. On top of that, the 41-year-old battalion commander was doubled up with a stomach flu when, late on May 29, he received a cellphone call that would change everything.

"We're going after al-Qaeda," a leading local imam said, Kuehl recalled. "What we want you to do is stay out of the way."

"Sheik, I can't do that. I can't just leave Amiriyah and let you go at it."

"Well, we're going to go."

The week that followed revolutionized Kuehl's approach to fighting the insurgency and serves as a vivid example of a risky, and expanding, new American strategy of looking beyond the Iraqi police and army for help in controlling violent neighborhoods. The American soldiers in Amiriyah have allied themselves with dozens of Sunni militiamen who call themselves the Baghdad Patriots -- a group that American soldiers believe includes insurgents who have attacked them in the past -- in an attempt to drive out al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Americans have granted these gunmen the power of arrest, allowed the Iraqi army to supply them with ammunition, and fought alongside them in chaotic street battles.

To many American soldiers in Amiriyah, this nascent allegiance stands out as an encouraging development after months of grinding struggle. They liken the fighters to the minutemen of the American Revolution, painting them as neighbors taking the initiative to protect their families in the vacuum left by a failing Iraqi security force. In their first week of collaboration, the Baghdad Patriots and the Americans killed roughly 10 suspected al-Qaeda in Iraq members and captured 15, according to Kuehl, who said those numbers rivaled totals for the previous six months combined. He is now working to fashion the group into the beginnings of an Amiriyah police force, since the mainly Shiite police force refuses to work in the area.

"This is a defining moment for us," said Kuehl, who commands the 1st Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, attached to the 1st Infantry Division.

But aligning Americans with fighters whose long-term agenda remains unclear -- with regard to either Americans or the Shiite-led government -- is also a strategy born of desperation. It contradicts repeated declarations by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that no groups besides the Iraqi and American security forces are allowed to bear arms. And some American soldiers worry that standing up a Sunni militia could have dire consequences if the group turns on its U.S. partners.

"We have made a deal with the devil," said an intelligence officer in the battalion.

The U.S. effort to recruit indigenous forces to defend local communities has been taken furthest in Anbar province, where tribal leaders have encouraged thousands of their kinsmen to join the police. In the Abu Ghraib area, west of Baghdad, about 2,000 people unaffiliated with security forces are now working with Americans at village checkpoints and gun positions.

Kuehl said he recognizes the risks in dealing with an unofficial force but decided the intelligence that the gunmen provided on al-Qaeda in Iraq was too valuable to pass up.

"Hell, nothing else has worked in Amiriyah," he said.

It was about 2 a.m. on May 30 when Capt. Andy Wilbraham, a 33-year-old company commander, first heard military chatter on his tank radio about rumors that local gunmen would take on al-Qaeda. Later that morning, a noncommissioned officer turned to him with the news: "They're uprising."

"It was just a shock it happened so fast," Wilbraham said.

By noon, loudspeakers in mosques throughout Amiriyah were broadcasting a call to war: "It is time to stand up and fight" al-Qaeda. Groups of men, some in black ski masks carrying AK-47 assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, descended on the area around the Maluki mosque, a suspected al-Qaeda in Iraq base of operations, and launched an attack. For the most part, Kuehl's soldiers stood back, trying to contain the violence and secure other mosques, and let the gunmen do their work. . .

"We need them and they need us," Kuehl said. "Al-Qaeda's stronger than them. We provide capabilities that they don't have. And the locals know who belongs and who doesn't. It doesn't matter how long we're here, I'll never know. And we'll never fit in."

The militiamen, who call themselves freedom fighters, are led by a 35-year-old former Iraqi army captain and used-car salesman who goes by Saif or Abu Abed. In an interview, he said he had devoted the past five months to collecting intelligence on al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters in Amiriyah, whose ranks have grown as they have fled to Baghdad and away from the new tribal policemen in Anbar province. He has said his own group numbers over 100 people, but American soldiers estimate it has closer to 40. At least six were killed and more than 10 wounded in the first week of collaboration with Americans.

. . . Ali Hatem Ali Suleiman, a leader of the Sunni Dulaimi tribe who works in Anbar and Baghdad, said many of the fighters in Amiriyah belong to the Islamic Army, which includes former officers from Saddam Hussein's military and is more secular than other insurgent groups. The fighters have been organized and encouraged by local imams.

"Let's be honest, the enemy now is not the Americans, for the time being," Suleiman said. "It's al-Qaeda and the [Shiite] militias. Those are our enemies." . . .

"Who are these guys really?" Salge remembered worrying. He told them to talk to the battalion commander.

Kuehl said later that he would probably supply weapons to the militiamen, but in limited amounts. The fighters have given the Americans identification, including fingerprints, addresses and retinal scans, so the soldiers believe they could track down anyone who betrayed them. "What I don't want them to do is wither on the vine," Kuehl said.

On Wednesday, a week after the fighting broke out, the Islamic Army issued a statement declaring a cease-fire with al-Qaeda in Iraq because the groups did not want to spill more Muslim blood or impede "the project of jihad." American soldiers played down the statement and suggested it did not reflect the sentiments of the men they are working with in Amiriyah. . .

Read the entire story here. A strange alliance indeed - but a very hopeful sign. Still, even if only temporary, it is al Qaeda that is by far the major problem, doing their best to ignite civil war. Stop al Qaeda and you are very far along to stabilizing Iraq. While I would never turn my back on these guys, I would also, at this point, give them all the logistical support they need to fight al Qaeda and to protect their neighborhoods from rouge Shia militia cells.

Sec. of Defense Gates announces the nomination for Admiral Mullins to Chairman of the Joint Chief Of Staff.

3d Bdr, 25th Inf Div. are in the Kirkuk area of the Iraq. This is a briefing on the situation in their area by the Cdr, Col Patrick Stackpole.

Thursday, June 7, 2007

Iraqi Insanity

There is the news of Coalition operations and successes (good). Then there is the MSM reporting on Iraq comprised of a list of friendly casualties and the successes of al Qaeda in Iraq and Iranian proxies (bad). Then there is the news coming out the senate confirmation hearings for the new "czar" for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, LTG Lute (insanity).

The only places to learn what is going on in Iraq is through the military sites and milblogs. None of the information being posted by the MSM, and in particular the Washington Post or the NYT, is by any means complete. To the contrary, the Washington Post and New York Times reporting is often so one sided it could be written by al Qaeda's propoganda arm. Lest you think me partisan, do please read on.

From the DoD, here is what went on in Iraq in the past 24 plus hours:

Coalition forces today captured 32 suspected terrorists during a series of raids that targeted al Qaeda operations in Baghdad and western Iraq, officials said.

Coalition forces in central Iraq today detained 16 suspected terrorists during operations that targeted al Qaeda in Iraq leaders.

-- In three coordinated raids southeast of Fallujah, coalition forces detained 11 suspected terrorists with al Qaeda ties. Officials believed two of them are responsible for recruiting and facilitating terrorist cells in the area.

-- Coalition forces also captured a suspected al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist leader during a raid on two buildings in Hit. The individual allegedly replaced another senior leader who’d recently fled the area. Coalition forces detained three more suspected terrorists at the scene for their connection to al Qaeda senior leadership.

-- In continuing operations to disrupt the car-bomb network, coalition forces detained one suspected terrorist in Baghdad.

"Our methodical, sustained operations are making it more difficult for al Qaeda to operate, and we'll continue to apply pressure to eliminate their attacks against Iraqis and those who are working to secure the country's future," said Army Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, Multinational Force Iraq spokesman.

Also today in Iraq, coalition forces detained another 16 suspected terrorists during morning raids in Baghdad’s Sadr City neighborhood. The detainees captured in Sadr City are suspected members of a clandestine terrorist cell known for facilitating the transport of weapons and explosively formed penetrators from Iran to Iraq, as well as bringing militants from Iraq to Iran for terrorist training.

Four of the detainees tested positive for contact with explosives. Coalition officials cite intelligence reports indicating that one of the detainees is a key terrorist leader with ties to Iranian intelligence. This detainee is believed to be responsible for attacks on Iraqi civilians and Iraqi and coalition forces in Baghdad, officials said.

“We will seek out and find terrorists where they hide,” Garver said. “Removing the networks that bring in explosively formed penetrators is a top priority to protect the Iraqi people and the security forces that serve them.”

In operations yesterday, coalition forces operating in Baghdad killed two terrorists and detained 10 other people in raids targeting an al-Qaeda in Iraq car-bomb network.

The two men who were killed ran into a building and attempted to retrieve weapons visible inside. Coalition forces fired at the two men, killing them. Another suspected terrorist was detained on the scene, and three vehicles used to transport weapons and personnel for the terror cell were destroyed.

In five other raids conducted in Baghdad yesterday, coalition forces detained six suspected terrorists associated with the car-bomb network and destroyed two vehicles used to transport weapons and personnel for the cell. A related raid south of Tarmiyah netted three suspects tied to the terrorist group.

“Targeting the al Qaeda in Iraq (car-bomb) network is a top priority for coalition forces," Garver said. “We continue to work to reduce and eventually eliminate the ability of terrorists to attack innocent Iraqis.”

Meanwhile, Iraqi soldiers accompanied by coalition advisors seized four suspected al Qaeda operatives yesterday during raids on several residences in Saqlimiyah, officials said. No coalition or Iraqi troops were hurt in the operation.

Iraqi special operations troops detained four suspected assassins believed to be coordinating and conducting killings in the Baghdad area during a June 5 operation in Baghdad. While detaining the individuals, the Iraqi troops came under enemy fire. The Iraqi forces returned fire, and the engagement ended. No Iraqi or coalition forces, who’d served as advisors, were injured during the operation.

Read the entire story from the Dod here. Also from the DOD is this report on Iraqi police:

Iraq’s police force is seeing incremental improvements across the spectrum of its mandate, and the communities it serves are benefiting as a result, an official with the U.S. police-training mission said yesterday.

Tangible gains have been made in the police force’s relationships with the Iraqi ministries of defense and justice, judicial capacity is on the rise, corruption is being pursued internally, and the training program is continuing to expand, said Army Brig. Gen. David Phillips, deputy commander of the Civilian Police Assistance Training Team, in a conference call with online journalists and military “bloggers.”

The result is that day-to-day life in parts of Baghdad and Anbar province has improved dramatically in some cases as recruits continue to enter the police academies and enhanced police vigilance helps settle neighborhoods, Phillips said. . .

Read the entire articlehere. And here is an interesting report out of the 82nd Airborne about the building of the concrete walls in Baghdad's Adhamiyah neighborhood and its effects. Bill Rogio has an exceptional report on targeting Iranian proxies.

Now compare all of that reporting with this from today's Washington Post, "Suicide Attacks, Bombings Kill Dozens in Iraq":

Suicide attackers and car bombs struck targets in central, western and northern Iraq on Thursday, leaving at least 24 people dead and 42 wounded, Iraqi security officials said.

Gunmen also shot three professors from Islamic University in Baghdad, . . . and killed the head of the Education Ministry's department of research and development as he drove to work, police said.

"It is part of the campaign to attack every positive thing in Iraq," said an Education Ministry spokesman, Basil al-Khatib, who blamed the attacks on extremists who oppose modernity and want to drive "all elite and educated people from Iraq." He complained that the national government "is not acting" to prevent further attacks against teachers, "it only talks."

At least 211 university professors and 104 officials from the ministry have been assassinated in Iraq since the war started in March 2003, Khatib said. In addition, 91 professors have been kidnapped, and their fate is unknown, he said.

. . . On Thursday, gunmen fatally shot Sahar al-Haideri, a journalist working for the independent Aswat al-Iraqi news agency, . . . Her death followed the killings of 11 reporters and other media workers in Iraq in May, the deadliest month of the war for journalists, according to Reporters Without Borders.

In another sign of the fractures in Iraqi society, gunmen stormed a barbershop in the southern port city of Basra, . . . The barber was the 18th killed in Basra this year, the official said. The profession has been targeted by both Sunni and Shiite extremists seeking to punish Iraqis who embrace Western styles and customs.

Thursday's bombings began in Rabiyah, a northern town on the border with Syria, when a suicide attacker exploded a truck bomb at the local police headquarters, killing nine people and wounding 22, according to Nineveh provincial police commander Mohammed al-Wagga.

A short time later, a car bomber attacked a joint Iraqi-U.S. military facility, killing four British security contractors, he said. An official at the British Embassy said he was unaware of the incident.

A truck bomb exploded in a suicide attack at the traffic police headquarters outside Ramadi, about 55 miles west of Baghdad, on Thursday morning, killing three policemen and injuring four, Anbar provincial police Col. Jubair Rasheed said.

In a fourth attack, a car bomb exploded around lunchtime outside a falafel restaurant in the Shiite Talibiya neighborhood of eastern Baghdad, killing at least five people and wounding 16.

And a truck bomb explosion in Abu Ghraib, about 15 miles west of Baghdad, destroyed a Shiite mosque, damaged a Sunni one and killed two Iraqi army soldiers and an Iraqi civilian, the U.S. military reported.

. . . The U.S. military reported Thursday that an American soldier was killed and two were injured Wednesday by a roadside bomb in southwest Baghdad. The death brings to 3,504 the number of U.S. military deaths in Iraq since the March 2003 invasion, . . . A British soldier was killed and three were wounded Thursday by small-arms fire northwest of Basra, . . . It was the 150th British military death in the war, according to icasualties.org.

The U.S. military also reported a major airstrike and ground attack Tuesday that killed 19 insurgents sheltered in a house near Baqubah, about 25 miles northeast of the capital. A military statement said the insurgents had fired on a U.S.-Iraqi security patrol with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades, after which U.S. and Iraqi forces attacked the house with bombs, rockets and small arms. Two Iraqi army soldiers were killed in the fighting and two people, including a U.S. soldier, were injured.

Do believe me when I say that MSM reporting could well be written by al Qaeda. It is an utter travesty.

Then there was the insanity - the senate confirmation hearings for LTG Douglas Lute as war czar. Lute, an armor officer, does not support the counterinsurgency operations and seems to have a dim view of the Iraq government, all of which provided more fodder for Senate Democrats to attack the war in advance of September. It is kind of like hiring Ted Bundy to babysit your children. Just one in a long string of inexplicable acts by George Bush. And the insanity goes on . . .

This Makes A Travesty Of Our Legal System

UPDATED BELOW
Paris Hilton, heiress, party-girl, and media darling, convicted and sentenced to 45 days in jail for repeated violations of probation arising out of a DUI charge - then inexplicably sentenced to 23 days in jail - is now out after five days in jail. This is some kind of joke.

Apparently, Paris was not happy in jail and was crying. After visits by her personal psychiatrist and her lawyer, Paris was released from prison, apparently on the "verge of a nervous breakdown."

Ms. Hilton will now spend the next 40 days "confined" to her mansion wearing an ankle bracelet. As William Booth of the Washington Post dryly noted:

It could not be immediately determined if personalizing the bracelet with Swarovski crystals would interfere with its transmission capabilities.

There should not be two systems of justice in the United States. There was no question of guilt in this matter. And Ms. Hilton, despite her massive net worth, should not have been treated any different then any other American. Releasing her after five days in jail sends every possible wrong signal. It tells every American that, if you have enough money, you can receive justice not available to all others. It tells every person below the age of 21 who follows Ms. Hilton that the justice system can be manipulated and that actions do not necessarilly have consequences. The judge who issued this decision to let Ms. Hilton leave jail after five days should be fired. Then maybe at least one appropriate message could be sent to America - and it would help redeem public perception of a legal system with little legitimacy at the moment. As it stands, this special treatment of Paris Hilton makes a travesty of our legal system.

The Judge in this case is Los Angeles Court Judge Michael T. Sauer. He can be reached at (213) 744-4057 in case you would like to let him know how you feel about this decision.

Update: What I posted above was incorrect. Ms. Hilton was released by the Sheriff, a decision that outraged not only the public, but the Judge as well. He recalled Ms. Hilton to court and has now ordered her back to jail to serve out the remainder of her sentence. That is appropriate. Justice is served.

Jasser Finds Danger & Dissimulation In Pew Poll On Islam In America

M. Zudi Jasser, former U.S. Naval Officer and President of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, examines the recent Pew poll on Islam in America. He finds, on one hand, the poll results very disconcerting, and on the other hand, flawed in the formulation by Islamists invited by Pew to assist in developing the questions:

Significant national attention has turned in the past week toward dissecting all of the data from the Pew Research Center’s study on an array of subjects concerning Muslim Americans. The full Pew study, Muslim Americans: Middle Class and Mostly Mainstream, contains information on a number of issues of great importance to our direction in the ideological struggle against political Islam (Islamism). The data obtained by Pew, first and foremost, demonstrates the necessity of future polls of Muslim Americans, perhaps with more of an ideological focus on the exact place of Islamism, anti-Islamism, Shari’a and Muslim reform and enlightenment issues in the context of the practice of Islam in 2007.

The Pew poll touches on the periphery of some of these issues but leaves the reader to infer a number of conclusions on political Islam from the data. The focus of most media attention thus far has simply been the study’s indicators regarding the threat of terrorism from the Muslim population and its counterbalancing data on the apparent general assimilation of Muslims.

Optimism v. Realism: Where’s the counter-jihad?

Optimistic mainstream media (MSM) have understandably focused on the study’s positive aspects indicating that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, assimilated, and condemn terrorism. This optimism is necessary because that same majority holds the keys toward decreasing the numbers of the more troubling minority. The realists, however, did the math and raised valid concerns about the implications of the number of potential militant Islamists. The statistics reveal that 1% of the study’s estimated 2.3 million Muslim Americans say that suicide bombings against civilian targets are “often justified” and 7% felt, “sometimes justified.” This demonstrates a potential threat of 184,000 potential Islamist terrorists in the United States. The study does nothing to connect the imminent responsibility of the remaining 92% in changing, deprogramming, and defeating this radical 8%. Moreover, even more concerning is the total 26% of those younger than 30 who even ‘rarely’ find justification for terrorism. Again, we find no questions or conclusions from Pew about the responsibility of the remaining 74% to lead a counter-jihad.

Similarly, 5% of Muslim Americans expressed “somewhat favorable opinions of Al Qaeda”. Yet, only 63% of foreign-born Muslims were able to muster “strong hostility” toward Al Qaeda, with 52% of all native-born Muslims, and a shocking 36% of African American Muslims doing the same. The need for a counter-jihad becomes all the more relevant in this context with such an “underwhelming” majority of Muslims demonstrating the moral courage simply to identify the clearest enemy of America in our time. Certainly, the seeds of leadership in this counter-jihad will come from these Muslims who have the courage to name Al Qaeda and have the courage unequivocally to condemn terrorism as an immoral act with never a justification.

Thus, from here, what is so sorely needed in reviewing the data, and what few have done, is actually to begin to connect the study’s plethora of revealed ideologies of Muslim Americans diagnostically to the radicalized minority over which so many have expressed concern. To discuss the 184,000 potential terrorists (FOA - friends of Al Qaeda, if you will) in a vacuum, with no ideological connections or offshoots from the Muslim majority is to flail helplessly in post 9-11 diagnostics with no insight into cause, effect, or treatment. FOA are not a crime problem.

There can be no other explanation as to how it is that Al Qaeda, basically a euphemism for the whole of radical Islam, is able continually to regenerate itself like a metastatic cancer immune to any chemotherapy. The Fort Dix Six had no apparent contact with Al Qaeda. Yet their ends, their means and execution were the same as Al Qaeda. The only common thread is radical Islam, which is a militant offshoot of an even more common thread - political Islam.

Islamist Insiders obfuscate the dangers of political Islam

The Pew Research Center interestingly sought the advice of some known leading Islamists such as Ingrid Mattson and Ihsan Bagby. Islamists will often try to obfuscate or deny the threat and the goals of political Islam. It doesn’t seem that any anti-Islamist Muslims had any input on the poll, which perhaps would have clarified the results on political Islam. Regardless, the data still did not camouflage the problem of political Islam, and the hope from the study that there is a significant plurality if not a majority of Muslims who are potential anti-Islamists. We ignore the signs and symptoms of the threat of political Islam in the Pew study at our own peril.

Make no mistake: current Islamist leadership in America are already running away from the reality of political Islam revealed in this study. Ingrid Mattson, an adviser to the study and the head of the Islamic Society of North America released her “Reflection on the 2007 Pew Report”. Her self-described ‘Call for Moral Leadership’ was not in any way a call against the ends of political Islam. It was not a clear, solitary call of moral courage against Islamist extremism. It was, rather, an apologetic against terrorism, which had the audacity to claim a moral equivalency of Al Qaeda’s terror means with the claim by America’s politicians that American armed forces also employ torture! Ms. Mattson equates the political ends of Al Qaeda with the ends of our armed forces intending to liberate Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a sweeping statement of grand moral equivalency between terror and torture, she says, “We have allowed the appropriation of sinful and immoral means for political ends.”

Nowhere in Mattson’s political screed presented under the laudable guise of theological leadership of “imagining of a new Heroism” is she actually able to condemn the ends of America’s enemies—the Islamic state. Yet, she is able to juxtapose in an insulting equation a discussion of the barbaric evil of the likes of Al Qaeda with an admonition to our legislators and President to stop supporting torture—a classical Islamist doublespeak mixture of religion and politics. Such juxtaposition of radical Islamism with American political leadership feeds directly from the demagogic techniques of Islamists in order to speak to their Islamist constituencies under the guise of even-handedness. This technique actually perpetuates a greater divide between Muslims and the general American public. Is it any wonder that political Islam is thriving and continuing to provide political fodder for its militant offshoots when such a mixture of religion and politics speaks for American Muslims? . . .

Reviewing the Pew data in the context of political Islam

On the war in Afghanistan

The penetration and influence of Islamism (political Islam) is deep in the American Muslim community. While most of the media focused on Muslim opinions of the Iraq war. Only 35% of American Muslims supported the war in Afghanistan while 61% of the general public did. The only explanation for the difference between Muslims and the general American public who are exposed to the same anti-war MSM is the impact of rampantly political sermons and the additional consequences of the constant barrage viewed by Muslims of national and international Muslim media (from Al Jazeera to CAIR’s eletter) against the war.

Muslim media repetitively defined the conflict in Afghanistan in terms of a “war against Muslims” rather than a war against the oppressive Taliban, who would not give up the sworn enemy of the American people - Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, within this much deeper discussion is evidence that political Islam brings with it loyalty to the ummah (the transnational Muslim nation or community) over loyalty to one’s own nation even when our national interests in a just war such as in Afghanistan are clear and moral.

On extremism

The study repeatedly demonstrated a significant direct correlation between religious observance and extremism. The Islamists have and will dismiss the extremism as ‘political extremism” having nothing to do with the practice of religion. While to a moral, spiritual Muslim, extremism and coercion is an anathema, this correlation, however, between Muslim observance and extremism is a direct indicator of the lethality of political Islam (Islamism). Political Islam is a dominating societal and governmental ideology that is wedded to and exploits the theology of Islam while trying to overwhelm the voices of reason, pluralism, humility, and secularism. Islamists in their typical denials will reject the correlation of extremist views with religious observance as misguided or purely political unrelated to religious practice. They cannot have it both ways—that is to live and practice in a toxic mixture of religion and politics and then say that the dominating political ideology of Islamism has no connection to the religious (immoral leadership).

The Pew study confirms this. Its indicators of political Islam—opinions of the use of mosques for social and political speech, attitudes against the war in Afghanistan, conspiracy theory explanations for 9-11, and an affection for big government (i.e.) - all correlated directly with religious observance. Thus, the pervasiveness of Islamist political ideologies (shown in the Pew study) within the Muslim community provides a substantial stimulus for radical Islam and its extremism. It only stands to reason that a pervasive political ideology that cloaks itself in religion will have an order of magnitude toward greater fertilization within the religious practicing community than outside it. Obviously, the more immoral the religious leadership and its apologetics, the more political Islam will spread. Thus the correlation between religious observance and extremism is clear. Certainly, some Islamists may preach non-violence, which can serve as a short-term prevention of militancy. But in the long term, the only antidote is the separation of the political from the religious in Islam.

. . . Islamism can only be defeated by a counter-jihad from a spiritual Islam devoid of the political and governmental realms and led by a universally moral, pluralistic, and humane construct from the God of Abraham. . .

On conspiracy theories

How is it that only 40% of Muslim respondents would identify the fact that Arabs carried out the attacks of 9-11? This cannot be ignored. More specifically, 32% of American Muslims refused to answer and 28% were in complete disbelief that Arabs did it. Again, the more religious the Muslim American, the more likely they are to believe in this conspiracy theory. So if Islam is to provide moral courage for making brave stances against evil, significant concern should be raised that political Islam and its propaganda have a significant impact upon moral clarity.

Political Islam at its core thrives on dishonesty, fabricated enemies, and conspiracies in a world of spin over truth and corruption over morality. At the center of mechanisms of denial, is the creation of fantastic stories, which create false assumptions and feed the ego of those with inferiority complexes. In order to exert control, theocracy (political Islam) must manipulate information and create enemies while uniting the masses in Machiavellian ends - in many ways planting the seeds for fascism. . .

On Mosque and state

A significant percentage (43%) of Muslims felt that mosques should express their views on social and political questions. The fact that 49% felt that the mosque should not be involved in politics gives hope to the dream that ultimately the primary vehicle of religious education, the mosque, can possibly be cleansed of the toxic Islamist influence. However, the penetration of political Islam is not only in the mosque, it includes the Muslim media, and Islamist political organizations. So the 49% is as small as it is possibly because only 40% of Muslims frequent the mosque. Therefore, their answers may have more to do with idealized perceptions of the mosque than of the faith of Islam and the need to separate religion and politics. More study is desperately needed in this question.

For the very reason that we are daily faced with national Muslim organizations who exploit the faith of Islam for their own heavy political agendas, it is more and more essential to dissect the current reality and telescope the process by which anti-Islamist Muslims can lead the extrication of spiritual, moral Islam from political Islam.

On American Nationalism

When American Muslims were asked whether they were American or Muslim first, 47% felt they were Muslim first and only 28% American first. The study compared this to Christians who reported 42% as being Christian first. This comparison is unfortunately not valid in this context. A better comparison would have been to ask Muslims and Christians whether the United States should be “under God,” “under Islam,” or “under Christianity.” It would stand to reason that while most Christians would say ‘under God,’ far more Muslims would say, ‘under Islam.’ In the concept of political Islam, the theocratic Islamic state has not been reformed or defeated in the way the Christian theocracy has in American history. Those 47% of Muslims pose a more significant ideological threat in the context of current Islamic thinking vis-à-vis the state.

This is especially true when considering the ends sought by radical Islamists. - theocracy over our pluralistic democracy. The study demonstrates this by showing that “13% of those who think of themselves primarily as Muslim believe that suicide bombing to defend Islam from its enemies can be often or sometimes justified compared with 4% of those who are American first.” Additionally, those who identified themselves as Muslim first were twice as likely to believe that Arabs did not commit 9/11 (40%-20%). Those who were American first were much more likely to accept that 9/11 was committed by Arabs (61%). Again we see a significant correlation between religious observance, radicalism, and Islamism.

Political Islam is the problem. Identification of nationality as Muslim is fertile soil for conspiracy theories. The only antidote to the spread of Islamism is a counter-jihad, which includes a strong American nationalism embodied in a belief in liberty, freedom, and pluralism under God. American nationalism alone is not an antidote because Islamists may have theocratic goals for their own American patriotism. American nationalism can defeat Islamism only if it also takes back the mantle of faith from the Islamists with the growth of a moral, spiritual Islam that can combat the immorality of terrorism in a counter-jihad from within a nation under God but anti-Islamist.

The Future

While political Islam may seem to be pervasive, it is not overwhelming. The untold story in this poll is the hope it gives to anti-Islamist Muslims. As noted, a plurality of Muslims - 49% - believe that mosques should stay out of politics. Interestingly, most of those are the foreign born Muslims versus the native-born Muslims who seem to have grown up in Islamist incubators without understanding the harms of political Islam, which so many immigrants lived through.

If we are going to win this global conflict, analysis of studies like this one should not be overly negative or positive and should be reviewed through the Islamist lens to understand the context—the root cause (Islamism), effect (radicalization), and treatments (a counter-jihad separating spiritual Islam from political Islam). A morally clear spiritual Islam can eliminate politics from the domain of faith, which should be only a personal journey of individual Muslims to God. This process requires ijtihad, which is a re-interpretation of scripture in light of modern day. It also requires imams and scholars with moral courage to denounce each and every suicide operation around the world as immoral, un-Islamic, and barbaric without any justification - ever.

. . . One can only hope that the next study of the American Muslim population will include a much more probative questioning, specifically with regard to political Islam in order to distinguish how many Muslims believe in theocracy over pluralistic democracy. Current Islamist leadership in mosques and national political organizations like CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council), MAS (Muslim American Society), or ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) have no personal interest in pushing an exposure of political Islam since it embodies the daily practice of their organizations.

With time, the MSM, the government, and the general American public will have to become more savvy regarding the need to expose the insidious threat of political Islam and its causative association with radical Islamism.

Read the entire story here. It should be noted that, in a Fox News story, Walid Phares offers similar warnings and a similar criticism of the poll.

When Do We Start Making Iran Pay A Price

The Bush administration's refusal to take any substantive action proportionate to the acts of war being committed by Iran is simply inexplicable. The administration is continuing maintain the laughable fiction that the fact Iranian weapons are being transferred to our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan does not necessarily mean there is actual involvement by the Iranian government. As more and more arms shipments are being interdicted, this canard is becoming increasingly transparent:

NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.

"It is inconceivable that it is anyone other than the Iranian government that's doing it," said former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, an ABC News consultant.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stopped short earlier this week of blaming Iran, saying the U.S. did not have evidence "of the involvement of the Iranian government in support of the Taliban."

But an analysis by a senior coalition official, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, concludes there is clear evidence of Iran's involvement.

"This is part of a considered policy," says the analysis, "rather than the result of low-level corruption and weapons smuggling."

Iran and the Taliban had been fierce enemies when the Taliban was in power in Afghanistan, and their apparent collaboration came as a surprise to some in the intelligence community.

"I think their goal is to make it very clear that Iran has the capability to make life worse for the United States on a variety of fronts," said Seth Jones of the Rand Institute, "even if they have to do some business with a group that has historically been their enemy."

. . . The April convoy was tracked from Iran into Helmand province and led a fierce firefight that destroyed one vehicle, according to the official analysis. A second vehicle was reportedly found to contain small arms ammunition, mortar rounds and more than 650 pounds of C4 demolition charges.

A second convoy of two vehicles was spotted on May 3 and led to the capture of five occupants and the seizure of RPG-7mm rockets and more than 1,000 pounds of C4, the analysis says.

Also among the munitions are components for the lethal EFPs, or explosive formed projectiles, the roadside bombs that U.S. officials say Iran has provided to Iraqi insurgents with deadly results.

"These clearly have the hallmarks of the Iranian Revolution Guards' Quds force," said Jones.

. . . "We believe these intercepted munitions are part of a much bigger flow of support from Iran to the Taliban," the message says.

The Taliban receives larger supplies of weapons through profits from opium dealing, officials say, but the Iranian presence could be significant.

"It means the insurgency in Afghanistan is likely to be prolonged," said Jones. "It would be a much more potent force."

Read the entire story here. There can be only one response to these acts of war by Iran. Failure to react, failure to punish Iran militarily for inolving themselves in the deaths of our soldiers, will only embolden the mad Mullahs. This refusal to acknowledge the obvious and take appropriate action is inexplicable and wastes the lives of our soldiers.

NYT Op-Ed Argues For The Surge & Staying In Iraq

A surprising op-ed in today's NYT from Peter W. Rodman, former assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, and author William Shawcross who was a strident opponent of the Vietnam War:

Some opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat. A number of them are simply predicting it, while others advocate measures that would make it more likely. Lending intellectual respectability to all this is an argument that takes a strange comfort from the outcome of the Vietnam War. The defeat of the American enterprise in Indochina, it is said, turned out not to be as bad as expected. The United States recovered, and no lasting price was paid.

We beg to differ. Many years ago, the two of us clashed sharply over the wisdom and morality of American policy in Indochina, especially in Cambodia. . . Today we agree equally strongly that the consequences of defeat in Iraq would be even more serious and lasting.

The 1975 Communist victory in Indochina led to horrors that engulfed the region. The victorious Khmer Rouge killed one to two million of their fellow Cambodians in a genocidal, ideological rampage. In Vietnam and Laos, cruel gulags and “re-education” camps enforced repression. Millions of people fled, mostly by boat, with thousands dying in the attempt.

The defeat had a lasting and significant strategic impact. Leonid Brezhnev trumpeted that the global “correlation of forces” had shifted in favor of “socialism,” and the Soviets went on a geopolitical offensive in the third world for a decade. Their invasion of Afghanistan was one result. Demoralized European leaders publicly lamented Soviet aggressiveness and American paralysis.

. . . Today, in Iraq, there should be no illusion that defeat would come at an acceptable price. George Orwell wrote that the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. But anyone who thinks an American defeat in Iraq will bring a merciful end to this conflict is deluded. Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences.

As in Indochina more than 30 years ago, millions of Iraqis today see the United States helping them defeat their murderous opponents as the only hope for their country. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have committed themselves to working with us and with their democratically elected government to enable their country to rejoin the world as a peaceful, moderate state that is a partner to its neighbors instead of a threat. If we accept defeat, these Iraqis will be at terrible risk. Thousands upon thousands of them will flee, as so many Vietnamese did after 1975.

The new strategy of the coalition and the Iraqis, ably directed by Gen. David Petraeus, offers the best prospect of reversing the direction of events — provided that we show staying power. Osama bin Laden said, a few months after 9/11, that “when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” The United States, in his mind, is the weak horse. American defeat in Iraq would embolden the extremists in the Muslim world, demoralize and perhaps destabilize many moderate friendly governments, and accelerate the radicalization of every conflict in the Middle East.

Our conduct in Iraq is a crucial test of our credibility, especially with regard to the looming threat from revolutionary Iran. Our Arab and Israeli friends view Iraq in that wider context. They worry about our domestic debate, which had such a devastating impact on the outcome of the Vietnam War, and they want reassurance.

When government officials argued that American credibility was at stake in Indochina, critics ridiculed the notion. But when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, he and his colleagues invoked Vietnam as a reason not to take American warnings seriously. The United States cannot be strong against Iran — or anywhere — if we accept defeat in Iraq.

Read the entire article here. I am more then a little bit cynical about NYT reporting and editorializing on Iraq. I consider this op-ed little more then an attempt by the NYT to claim their incredibly one-sided treatment of Iraq reporting as actually balanced. Regardless, this op-ed is welcome nonetheless.

Washington Post Gives Only The Negative News from Iraq

Once again the WP does a news story on Iraq that concentrates wholly on the negative, including a list of U.S. casualties, with no mention of on-going U.S. operations nor enemy killed and captured. Read the travesty here. It is akin to the sports announcer: "Its the Yankees 3, and in other games . . . " How about those journalistic ethics?

The WP reports that al Qaeda in Iraq and an opposing Sunni Baathist insurgent group, the Islamic Army of Iraq, have declared a cease fire against each other in the Baghdad neighborhood of Amiriyah. The two groups fought each other for several days over the past week. The WP also reports four U.S. soldiers were killed in Iraq, several relative minor carbombings occurred, and that 4 million Iraqis have been according to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

The WP ignores all positive news from Iraq. For example, the military reported today that coalition forces killed four terrorists, detained 23 others, and discovered multiple weapons caches during recent operations targeting al Qaeda in Iraq. That same report tells of significant cooperation by local Iraqi's and of Iraqi police foiling a suicide bombers targeting police recruits. You might also wish to review graphs of US and insurgent casualties during the surge. And you can find a discussion of the growth of Iraqi forces - growing at a very fast pace - here. The bottom line, it is not possible to rely on the Washington Post as a sole source for accurate reporting from Iraq.

Tories Propose to Enhance Public Participation In Government Through The Internet

British politics are fascinating to watch. It is rather amazing when one realizes that the Brits have no written constitution and no bill of rights. So much of what goes on in the the UK is based on long standing tradition and common law supplemented by modern statutory law, EU treaties and conventions.

At any rate, David Cameron, leader of the opposition conservative Torries, has announced several proposals to change government in advance of Britain's next major election cycle. The most interesting change proposed is an exercise in direct democracy - a bill to allow members of the public to create on-line petitions asking the House of Commons to debate the topic specified in the petition:

David Cameron said if enough people signed an online petition, MPs should discuss and vote on the issue in the Commons to connect Parliament to the "MySpace generation".

. . . Of the e-petitions idea, Mr Cameron accepted there could be "difficulties" about issues some people might want discussed, such as football results.

He said a new legislative business committee would act as a "filter" to frivolous petitions.

But he said it was "depressing" at the moment for MPs to present a petition on behalf of constituents to the Commons, adding: "You drop this petition in a bag behind the Speaker's Chair and to all intents and purposes it disappears."

Read the entire story here. On its face, this certainly sounds like a fascinating proposal. It is a small first step in tieing the public directly into the government through the internet.

Interrogations & Lies

A recent experiment in Britain on the reliability of interrogation cues has come up with some interesting results. It would seem that asking questions that require reverse order answers provide the most reliable means of seperating the facts from the lies:

Asking suspects to tell their alibis from back to front is a better way for police to spot liars than looking for lack of eye contact or shifting in the seat, researchers have found.

Putting extra mental pressure on suspects by asking them to reverse their accounts can lead to clearer signs that they are lying.

Research by academics at the University of Portsmouth, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), has cast doubt on the reliability of watching for suspects shifting uncomfortably, stumbling over words or breaking eye contact.

This is because liars often put more effort into impressing their interviewers. However, research - which ESRC said had attracted interest from investigators in the UK and abroad - shows they struggle with telling, and re-telling, a back-to-front story.

The ESRC said: "Police manuals recommend several approaches to help investigators decide whether they are being told the truth.

"The principal strategy focuses on visual cues such as eye contact and body movement, whilst the 'Baseline Method' sees investigators compare a suspect's verbal and non-verbal responses during 'small talk' at the beginning of interview with those in the interview proper."

A third approach, the Behavioural Analysis Interview (BAI) strategy, "comprises a list of questions to which it is suggested liars and those telling the truth will give different responses.

"However, research has consistently found that cues offered in each of these scenarios are unreliable - a view confirmed by the ESRC-funded 'Interviewing to Detect Deception' study."

. . . "Those paying attention to visual cues proved significantly worse at distinguishing liars from those telling the truth than those looking for speech-related cues. In another experiment, liars appeared less nervous and more helpful than those telling the truth - contrary to the advice of the BAI strategy."

Read the entire story here.

Wednesday, June 6, 2007

Europe - Socialism, Islam & Emigration

Paul Belie has thoughts on the unintended consequences of the European social welfare model:

Last year more than 155,000 Germans emigrated from their native country. Since 2004 the number of ethnic Germans who leave each year is greater than the number of immigrants moving in. While the emigrants are highly motivated and well educated, "those coming in are mostly poor, untrained and hardly educated," says Stephanie Wahl of the German Institute for Economics.

In a survey conducted in 2005 among German university students, 52 percent said they would rather leave their native country than remain there. By "voting with their feet," young, educated Germans affirm that Germany has no future to offer them and their children. As one couple who moved to the United States told the newspaper Die Welt: "Here our children have a future in which they will not have to fear unemployment and social decline." There are two main reasons why so-called "ethno-Germans" emigrate. Some complain that the tax rates in Germany are so high that it is no longer worthwhile working for a living there. Others indicate they no longer feel at home in a country whose cultural appearance is changing dramatically.

The situation is similar in other countries in Western Europe. Since 2003, emigration has exceeded immigration to the Netherlands. In 2006, the Dutch saw more than 130,000 compatriots leave. The rise in Dutch emigration peaked after the assassinations of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. This indicates that the flight from Europe is related to a loss of confidence in the future of nations which have taken in the Trojan horse of Islamism, but which, unlike the Trojans, lack the guts to fight.

Elsewhere in Western Europe immigration currently still surpasses emigration, though emigration figures are rising fast. In Belgium the number of emigrants surged by 15 percent in the past years. In Sweden, 50,000 people packed their bags last year -- a rise of 18 percent compared to the previous year and the highest number of Swedes leaving since 1892. In the United Kingdom, almost 200,000 British citizens move out every year.

Americans who think that the European welfare state is the model to follow would do well to ponder the question why, if Europe is so wonderful, Europeans are fleeing from it. European welfare systems are redistribution mechanisms, taking money from skilled and educated Europeans in order to give it to nonskilled newcomers from the Third World.

. . . On Monday Francois Fillon, the new French prime minister, said that "Europe is not Eldorado," emphasizing that his government intends to curb immigration by those who only seek welfare benefits. "Europe is hospitable, France is an immigration country and will continue to be so, but it will only accept foreigners prepared to integrate," he stressed. Europe cannot afford to be "Eldorado" for foreigners any longer, because it has stopped being "home" for thousands of its own educated children, now eagerly looking for opportunities to move to America, Canada, Australia or New Zealand -- white European nations outside Europe.

While the fertility rate in France is 1.9 children per woman, two out of every five newborns in France are children of Arab or African immigrants. In Germany (fertility rate 1.37) 35 percent of all newborns have a non-German background. Paradoxically, fertility rates in Turkey, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, etc., are lower than among immigrants from these countries in Europe. "A woman in Tunisia has on average 1.7 children. In France she has six because the French government pays her to have them," Mr. Heinsohn explains. "Of course, the money was never intended to benefit Tunisian women in particular, but French women will not touch this money, whereas the Tunisian women are only too happy to... For Danish and German women the welfare benefits are too low to be attractive. Not so for the immigrants. So, what we see in England, France, Germany and the Netherlands are immigrant women who take low-paid jobs which they supplement with public benefits. It is not a fantastic income but sufficient for them," he said.

Europe's welfare system is causing a perverse process of population replacement. If the Europeans want to save their culture, they will have to slay the welfare state.

Read the entire story here.

Tariq Ramadan Dissimulating In The UK

Tariq Ramadan is the grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, the modern era's first radical Islamist organization. He is a very well spoken scholar with degrees in Philosophy and French literature. And he is an unabashed Salafist who presents well written, wholly dissimulating arguments in furtherance of radical Islam. His latest is a truly outrageous article in the Guardian wherein Ramadan argues that British Muslims are already reasonably integrated into British society, that it is the British government that must accept Salafi Islam as is rather then require any further integration and, lastly, that it is the U.K.'s foreign policy that is the cause of British Muslim discontent and terrorism.

Let us look closely at recent developments in government policy toward Muslims. The British Muslim reaction to the July 7 attacks was exemplary, as Ken Livingstone pointed out, and this was a proof that they were well integrated into society. A policy of constructive engagement would have spared no effort to make the best of these tragic events.

Instead, the British government has adopted an attitude of double denial, at home and abroad. Obsession with the "terrorist threat" rapidly colonised debate and drove the government headlong into an approach restricted to the "fight against radicalisation and extremism". Though it appeared normal to deal with the issue, the "Muslim question" could in no way be reduced to one of security. Further, this policy was accompanied by a demeaning - and frequently paternalistic - argument on the necessity of "integration". Muslims, so it went, must accept those British values (liberty, tolerance, democracy, etc) that make up the essence of "Britishness".

This reductive argument is dangerous on two counts. First, it tendentiously associates terrorism with integration. It is common knowledge that the authors of the terrorist acts were thoroughly integrated: they were educated, held jobs and were culturally westernised. Second, in today's social and political debate it normalises a formula that only parties of the extreme right once dared to articulate: that Muslims, on the whole, have a problem with western values and must offer more convincing "proof" that they accept them. On December 8 last year, Tony Blair called on minorities to conform to "our essential values", stating that they have "a duty to integrate". The Muslim community, because it is perceived as "badly integrated", has become suspect.

Terrorism requires analysis of the religious rhetoric and the political strategies of its authors; they must be confronted firmly. It is equally clear that an accurately targeted security policy is a necessity. But this cannot justify sweeping measures applied to an entire segment of the population on the basis of a misdiagnosis. The vast majority of British Muslims have absolutely no problem with the British values cited above. Their cultural and religious integration is already a fact, as proven by the millions of citizens who live peaceably in this country.

The problem today is not one of "essential values", but of the gap between these values and everyday social and political practice. Justice is applied variably depending on whether one is black, Asian or Muslim. Equal opportunity is often a myth. Young citizens from cultural and religious "minorities" run up against the wall of institutionalised racism. Rather than insisting that Muslims yield to a "duty to integrate", society must shoulder its "duty of consistency". It is up to British society to reconcile itself with its own self-professed values; it is up to politicians to practise what they preach.

Tony Blair and his government have obliged civil servants to deny that a link exists between terrorism and British foreign policy. While the invasion of Iraq can never be claimed as ethical justification for terrorist attacks against innocent citizens in London, it would be absurd to deny the reality of the political connection between the two. The illegal invasion of Iraq, blind support for the insane policies of George Bush, British silence on the oppression of the Palestinians - how could these issues not have a direct bearing on the deep discontent shared by many Muslims toward the west in general, and toward Britain in particular. Even though this is not the sole explanation for terrorism, it is certainly part of the explanation (without arguing that it can be justified).

We must be bold enough to take the measure of this foreign policy, and listen to the voices of millions of citizens who have democratically and peacefully opposed the war, citizens whose voices were not heard. The negative effects of this policy - in terms of confidence - are deep, not to mention what we now know about the horrors of Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, and the secret flights that carried prisoners without rights through Britain to the black sites of the torture gulag.

Tony Blair will make his last gesture toward the Muslims of Britain today at an international conference on Islam and Muslims in the World. The spirit of the initiative seems at first glance praiseworthy but, on closer inspection, it stands revealed as little more than an exercise in fence mending or public relations. While I have been invited to participate in the conference, not a single representative of the leading British Muslim associations has been invited to speak, not a single sensitive subject has been touched upon. It is as though these associations and their leaders were part of the problem, and could not become an active part of the solution. It is as though we could hope to solve deep-seated problems by refusing to see them for what they are. So many fine intentions and words about openness, while the facts speak instead of petty politics.

If Muslims, in Britain and throughout the world, are to refuse to cast themselves as victims and instead assume their responsibilities and develop a critical political awareness, the process must begin by resisting political manoeuvres designed to lull them, to select their representatives for them, and even to make cynical use of them. The imperative is theirs, but it can only be a positive development for democracy in Britain.

Read the entire article here. Ramadan is truly breathtaking in breadth of - and the dissumulation pervading - his arguments. Now over five years since 9-11, with the poisonous dogma of Salafi / Wahhabi Islam publicly exposed, it gives pause to think that this man was offered a tenured position in the Department of Religion at Notre Dame - or to think that a newspaper in the UK offered him space to spout his dangerous propoganda.

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

Libby Has Been Nifonged - Bush Should Pardon Libby Immediately

Federal District Court Judge Reggie Walton Lewis sentenced Lewis "Scooter" Libby to 2 1/2 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for perjury and obstruction of justice. This prosecution was brought by Patrick Fitzgerald, appointed Special Prosecutor after Bob Novak published the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA agent, in a 2003 column. Fitzgerald was charged with determining whether a crime was committed in the publication Plame's identity and if so, who committed the crime.

It has since become clear that, very shortly after taking the position of Special Prosecutor, Fitzgerald determined that Plame was not a covert agent under the statute at issue and that the person who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage. That should have ended the Special Prosecutor's mandate. It did not. Instead, millions of tax dollars and several years later, Fitzgerald was able to make a case for perjury and obstruction against Libby.

It is one thing for the federal government to charge someone with perjury during an ongoing investigaion where there is a question whether a crime was committed and who committed it. But with no underlying crime and with the identity of the person who leaked made known to Fitzgerald soon after his apointment, what Fitzgerald did in no way resembeled a legitimate investigation of criminal wrongdoing. What Fitzgerald conducted was an inquisition.

To add to this overreaching, at today's sentencing hearing, Fitzgerald argued for a very stiff sentence for Libby based on the seriousness of the underlying act of identifying a "covert agent." That is simply mystifying when there was no charge ever brought against Libby or anyone else for such a criminal act. Thus, it was even more ridiculous that the Judge apparently agreed with Fitzgerald, ignoring the federal sentencing guidelines that suggest a significantly lesser penalty then what the Judge imposed.

This alone would appear to be a clearly appealable issue. Yet the judge today said that he is disinclined to allow Libby to remain free pending his appeal.

President Bush needs to end this Nifongesque travesty of prosecutorial overreaching. He needs to pardon Lewis Scooter Libby immediately.

Democrats And The MSM Suffering A Failure Of Imagination

The 9-11 Commission, in assessing the failures that led to the al Qaeda attacks of 9-11, identified our most fundamental failure as being a failure to "imagine" the gravity of the threat from radical Islam and the means by which such threat might be realized. Now, but a few years removed from 9-11, the radical Islamic ideology at the core of the 9-11 attacks is still metasticizing. We are fighting that radical Islam today in Iraq - both of the Salfi al Qaeda variety and the Khomeinist Shia variety.

Democrats argue that we should leave Iraq immediately. As Hillary Clinton put it, the Iraq war is "Bush's War." The emphasis is wholly on righting what is posited as a past moral wrong. But such an argument does not address - nor are Democrats being asked to address by the MSM - the single most signficant question that we as a nation face today. It is one of imagination. What will happen to us and the world should we withdraw from Iraq in the face of the radical Islamic threat?

Our nation's premier Orientalist, the scholar Bernard Lewis, believes that a withdraw from Iraq posited by the Democrats would embolden the radical Islamists on a fundemental level, leading to "consequences--both for Islam and for America-- [that] will be deep, wide and lasting." Oliver North, looking at CIA assessments, views the effects of such a withdraw as leading to incalculable costs. And today, Dan Senor takes the Democrats to task for failure to listen to their own experts - the one's who originally argued against the war, but who now argue against leaving Iraq:

Consider Brent Scowcroft, dean of the Realist School, who openly opposed the war from the outset and was a lead skeptic of the president's democracy-building agenda. In a recent Financial Times interview, he succinctly summed up the implication of withdrawal: "The costs of staying are visible; the costs of getting out are almost never discussed. If we get out before Iraq is stable, the entire Middle East region might start to resemble Iraq today. Getting out is not a solution."

And here is retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Centcom Commander and a vociferous critic of the what he sees as the administration's naive and one-sided policy in Iraq and the broader Middle East: "When we are in Iraq we are in many ways containing the violence. If we back off we give it more room to breathe, and it may metastasize in some way and become a regional problem. We don't have to be there at the same force level, but it is a five- to seven-year process to get any reasonable stability in Iraq."

A number of Iraq's Sunni Arab neighbors also opposed the war as well as the U.S. push for liberalizing the region's authoritarian governments. Yet they now backchannel the same two priorities to Washington: Do not let Iran acquire nukes, and do not withdraw from Iraq.

A senior Gulf Cooperation Council official told me that "If America leaves Iraq, America will have to return. Soon. It will not be a clean break. It will not be a permanent goodbye. And by the time America returns, we will have all been drawn in. America will have to stabilize more than just Iraq. The warfare will have spread to other countries, governments will be overthrown. America's military is barely holding on in Iraq today. How will it stabilize 'Iraq Plus'?" (Iraq Plus is the term that some leaders in Arab capitals use to describe the region following a U.S. withdrawal.)

I heard similar warnings made repeatedly on a recent trip to almost every capital in the Persian Gulf--to some of America's closest allies and hosts of our military.

Likewise, withdrawal proponents cite career U.S. intelligence professionals as war skeptics, and not without basis. Yet here is what the U.S. intelligence community predicted in its National Intelligence Estimate early this year: "Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq. . . .

"If such a rapid withdrawal were to take place, we judge that the Iraqi Security Forces would be unlikely to survive as a non-sectarian national institution: neighboring countries--invited by Iraqi factions or unilaterally--might intervene openly in the conflict; massive civilian casualties and forced population displacement would be probable; al Qaida in Iraq would attempt to use parts of the country--particularly al-Anbar province--to plan increased attacks in and outside of Iraq; and spiraling violence and disarray in Iraq, along with Kurdish moves to control Kirkuk and strengthen autonomy, could prompt Turkey to launch a military incursion."

. . . John Burns of the New York Times . . . won Pulitzers for his coverage in Bosnia and Afghanistan before throwing himself full-bore into Iraq. This is how he described the stakes of withdrawal on "The Charlie Rose Show" recently:

"Friends of mine who are Iraqis--Shiite, Sunni, Kurd--all foresee a civil war on a scale with bloodshed that will absolutely dwarf what we're seeing now. It's really difficult to imagine that that would happen . . . without Iran becoming involved from the east, without the Saudis, who have already said in that situation that they would move in to help protect the Sunni minority in Iraq.

"It's difficult to see how this could go anywhere but into a much wider conflagration, with all kinds of implications for the world's flow of oil, for the state of Israel. What happens to King Abdullah in Jordan if there's complete chaos in the region? . . . It just seems to me that the consequences are endless, endless."

Earlier on the same program, Mr. Burns laid out his own version of Iraq Plus. "If you pull out now, and catastrophe ensues, then it is very likely that the United States would have to come back in circumstances which, of course, would be even less favorable, one might imagine, than the ones that now confront American troops here."

It would be one thing if only the architects of the Bush policy and their die-hard supporters opposed withdrawal. But four separate groups of knowledgeable critics--three of whom opposed going into Iraq--now describe the possible costs of withdrawal as very high.

If the Realists, neighboring Arab regimes, our intelligence community and some of the most knowledgeable reporters all say such a course could be disastrous, on what basis are the withdrawal advocates taking their position? . . .

Read the entire story here. To describe what is occurring between the Democrats and the MSM today as a failure to exercise imagination is a significant understatement. Our last "failure of imagination" led to 9-11. The stakes now are much higher. We have challenged the Islamists. If we back away now, it really is not hard to imagine the tremendous costs that will have to be paid by our country - costs that will dwarf the "blank check" needed to stablize Iraq.

And whom will the MSM and the Democrats blame then?

Monday, June 4, 2007

Cold Cash Jefferson Indicted

Louisiana Representative Cold Cash William Jefferson, long under investigation for taking bribes and selling his influence in the House of Representatives - and made infamous for hiding over $90,000 in bribe money inside a freezer in his home - has finally been indicted by the Justice Dept. You can find the Complaint here. The Complaint alleges Jefferson committed a variety of criminal conduct ranging from corrupt practices to wire fraud. If convicted on all sixteen counts, Jefferson will face over 200 years in jail.

Iraq Rollup - The Good, The Bad, The Questionable, The Bull

The NYT is reporting that, in terms of pacification of Baghdad neighborhoods, the surge is "behind schedule" - though it is not clear from the article precisely what the counterinsurgency plan projected by this date. The NYT quotes ancedotal evidence that places blame for the slower then expected progress on Iraqi forces that have, at least in some units, been performing poorly and/or been infiltrated by insurgents working against the surge. The NYT does not address other recent information from the surge that shows very signficant strides in decreasing sectarian violence overall and in attritting some 20,000 enemy forces in just the past few months.

An Al Qaeda in Iraq affiliate has released a video purporting to show the actual abduction of the three soldiers from the Tenth Mountain Division two weeks ago. They do not display the soldiers, but do show i.d. cards that appear authentic. They also claim on a website to have executed all three soldiers.

Bill Rogio and the WP are reporting on the latest Iranian mischief - supplying rockets to splinter groups of the Mahdi Army - as well as increased operational tempo targeting Mahdi Army leadership, likely aimed at limiting any attempt by the recently returned Sadr to reunify his forces and / or to reestablish his own authority. Rogio is also reporting on some important successes over the past days targeting al Qaeda throughout the country, including a notable success in Fallujah.

The NYT has an utterly inane op-ed claiming that Sadr, recently returned from hiding in Iran, is "An Enemy We Can Work With." The op-ed grossly overstates Sadr's power at this point, ignores his role as one of the primary engines of sectarian violence over the past two years, and ignores the fact that Sadr's goals for Iraq are very much at odds with the unified democracy that the U.S. has been spilling its blood for the past four years to establish. Urging the U.S. either to slow the operational tempo of attacks on Mahdi Army splinter groups or to otherwise engage Sadr diplomatically seem dangerously sophmoric.

The Democratic candidates for President continue their bidding war to see who can declare defeat in Iraq the quickest and loudest. At one point during their debate, Hillary Clinton referred to Iraq as "Bush's war," a phrase that seems to encapsulate the refusal of the left to address the ramifications of retreat from Iraq to anything beyond the 2008 elections.

The WP is raising the question of allowing illegal immigrants to join the U.S. military with a promise of citizenship at the end of service. This is not a bad idea. There are certainly historical antecedents, such as the ancient Roman military who used a similar method of recruitment in its provinces. The overriding issue has to be a vetting process to insure the loyalty of such recruits to the U.S. We have been burned badly on this before. For example, bin Laden's chief of security in the 90's and one of the al Qaeda's major operational assets was an ex-Green Beret Sgt. born in Egypt, Ali Mohammed.

The WP runs an utterly ridiculous piece on a U.S. interragator who claims to have tortured people by making them cold or having them listen to tapes all night long. It just so happens that this interragator, who now claims to be having attacks of conscience, is also a week shy of having a book released for publication. I invite everyone on all sides of the torture debate to compare the methods described in the WP article as torture with those that al Qaeda recommends in its own publications, and then decide for yourself whether this hand wringing is more then a bit idiotic.

Sunday, June 3, 2007

A National Disgrace At It Again

Jack Murtha, a walking national disgrace who curiously is allowed to spread patently false allegations in the MSM without challenge from his interviewers nor any moderates or conservative in government, is at it again today. In an interview today by George Stephanopoulos, Murtha layed the blame for the JFK terror plot made public yesterday directly on the five year old Iraq war, despite the fact that the plotters admitted to initially hatching the plot nearly a decade ago. Watcher tells the sordid tale at MNM.

Tawfiq Hamid, the Canard of Islamaphobia, and Combatting Salafi Islam

Tawfiq Hamid, a former member of Ayman al Zawahiri's terrorist organization Jemaah Islamiya, has spent the last twenty years of his life to modifying Wahhabi Islam and bringing it peacefully into the 21st century. In a recent article for the WSJ, Mr. Hamid examines the canard of "Islamaphobia" and the hypocrisy of Salafist Islam, suggesting that the cure must lie with modifying some of the beliefs of Salafi dogma:

Islamic organizations regularly accuse non-Muslims of "Islamophobia," a fear and disdain for everything Islamic. On May 17, this accusation bubbled up again as foreign ministers from the Organization of the Islamic Conference called Islamophobia "the worst form of terrorism." These ministers also warned, according to the Arab News, that this form of discrimination would cause millions of Muslims in Western countries, "many of whom were already underprivileged," to be "further alienated."

In America, perhaps the most conspicuous organization to persistently accuse opponents of Islamophobia is the Council of American Islamic Relations. . .

It may seem bizarre, but Islamic reformers are not immune to the charge of "Islamophobia" either. For 20 years, I have preached a reformed interpretation of Islam that teaches peace and respects human rights. I have consistently spoken out--with dozens of other Muslim and Arab reformers--against the mistreatment of women, gays and religious minorities in the Islamic world. We have pointed out the violent teachings of Salafism and the imperative of Westerners to protect themselves against it.

Yet according to CAIR's Michigan spokeswoman, Zeinab Chami, I am "the latest weapon in the Islamophobe arsenal." If standing against the violent edicts of Shariah law is "Islamophobic," then I will treat her accusation as a badge of honor.

Muslims must ask what prompts this "phobia" in the first place. When we in the West examine the worldwide atrocities perpetrated daily in the name of Islam, it is vital to question if we--Muslims--should lay the blame on others for Islamophobia or if we should first look hard at ourselves.

According to a recent Pew Global Attitudes survey, "younger Muslims in the U.S. are much more likely than older Muslim Americans to say that suicide bombing in the defense of Islam can be at least sometimes justified." About one out of every four American Muslims under 30 think suicide bombing in defense of Islam is justified in at least some circumstances. Twenty-eight percent believe that Muslims did not carry out the 9/11 attacks and 32% declined to answer that question.

While the survey has been represented in the media as proof of moderation among American Muslims, the actual results should yield the opposite conclusion. If, as the Pew study estimates, there are 2.35 million Muslims in America, that means there are a substantial number of people in the U.S. who think suicide bombing is sometimes justified. Similarly, if 5% of American Muslims support al Qaeda, that's more than 100,000 people.

To bring an end to Islamophobia, we must employ a holistic approach that treats the core of the disease. It will not suffice to merely suppress the symptoms. It is imperative to adopt new Islamic teachings that do not allow killing apostates (Redda Law). Islamic authorities must provide mainstream Islamic books that forbid polygamy and beating women. Accepted Islamic doctrine should take a strong stand against slavery and the raping of female war prisoners, as happens in Darfur under the explicit canons of Shariah ("Ma Malakat Aimanikum"). Muslims should teach, everywhere and universally, that a woman's testimony in court counts as much as a man's, that women should not be punished if they marry whom they please or dress as they wish.

We Muslims should publicly show our strong disapproval for the growing number of attacks by Muslims against other faiths and against other Muslims. Let us not even dwell on 9/11, Madrid, London, Bali and countless other scenes of carnage. It has been estimated that of the two million refugees fleeing Islamic terror in Iraq, 40% are Christian, and many of them seek a haven in Lebanon, where the Christian population itself has declined by 60%. Even in Turkey, Islamists recently found it necessary to slit the throats of three Christians for publishing Bibles.
Of course, Islamist attacks are not limited to Christians and Jews. Why do we hear no Muslim condemnation of the ongoing slaughter of Buddhists in Thailand by Islamic groups? . . .

Islamophobia could end when masses of Muslims demonstrate in the streets against videos displaying innocent people being beheaded with the same vigor we employ against airlines, Israel and cartoons of Muhammad. It might cease when Muslims unambiguously and publicly insist that Shariah law should have no binding legal status in free, democratic societies.

It is well past time that Muslims cease using the charge of "Islamophobia" as a tool to intimidate and blackmail those who speak up against suspicious passengers and against those who rightly criticize current Islamic practices and preachings. Instead, Muslims must engage in honest and humble introspection. Muslims should--must--develop strategies to rescue our religion by combating the tyranny of Salafi Islam and its dreadful consequences. Among more important outcomes, this will also put an end to so-called Islamophobia.

Read the entire story here.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

counter hit xanga