I've never doubted Osama's intelligence or his ability to manipulate the media. Osama's recent video statement (thanks, zombie) has convinced me that he is a masterful genius of politics. Osama has moved from speaking to his base in the Islamic world to gaining converts among 'swing voters' in liberal democracies.
The first thing to notice about the statement is that it is geared for the American and European audience. There are none of the usual calls to kill the Americans, pagans, Zionists, polytheists, Christians, Europeans, or infidels on Muslim lands. Quite the opposite. Osama recycles many of the Left's talking points. That his statement received applause on last night's Bill Maher show is a testament to Osama's genius as a politician. Sadly, Osama's statement is a greater testament to the failure of the mainstream media, and to Leftist stupidity, or the Left's outright support for the terrorists' goals.
The mainstream media has never made much of Osama's fatwahs. The 1996 and 1998 fatwahs provide more insight into Osama and the jihadist movement than any ten 'terror experts' on television or in the print media. I've spent hours pouring over the fatwahs. What Osama did in his latest statement is carry over many of his earlier talking points from the fatwahs and geared them to the American -- but especially the European -- public. Osama's only mistake, which will not be pointed out by the mainstream media wholly behind John Kerry, was using too many of the Democrat's talking points, including Michael Moore. Osama knew he could take this risk because there is no higher goal in mainstream journalism than electing John Kerry.
Osama's greatest accomplishment was giving a statement which could be interpreted as support for Kerry, or if one is a contrarian for Bush. Though I am a contrarian by nature, the facts on the ground preclude the conclusion Osama would like to see George W. Bush retain his office. President Bush is the first American president to attack private terror funding sources, nations which support the terrorists, and to topple two governments which harbored terrorists and provided them with logistical support and training. Osama is on the run, unable to carry out the huge attacks he did throughout the 1990's, culminating in the second WTC attack on September 11, 2001.
The unholy alliance between Osama and the Left is nothing new. Al Qaeda released a statement during the Democratic primary season which used Howard Dean's talking points. Will the Left or the mainstream media ever wake up and realize they are being used? I doubt it. The anti-American obsession is the defining characteristic of the Left in America and Europe. Osama has learned how to use this to greatest advantage. The media has already decided to bury (thanks, LGF) the real story, Osama's use of leftist talking points.
What was Osama trying to accomplish? Some suggest he has endorsed Kerry, as I did above. It is not that simple. Osama knows there is no greater hatred in Europe than the hatred for the United States. Osama's goal is to further divide Europe from their only means of military protection, the United States. Osama knows Sweden, which he mentions by name, is a nation with a large, growing, and radical Muslim population. Unlike Norway, Sweden is in full PC denial about any potential dangers from this population. There is no more anti-American nation in Europe than Sweden, except perhaps France, Germany, and Belgium. The Swedish are particularly sympathetic to the so-called Palestinian cause (Palestine is actually a province of the Roman Empire). Osama made excellent use of this wedge issue in the statement.
Osama has several goals. Yes, he would like to see George Bush defeated in the upcoming elections. Nothing would rally his followers more than a defeat of President Bush. But more importantly he wants to justify European hatred for the United States. As I said, most people are unaware of the real Osama due to media negligence. The media focuses on his phony political goals for the most part. His religous motivations are covered up so as not to offend CAIR. By reinventing himself, like Madonna, Osama hopes to gain European support, especially non-Arab recruits into his cause. Osama may be the modern master of divide and conquer. He knows how to manipulate the media, the Left, and Europe. Islamists everywhere, take note. Al Zarqawi is just a little amateur compared to the reigning champion, Osama.
So what are his chances? Actually, they are quite good. Decades of anti-American propaganda in the European state-controlled media should propel Osama right up there with Che, Lenin, Michael Moore, and Chomsky.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
For France - Qur'an (Koran), the root cause of terrorism
The search for root causes of Islamic terrorism and barbarism which can be funded away continues. It is a natural desire of bureaucrats, soluble problems using traditional means of governance. Modern bureaucracy assumes the legitimacy of the nation-state. Too bad Islam does not recognize the secular nation-state.
The French are in such a desperate situation with their Islamic population it could be likened to 1940. But the invaders are already in their cities, controlling over 800 "no-go zones" in France itself. Too bad the French never read the 'holy' book of the population they chose to embrace. Instead they consume themselves with guilt over the Crusades. Which, by the way, happened over 900 years ago.
"Allah" uses terror as a major tool of 'persuasion' and suggests its use by his foolowers (sic). I've left out many other references to terror in the Koran.
The French are in such a desperate situation with their Islamic population it could be likened to 1940. But the invaders are already in their cities, controlling over 800 "no-go zones" in France itself. Too bad the French never read the 'holy' book of the population they chose to embrace. Instead they consume themselves with guilt over the Crusades. Which, by the way, happened over 900 years ago.
"Allah" uses terror as a major tool of 'persuasion' and suggests its use by his foolowers (sic). I've left out many other references to terror in the Koran.
3.151 - YUSUFALI: Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!
7.004 - PICKTHAL: How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them.
8.012 - YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them."
8.060 - YUSUFALI: Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.
16.112 - YUSUFALI: Allah sets forth a Parable: a city enjoying security and quiet, abundantly supplied with sustenance from every place: Yet was it ungrateful for the favours of Allah: so Allah made it taste of hunger and terror (in extremes) (closing in on it) like a garment (from every side), because of the (evil) which (its people) wrought.
17.059 - YUSUFALI: And We refrain from sending the signs, only because the men of former generations treated them as false: We sent the she-camel to the Thamud to open their eyes, but they treated her wrongfully: We only send the Signs by way of terror (and warning from evil).
33.026 - YUSUFALI: And those of the People of the Book who aided them - Allah did take them down from their strongholds and cast terror into their hearts. (So that) some ye slew, and some ye made prisoners.
59.002 - YUSUFALI: It is He Who got out the Unbelievers among the People of the Book from their homes at the first gathering (of the forces). Little did ye think that they would get out: And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But the (Wrath of) Allah came to them from quarters from which they little expected (it), and cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their dwellings by their own hands and the hands of the Believers, take warning, then, O ye with eyes (to see)!
59.013 - YUSUFALI: Of a truth ye are stronger (than they) because of the terror in their hearts, (sent) by Allah. This is because they are men devoid of understanding.
Monday, October 25, 2004
All the News Clogging Up My Favorites Menu
I used to respect the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Telegraph (UK)
Kerry the "ferocious fighter" is one of the least goofy claims in this article.
"He did it all simply because he is a fighter, and a ferocious one. I am quite certain that if Kerry had been president on September 11 he would have reacted more violently than Bush, sending bombers into Afghanistan, not just Special Forces scouts, and demanding immediate co-operation - or else - from Saudi Arabia, not just Pakistan. European anti-militarists have really picked the wrong guy as their hero."
Um, dude, we did use bombers in Afghanistan, lots of bombers. The SF scouts were actually Air Force commandos there to laser-designate targets for the bombers.
Ten Commandments going to Supreme Court. I think one problem is where you put the display, and who does it. A giant Ten Commandments rock placed in front of the courtroom of a federal judge, by that judge, is probably unfair to Hindus who might have to appear.
Saddam the "secular leader" takes a bashing in Slate, of all places. This is yet another leftist catechism which never made any sense. But if it's repeated enough, people will believe it.
The French have a way with fighting anti-Semitism. Put a Jewish slur on a picture of Jesus. Yeah, that's the ticket. At least the French get tough with schoolgirls. The French deal with Saddam and Hezbollah, but crack down on little girls. That must be the "third way".
Europe from Venus? Just wait until they start fighting over imported cheap goods from the new EU members. Economic sanctions will not work on global terrorism which has no respect for borders. Neither will giving every terrorist a lawyer.
Foreign Affairs is a pretty good magazine. But this guy is clueless. The article suggests America needs to regain legitimacy. One thing to notice: there is NO mention of the UN Oil-for-Food scandal - the largest scandal in human history. The author needs to reassess whose legitimacy is in question. Even Kofi Annan has been forced to admit the UN looks bad. Russia, France, and China never would have supported ousting their sugar daddy, Saddam.
At least we humans have an excuse for all this stupidity.
Kerry the "ferocious fighter" is one of the least goofy claims in this article.
"He did it all simply because he is a fighter, and a ferocious one. I am quite certain that if Kerry had been president on September 11 he would have reacted more violently than Bush, sending bombers into Afghanistan, not just Special Forces scouts, and demanding immediate co-operation - or else - from Saudi Arabia, not just Pakistan. European anti-militarists have really picked the wrong guy as their hero."
Um, dude, we did use bombers in Afghanistan, lots of bombers. The SF scouts were actually Air Force commandos there to laser-designate targets for the bombers.
Ten Commandments going to Supreme Court. I think one problem is where you put the display, and who does it. A giant Ten Commandments rock placed in front of the courtroom of a federal judge, by that judge, is probably unfair to Hindus who might have to appear.
Saddam the "secular leader" takes a bashing in Slate, of all places. This is yet another leftist catechism which never made any sense. But if it's repeated enough, people will believe it.
The French have a way with fighting anti-Semitism. Put a Jewish slur on a picture of Jesus. Yeah, that's the ticket. At least the French get tough with schoolgirls. The French deal with Saddam and Hezbollah, but crack down on little girls. That must be the "third way".
Europe from Venus? Just wait until they start fighting over imported cheap goods from the new EU members. Economic sanctions will not work on global terrorism which has no respect for borders. Neither will giving every terrorist a lawyer.
Foreign Affairs is a pretty good magazine. But this guy is clueless. The article suggests America needs to regain legitimacy. One thing to notice: there is NO mention of the UN Oil-for-Food scandal - the largest scandal in human history. The author needs to reassess whose legitimacy is in question. Even Kofi Annan has been forced to admit the UN looks bad. Russia, France, and China never would have supported ousting their sugar daddy, Saddam.
At least we humans have an excuse for all this stupidity.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
The Cold War Myth of Nuclear Deterrence
When John Kerry recently came out against underground nuclear penetrators he was continuing his fight against any weapons system which could give the United States a strategic advantage. This is Kerry's history and a central part of his belief system: new American weapons are a bad thing. Kerry argued that nuclear proliferators like North Korea could justify their proliferation on this new class of weapons system.
There is one simple, obvious problem with this philosophy. Small nuclear powers cannot deter large, established nuclear powers with a technological advantage. Rather, they invite preemptive strikes on themselves by developing nuclear technology. The Israeli strike on the French Osirak reactor in Iraq is one good example.
What gives any nation the "right" to have nuclear weapons? One hears that from the Left whenever the latest dictator decides to build a nuclear weapon. Answer: nothing. That is not the correct question. The real question is: how can we reduce the danger of nuclear war? Certainly we cannot reduce the risk of nuclear war by increasing the number of nations which possess nuclear weapons. The United States, France, UK, Israel, or Russia, et al, will never get rid of nuclear weapons if every nation on Earth seeks to acquire them. Unilateral disarmament in the face of increasing nuclear nations would amount to national suicide.
There are two kinds of proliferation. John Kerry seems to be confusing them. One, vertical proliferation, is the increase or upgrade in nuclear weapons within existing nuclear powers. We see this in China, North Korea, Israel, Russia, or the United States. The second type of proliferation is called horizontal proliferation, from nation-to-nation.
Whenever nuclear deterrence is discussed the Cold War is used as an example of deterrence working. Did it? The United States and the Soviet Union fought proxy wars all over the world, from Korea and Vietnam to Grenada and Nicaragua. The United States and the Soviets had many close calls with nuclear war, from the Cuban Missile Crisis to geese flying over the Arctic Circle triggering NORAD early warning radar. The two Cold War adversaries were advanced technological nations with some time to decide what to do. The proliferation the two great powers engaged in was almost all vertical. The Soviets did attempt to put missiles in Cuba, with nerve-jarring results. The United States deployed Pershing missiles in Germany amid a huge outcry of condemnation. There are a few other examples, but the Cold War was mainly adding to existing stockpiles.
The modern archetype of potential nuclear war might be India and Pakistan. They share a border and have little time to decide what to do in the event of an attack. So far, obviously, there has been no nuclear exchange. But to extrapolate this into an general defense of nuclear deterrence is dangerous. Both sides are locked in an arms race. Which brings me back to where I started. In order for deterrence to work many factors must be in place. I'll touch on several important ones.
1) Rough parity in force capabilities.
2) Sufficient command and control to avoid accidental launches.
3) Stable government, not ruled by someone willing to take millions of casualties.
4) Security to prevent non-governmental militant groups from gaining control of nuclear weapons.
5) A long-term outlook. Apocalyptic theocrats, as in Iran, are not good candidates for nuclear weapons.
I'll discuss the first point. I've heard from leftists that the United States would not dare attack Pakistan because it is a nuclear nation. First of all, of course, I don't know why we would want to engage Pakistan in all-out war, but bear with me and pretend we do.
The United States would first decapitate the command and control of Pakistan using precision-guided weapons. We would destroy their nuclear capability in place. Rather than being a deterrent, Pakistan's nuclear capability would only determine U.S. tactics against them. Instead of deterring the U.S., Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would require a large, surprise preemptive strike.
The lesson of the Cold War should have been how dangerous it was, and how close we came to mutual destruction. It appears the 'lesson' learned by the other nation states is "we want to join the club". If that is the case, the world will only get more dangerous, spend more money on arms, and risk global catastrophe for no real deterrence.
In the history of warfare, no weapons system has been considered too powerful to be used in quantity. The bow, the machine gun, and dynamite were viewed by some very smart people as being unfair or too powerful to be used in combat. All those people turned out to be very wrong. Nuclear weapons are no exception. First strike strategies are the natural result of nations facing off with nuclear weapons. Constant paranoia, surveillance, and knife-edge readiness are the hallmarks of nuclear weapons, not deterrence.
There is one simple, obvious problem with this philosophy. Small nuclear powers cannot deter large, established nuclear powers with a technological advantage. Rather, they invite preemptive strikes on themselves by developing nuclear technology. The Israeli strike on the French Osirak reactor in Iraq is one good example.
What gives any nation the "right" to have nuclear weapons? One hears that from the Left whenever the latest dictator decides to build a nuclear weapon. Answer: nothing. That is not the correct question. The real question is: how can we reduce the danger of nuclear war? Certainly we cannot reduce the risk of nuclear war by increasing the number of nations which possess nuclear weapons. The United States, France, UK, Israel, or Russia, et al, will never get rid of nuclear weapons if every nation on Earth seeks to acquire them. Unilateral disarmament in the face of increasing nuclear nations would amount to national suicide.
There are two kinds of proliferation. John Kerry seems to be confusing them. One, vertical proliferation, is the increase or upgrade in nuclear weapons within existing nuclear powers. We see this in China, North Korea, Israel, Russia, or the United States. The second type of proliferation is called horizontal proliferation, from nation-to-nation.
Whenever nuclear deterrence is discussed the Cold War is used as an example of deterrence working. Did it? The United States and the Soviet Union fought proxy wars all over the world, from Korea and Vietnam to Grenada and Nicaragua. The United States and the Soviets had many close calls with nuclear war, from the Cuban Missile Crisis to geese flying over the Arctic Circle triggering NORAD early warning radar. The two Cold War adversaries were advanced technological nations with some time to decide what to do. The proliferation the two great powers engaged in was almost all vertical. The Soviets did attempt to put missiles in Cuba, with nerve-jarring results. The United States deployed Pershing missiles in Germany amid a huge outcry of condemnation. There are a few other examples, but the Cold War was mainly adding to existing stockpiles.
The modern archetype of potential nuclear war might be India and Pakistan. They share a border and have little time to decide what to do in the event of an attack. So far, obviously, there has been no nuclear exchange. But to extrapolate this into an general defense of nuclear deterrence is dangerous. Both sides are locked in an arms race. Which brings me back to where I started. In order for deterrence to work many factors must be in place. I'll touch on several important ones.
1) Rough parity in force capabilities.
2) Sufficient command and control to avoid accidental launches.
3) Stable government, not ruled by someone willing to take millions of casualties.
4) Security to prevent non-governmental militant groups from gaining control of nuclear weapons.
5) A long-term outlook. Apocalyptic theocrats, as in Iran, are not good candidates for nuclear weapons.
I'll discuss the first point. I've heard from leftists that the United States would not dare attack Pakistan because it is a nuclear nation. First of all, of course, I don't know why we would want to engage Pakistan in all-out war, but bear with me and pretend we do.
The United States would first decapitate the command and control of Pakistan using precision-guided weapons. We would destroy their nuclear capability in place. Rather than being a deterrent, Pakistan's nuclear capability would only determine U.S. tactics against them. Instead of deterring the U.S., Pakistan's nuclear arsenal would require a large, surprise preemptive strike.
The lesson of the Cold War should have been how dangerous it was, and how close we came to mutual destruction. It appears the 'lesson' learned by the other nation states is "we want to join the club". If that is the case, the world will only get more dangerous, spend more money on arms, and risk global catastrophe for no real deterrence.
In the history of warfare, no weapons system has been considered too powerful to be used in quantity. The bow, the machine gun, and dynamite were viewed by some very smart people as being unfair or too powerful to be used in combat. All those people turned out to be very wrong. Nuclear weapons are no exception. First strike strategies are the natural result of nations facing off with nuclear weapons. Constant paranoia, surveillance, and knife-edge readiness are the hallmarks of nuclear weapons, not deterrence.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Breaking Down (Religion) Campaign 2004: GWB
George W. Bush is the prayerful man who reformed himself. Can we trust him? His faith has actually changed his life. Does that make him Osama Bin Laden? Does he want to bring on an apocalypse? So much for political discourse. It's all "fair game" now.
If there has ever been an uglier political campaign in my lifetime, I missed it.
The Telegraph (UK)
If there has ever been an uglier political campaign in my lifetime, I missed it.
The Telegraph (UK)
One of the criticisms thrown at George W Bush is that he is a menace because he believes that God is telling him what to do. A moral equivalence is set up, in which Osama bin Laden and Bush are presented as two sides of a fundamentalist coin. On Wednesday, a television programme tried to equate the Muslim Brotherhood, which advocates the violent destruction of all societies that do not conform to sharia law, with the American neo-conservative intellectuals who taught that people should revive their interest in Plato and the civilisation of the ancient Greeks. This is about as accurate as saying that the Nazi party and the Labour Party are the same, because both arose from the discontents of the working classes.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
John Kerry's French Alert System
French is funny. From Opinion Journal
Reader Jonathan Wilson offers a preview of Kerry's French-looking alert system:
Level 1: Ennui
Level 2: Comme ci, comme ça
Level 3: Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
Level 4: Regardez!
Level 5: Zut alors!
Maureen Dowd Torquemada
Maureen Dowd is never encumbered by facts.
She is apparently very upset George W. Bush prays. That is, after all, the only religious 'crime' he admitted to during the debates. He prays for strength, wisdom, and for others. He never claimed a divine mandate for doing what he does, but that hasn't stopped the Catholic Dowd from assaulting his 'heretical' views.
By the way, John Kerry has been excommunicated and faces heresy charges in a Catholic court. Perhaps Mz. Dowd should clean out her own back yard first?
At least it is clear Dowd has lost her marbles. Her case against Bush, however, is based on Pat Robertson. The very same Pat Robertson Dowd would never quote for any purpose save a Bush smear.
UPDATE: White House denies the statement. Perhaps Dowd should do some research into the various oddball statements Pat Robertson has made in his career as a vessel of God's word, in his head. To a woman who found Jesus in melting snow, Robertson's antics may not seem strange. Given Dowd's religious education, I can see why she might associate all faith with insanity.
She is apparently very upset George W. Bush prays. That is, after all, the only religious 'crime' he admitted to during the debates. He prays for strength, wisdom, and for others. He never claimed a divine mandate for doing what he does, but that hasn't stopped the Catholic Dowd from assaulting his 'heretical' views.
By the way, John Kerry has been excommunicated and faces heresy charges in a Catholic court. Perhaps Mz. Dowd should clean out her own back yard first?
A nun would tape up a picture of a snow-covered mountain peak on the blackboard and say that the first child to discern the face of Christ in the melting snow was the holiest. I was soon smugly showing the rest of the class the "miraculous" outline of that soulful, bearded face.
At least it is clear Dowd has lost her marbles. Her case against Bush, however, is based on Pat Robertson. The very same Pat Robertson Dowd would never quote for any purpose save a Bush smear.
UPDATE: White House denies the statement. Perhaps Dowd should do some research into the various oddball statements Pat Robertson has made in his career as a vessel of God's word, in his head. To a woman who found Jesus in melting snow, Robertson's antics may not seem strange. Given Dowd's religious education, I can see why she might associate all faith with insanity.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Al Gore on the "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." memo
I've already posted the 1998 fatwah written by Osama Bin Laden which instructs all Muslims to strike the US, our allies, Crusaders, and Zionists anywhere they can be found. I don't know why the media keeps a lid on these documents, available online. It's impossible to understand the nature of the al Qaeda movement without reading the founding documents. It would be like researching the United States without access to the Constitution.
I just saw a fat, sweaty, unhealthy looking, Al Gore giving an impassioned (read: borderline psychotic) speech at Georgetown University (on Fox News Channel). Gore claims the Bin Laden memo was significant and the nation should have gone on full alert.
I agree. The nation should have gone on alert in 1998.
Obviously the media does not want you to know that Clinton ignored an overt declaration of war.
(Perhaps the links to the Islamic faith are just too obvious to maintain the "religion of peace" facade? I can only guess. But this was available three years before George W. Bush took office, that is a certainty. Note the quote at the bottom. CAIR has stated that only an anti-Muslim bigot would claim a Muslim loves death more than life. CAIR had never read the Koran, or Osama's 1998 fatwah? I suggest CAIR is a pack of liars.)
I just saw a fat, sweaty, unhealthy looking, Al Gore giving an impassioned (read: borderline psychotic) speech at Georgetown University (on Fox News Channel). Gore claims the Bin Laden memo was significant and the nation should have gone on full alert.
I agree. The nation should have gone on alert in 1998.
Obviously the media does not want you to know that Clinton ignored an overt declaration of war.
(Perhaps the links to the Islamic faith are just too obvious to maintain the "religion of peace" facade? I can only guess. But this was available three years before George W. Bush took office, that is a certainty. Note the quote at the bottom. CAIR has stated that only an anti-Muslim bigot would claim a Muslim loves death more than life. CAIR had never read the Koran, or Osama's 1998 fatwah? I suggest CAIR is a pack of liars.)
On that basis, and in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim. This is in accordance with the words of Almighty God, "and fight the pagans all together as they fight you all together," and "fight them until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God."
This is in addition to the words of Almighty God "And why should ye not fight in the cause of God and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated and oppressed--women and children, whose cry is 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will help!'"
We -- with God's help -- call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money wherever and whenever they find it. We also call on Muslim ulema, leaders, youths, and soldiers to launch the raid on Satan's U.S. troops and the devil's supporters allying with them, and to displace those who are behind them so that they may learn a lesson.
Almighty God said "O ye who believe, give your response to God and His Apostle, when He calleth you to that which will give you life. And know that God cometh between a man and his heart, and that it is He to whom ye shall all be gathered."
Almighty God also says "O ye who believe, what is the matter with you, that when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of God, ye cling so heavily to the earth! Do ye prefer the life of this world to the hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least. For God hath power over all things."
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Gitmo is almost as bad as the honors dorm at the University of Florida
Watch the NYT try to justify their over-the-top headlines which were the greatest recruiting tool for jihad since the al Aqsa mosque was "liberated by insurgents" in the Eleventh Century
"One regular procedure that was described by people who worked at Camp Delta, the main prison facility at the naval base in Cuba, was making uncooperative prisoners strip to their underwear, having them sit in a chair while shackled hand and foot to a bolt in the floor, and forcing them to endure strobe lights and screamingly loud rock and rap music played through two close loudspeakers, while the air-conditioning was turned up to maximum levels, said one military official who witnessed the procedure. The official said that was intended to make the detainees uncomfortable, as they were accustomed to high temperatures both in their native countries and their cells."
No wonder my grades were shit. I also had to deal with drunk assholes, firecrackers, and general pandemonium while trying to study. My human rights were violated in college! I declare a jihad against those who brutalized me with loud music!
"One regular procedure that was described by people who worked at Camp Delta, the main prison facility at the naval base in Cuba, was making uncooperative prisoners strip to their underwear, having them sit in a chair while shackled hand and foot to a bolt in the floor, and forcing them to endure strobe lights and screamingly loud rock and rap music played through two close loudspeakers, while the air-conditioning was turned up to maximum levels, said one military official who witnessed the procedure. The official said that was intended to make the detainees uncomfortable, as they were accustomed to high temperatures both in their native countries and their cells."
No wonder my grades were shit. I also had to deal with drunk assholes, firecrackers, and general pandemonium while trying to study. My human rights were violated in college! I declare a jihad against those who brutalized me with loud music!
Saturday, October 16, 2004
BBC Documentary on al Qaeda Debunked Before Airing
Al Qaeda is a "dark illusion" according to an upcoming BBC documentary. The key quote, where the whole article breaks down, "It does not have members or a leader. It does not have "sleeper cells". It does not have an overall strategy. In fact, it barely exists at all, except as an idea about cleansing a corrupt world through religious violence."
The obvious conclusion, though the BBC would never reach it, is that any Muslim is a potential terrorist. But don't take my word for it. There are numerous beheading, bomb, RPG, machine gun, and mortar videos available with the screeching soundtrack of "Allahu Akbar" if you have the stomach. The history of "cleansing" religious movements need not be discussed. Any student of history could name 10 mass killings in seconds. What a choice of words, "cleansing". As in ethnic?
More proof is available in New Zealand prisons [via EvilPundit at LGF]. They join Islam because they admire Osama bin Laden. "They think it's all about fighting Europeans."
The only thing worse than fighting an organized structure with a chain of command is trying to fight a religious movement where enemies can spring up from any mosque or Islamic center. But don't tell the BBC. We don't want to spoil the surprise.
The obvious conclusion, though the BBC would never reach it, is that any Muslim is a potential terrorist. But don't take my word for it. There are numerous beheading, bomb, RPG, machine gun, and mortar videos available with the screeching soundtrack of "Allahu Akbar" if you have the stomach. The history of "cleansing" religious movements need not be discussed. Any student of history could name 10 mass killings in seconds. What a choice of words, "cleansing". As in ethnic?
More proof is available in New Zealand prisons [via EvilPundit at LGF]. They join Islam because they admire Osama bin Laden. "They think it's all about fighting Europeans."
The only thing worse than fighting an organized structure with a chain of command is trying to fight a religious movement where enemies can spring up from any mosque or Islamic center. But don't tell the BBC. We don't want to spoil the surprise.
The Real Lesson of "Florida" 2000: Never Learned
If such reasoning was used four years ago, there could have been dramatic recounts in states other than Florida.
In 2000, the gap between the winner and the loser in five states was less than one-half of 1 percent of the votes cast. Florida was determined by 537 votes.
But New Mexico's result was even closer – just 366 votes. Iowa was decided by 4,144, Wisconsin by 5,708 and Oregon by 6,765.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed Florida was the state which had the legal problems because we have the most electoral votes, right?
When I was young, my father told me about the orderly transfer of executive and legislative power in the United States. He suggested that this was a great achievement, rarely recorded in human history.
Everything old is new again.
In 2000, the gap between the winner and the loser in five states was less than one-half of 1 percent of the votes cast. Florida was determined by 537 votes.
But New Mexico's result was even closer – just 366 votes. Iowa was decided by 4,144, Wisconsin by 5,708 and Oregon by 6,765.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed Florida was the state which had the legal problems because we have the most electoral votes, right?
When I was young, my father told me about the orderly transfer of executive and legislative power in the United States. He suggested that this was a great achievement, rarely recorded in human history.
Everything old is new again.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Thursday, October 14, 2004
The Kristallnacht Pot Bong Putsch: when good Democrats go bad
It is important to remember real Nazi history when trying to draw historical parallels.
Which party in the United States is already planning to subvert the orderly democracy we have had for two centuries with lawsuits?
Which party takes to the streets and calls for violent revolution?
Which party celebrates 'art' which suggests killing the president?
Which party talks about "regime change"?
Which party shoots at their opponents' offices? (See link below)
Which party has vandalized their opponents' offices? (See link below)
What a fantastic title for an editorial, from the Washington Times: "Hate speech and goon squads"
Answer to all of the above: the Democrats.
Never forget, Nazis were just anti-Semitic socialists. Feel free to look around the IAC website I posted above, ANSWER, or Counterpunch. No wonder the Left always refers to Bush as a Nazi, it's called Freudian projection.
Which party in the United States is already planning to subvert the orderly democracy we have had for two centuries with lawsuits?
Which party takes to the streets and calls for violent revolution?
Which party celebrates 'art' which suggests killing the president?
Which party talks about "regime change"?
Which party shoots at their opponents' offices? (See link below)
Which party has vandalized their opponents' offices? (See link below)
What a fantastic title for an editorial, from the Washington Times: "Hate speech and goon squads"
Answer to all of the above: the Democrats.
Never forget, Nazis were just anti-Semitic socialists. Feel free to look around the IAC website I posted above, ANSWER, or Counterpunch. No wonder the Left always refers to Bush as a Nazi, it's called Freudian projection.
Iran's Mullahs Imprison Bloggers / Hitler's Iraq, and Jihad
Nobody can deny the power of the Internet, not even Seventh Century totalitarian theocrats.
Iran's mullahs have found it 'necessary' to put bloggers in solitary confinement.
Even the mainstream media must put their detailed articles, charts, or documents on the Internet. It is simply the best, fastest, and most accessible means of moving information ever devised. We live in the Internet Age.
Front Page Magazine shows the Iraq - Hitler connections.
As it turns out, this is no isolated example. The Nazi roots to the modern Islamic jihad go deep and branch out.
Iran's mullahs have found it 'necessary' to put bloggers in solitary confinement.
Even the mainstream media must put their detailed articles, charts, or documents on the Internet. It is simply the best, fastest, and most accessible means of moving information ever devised. We live in the Internet Age.
Front Page Magazine shows the Iraq - Hitler connections.
As it turns out, this is no isolated example. The Nazi roots to the modern Islamic jihad go deep and branch out.
Why I Supported Operation Iraqi Freedom
Read this and then ask yourself, are there really "plenty of dictators in the world just as bad as Saddam"?
I often heard that classic logical fallacy used by leftists before the war. If you can't topple all the dictatorships in the world with horrific human rights records at the same time, just do nothing. That's the 'logic'. What it masks is the underlying opposition to anything the United States does in the world. If you turn the question around - which dictatorship did you support toppling instead? - you will not get a straight answer. Another good question which will go unanswered, which dictators killed more people than Saddam in modern history? The best answer is North Korea's Kim Jong Il (or is it Kim Jong Il's North Korea?), not coincidentally another "Axis of Evil" member. But the Stalinist state is so closed nobody really knows the death toll in North Korea.
Confusion about numbers is similar to the situation before the Iraq war. I used Saddam's brutality as a justification for war, but I didn't know the exact figures (for the same reason as North Korea, dictators don't usually advertise mass killings). I would argue for war based on the brutality. In response, I'd hear the standard "he's just another bad guy". Now that we actually know the numbers, we know Saddam was no ordinary bad guy. He was one of the worst in modern history.
I often heard that classic logical fallacy used by leftists before the war. If you can't topple all the dictatorships in the world with horrific human rights records at the same time, just do nothing. That's the 'logic'. What it masks is the underlying opposition to anything the United States does in the world. If you turn the question around - which dictatorship did you support toppling instead? - you will not get a straight answer. Another good question which will go unanswered, which dictators killed more people than Saddam in modern history? The best answer is North Korea's Kim Jong Il (or is it Kim Jong Il's North Korea?), not coincidentally another "Axis of Evil" member. But the Stalinist state is so closed nobody really knows the death toll in North Korea.
Confusion about numbers is similar to the situation before the Iraq war. I used Saddam's brutality as a justification for war, but I didn't know the exact figures (for the same reason as North Korea, dictators don't usually advertise mass killings). I would argue for war based on the brutality. In response, I'd hear the standard "he's just another bad guy". Now that we actually know the numbers, we know Saddam was no ordinary bad guy. He was one of the worst in modern history.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Seymour Hersh Floats a Big Lie on O'Reilly
"Al Qaeda has published manuals as long as — oh, I've seen some dated 1998. Our intelligence community has manuals where they advise their people, if you get caught by the infidels, they're going to strip you, they're going to do this. Get your story ready. Be ready to handle some very rough stuff." -- Seymour Hersh
Hersh thinks he is being very clever. The mainstream media pushed the Abu Ghraib story beyond any sense of proportion. The New York Times ran front page stories, above the fold, for weeks. Now that the Islamists have adopted the story as the main justification for beheadings, along with Gitmo, the media is trying to come to grips with what they have done. What they have done is provided the Islamic jihadists with their most powerful weapon, propaganda.
In the above quotation, Hersh begins by telling the truth, starts to fabricate, and culminates in a huge lie:
"Be ready to handle some very rough stuff."
In fact, the al Qaeda training manual gives NO instructions for handling actual torture or "rough stuff" as he calls it. What the manuals do is instruct the "brothers" to CLAIM torture, whatever the actual circumstances.
Hersh knows that in all liklihood many of the stories breathlessly run as fact in the New York Times, Boston Globe, Guardian, Mirror, etc., are manufactured lies. These lies could have been exposed if mainstream media had bothered to do one Google search, as I will demonstrate shortly. Hersh is attempting to use a bit of fact to conceal the mainstream media's primary role in recruiting more Muslims into the global jihad.
Google: "al Qaeda training manual"
I originally read this at thesmokinggun.com. This contains the critical excerpts, courtesy of PBS Frontline.
PRISONS AND DETENTION CENTERS:
1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge.
2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.
4. The brother has to do his best to know the names of the state security officers, who participated in his torture and mention their names to the judge. [These names may be obtained from brothers who had to deal with those officers in previous cases.]
6. During the trial, the court has to be notified of any mistreatment of the brothers inside the prison.
Trying to lie in the Internet Age can be dicey, Seymour.
Hersh thinks he is being very clever. The mainstream media pushed the Abu Ghraib story beyond any sense of proportion. The New York Times ran front page stories, above the fold, for weeks. Now that the Islamists have adopted the story as the main justification for beheadings, along with Gitmo, the media is trying to come to grips with what they have done. What they have done is provided the Islamic jihadists with their most powerful weapon, propaganda.
In the above quotation, Hersh begins by telling the truth, starts to fabricate, and culminates in a huge lie:
"Be ready to handle some very rough stuff."
In fact, the al Qaeda training manual gives NO instructions for handling actual torture or "rough stuff" as he calls it. What the manuals do is instruct the "brothers" to CLAIM torture, whatever the actual circumstances.
Hersh knows that in all liklihood many of the stories breathlessly run as fact in the New York Times, Boston Globe, Guardian, Mirror, etc., are manufactured lies. These lies could have been exposed if mainstream media had bothered to do one Google search, as I will demonstrate shortly. Hersh is attempting to use a bit of fact to conceal the mainstream media's primary role in recruiting more Muslims into the global jihad.
Google: "al Qaeda training manual"
I originally read this at thesmokinggun.com. This contains the critical excerpts, courtesy of PBS Frontline.
PRISONS AND DETENTION CENTERS:
1. At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators] before the judge.
2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.
4. The brother has to do his best to know the names of the state security officers, who participated in his torture and mention their names to the judge. [These names may be obtained from brothers who had to deal with those officers in previous cases.]
6. During the trial, the court has to be notified of any mistreatment of the brothers inside the prison.
Trying to lie in the Internet Age can be dicey, Seymour.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Women, Islam, and Feminism (Part II)
"The world will never have lasting peace so long as men reserve for war the finest human qualities. Peace, no less than war, requires idealism and self-sacrifice and a righteous and dynamic faith." - John Foster Dulles
Lauren Weiner (quoted in Part I) comes to grips with the conflict within those who are conditioned to oppose so-called conservatives or Christians, by pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in continuing to do so where the fight against Islamism is concerned. Islam and Women, again, is worth a read. If the dynamics of the basic faith (anti-Christian and anti-American beliefs) within so-called liberals do not change, they will continue to find themselves fighting for ancient and primitive bigotry against women. Weiner concludes:
-----
Yet for all that, American women would do well to negotiate the tensions now being felt between the Judeo-Christian West and the Muslim East with a moral compass aligned more closely with Fallaci and Friedan than with the multiculturalist or the grievance specialist. September 11 has clarified matters for many. Left-liberal intellectuals are — or at least some of them are — groping their way toward a defense of the West that puts them alongside, if not fervently with, the Bush administration. This is happening even as conservatives make the case that the fight against terrorism is a fight against people who would mistreat women and stone homosexuals. The women writing in the American Prospect, Polakow-Suransky and Chamedes, registered the conservatives’ arguments and were not amused. It bothered them when “male politicians . . . suddenly began invoking women’s emancipation” as if they cared about it. The warning they issued to feminists and homosexual activists was that “their causes have been effectively adopted and appropriated by those who have claimed the mantle of defending [European] tolerance in the face of intolerant Islam.”
It’s a rather petty warning to issue. Why not let anyone who is willing — Westerners and those struggling in the Muslim world to emulate the pluralism and democracy we enjoy — converge on the need to bring about a decent life for women (and men), who deserve to have their fundamental rights respected? This is, in fact, what the woman question brings out especially well: the rights of human beings that are manifest not in any penumbra of any constitution but in the full light of day. As one of the supporters of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, a woman from Denmark, put it: “Once in a while you can have your doubts about whether you are a feminist or not. But you cannot, even for a second, doubt that you are an Afghan feminist.”
-----
When considering the Islamic world, even the most fundamentalist Christian might be considered a feminist. When a feminist thought is suggesting a "Woman wants to be beaten only once a week" (Ali Sina, faithfreedom.org) the dichotomy between the West and Islam comes into sharp focus. Ali Sina condenses Islamic thought about women in the following paragraphs.
-----
In this comic/tragic drama lie two very sad realities that affect all Muslim women irrespective of their nationalities. The first is that Muslim women are raised to accept abuse as normal. Since childhood they are treated differently. In Islamic countries boys are preferred to girls. Girls are the source of disappointment to their fathers and an embarrassment to their mothers. If a woman gives birth to a boy she is lauded but if the child is a girl, she is snubbed. Little girls learn from infancy on that they are unwanted. At the table their brothers eat first and take the lion’s share. In poorer families, the female members cook and serve the males, then wait until these have had their fill. Thereafter the women scavenge the leftovers.
Boys get the first opportunity to go to school and get ahead in life. Girls are often denied this chance for there seems to be no need for them to become educated, since here are few work opportunities for women in Islamic societies. All to which a girl can aspire is to get married to a man who will take care of her. She inherits half of what her brothers inherit and has fewer rights. The rationale is that she would not need it because it is up to her husband to maintain her.
Daughters are liabilities to their families and they are “given away” in marriage as soon as possible. That could be as young as 9 years of age. All this conditioning happens with the blessing of “the best and the most perfect religion” of Islam. After all it was Muhammad who said women are “deficient in intelligence”. It was he who said men have a “degree of advantage over women”. It was he who said women who disobey their husband “should be beaten”. If Islam is the most perfect religion, then how can one dispute its teachings?
Thus Muslim women grow up knowing only one reality and that is they are inferior to men and must please them if they want to survive. The brainwashing is so complete that many Muslim women actually fight to preserve their lower status. Many of them insist on wearing veil and pride themselves in their servitude and lesser status.
-----
I will conclude this entry with an example of what I've discussed. A 16 year old Iranian girl was hung for "Activities Against Public Morality."
-----
"Peykeiran: After the public execution of a 16 year old girl by the name of Atefeh, in the city of Nekah in Mazandaran province, who was charged with ‘Activities Against Public Morality’, many other truths have been revealed about this cruel act that further enrage one.
Since Atefeh's family was very poor and she suffered from mental illness, she was very susceptible to sexual exploitation, although in the Islamic Republic this type of sexual exploitation is commonplace and routine. With prior knowledge of her vulnerable circumstances, several of the regime's militia were regularly taking advantage of her through friendly and immoral physical contacts.
-----
As I discussed in Part I, the Islamic courts place all the blame on the mentally ill minor, not the men in power.
Lauren Weiner (quoted in Part I) comes to grips with the conflict within those who are conditioned to oppose so-called conservatives or Christians, by pointing out the obvious hypocrisy in continuing to do so where the fight against Islamism is concerned. Islam and Women, again, is worth a read. If the dynamics of the basic faith (anti-Christian and anti-American beliefs) within so-called liberals do not change, they will continue to find themselves fighting for ancient and primitive bigotry against women. Weiner concludes:
-----
Yet for all that, American women would do well to negotiate the tensions now being felt between the Judeo-Christian West and the Muslim East with a moral compass aligned more closely with Fallaci and Friedan than with the multiculturalist or the grievance specialist. September 11 has clarified matters for many. Left-liberal intellectuals are — or at least some of them are — groping their way toward a defense of the West that puts them alongside, if not fervently with, the Bush administration. This is happening even as conservatives make the case that the fight against terrorism is a fight against people who would mistreat women and stone homosexuals. The women writing in the American Prospect, Polakow-Suransky and Chamedes, registered the conservatives’ arguments and were not amused. It bothered them when “male politicians . . . suddenly began invoking women’s emancipation” as if they cared about it. The warning they issued to feminists and homosexual activists was that “their causes have been effectively adopted and appropriated by those who have claimed the mantle of defending [European] tolerance in the face of intolerant Islam.”
It’s a rather petty warning to issue. Why not let anyone who is willing — Westerners and those struggling in the Muslim world to emulate the pluralism and democracy we enjoy — converge on the need to bring about a decent life for women (and men), who deserve to have their fundamental rights respected? This is, in fact, what the woman question brings out especially well: the rights of human beings that are manifest not in any penumbra of any constitution but in the full light of day. As one of the supporters of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, a woman from Denmark, put it: “Once in a while you can have your doubts about whether you are a feminist or not. But you cannot, even for a second, doubt that you are an Afghan feminist.”
-----
When considering the Islamic world, even the most fundamentalist Christian might be considered a feminist. When a feminist thought is suggesting a "Woman wants to be beaten only once a week" (Ali Sina, faithfreedom.org) the dichotomy between the West and Islam comes into sharp focus. Ali Sina condenses Islamic thought about women in the following paragraphs.
-----
In this comic/tragic drama lie two very sad realities that affect all Muslim women irrespective of their nationalities. The first is that Muslim women are raised to accept abuse as normal. Since childhood they are treated differently. In Islamic countries boys are preferred to girls. Girls are the source of disappointment to their fathers and an embarrassment to their mothers. If a woman gives birth to a boy she is lauded but if the child is a girl, she is snubbed. Little girls learn from infancy on that they are unwanted. At the table their brothers eat first and take the lion’s share. In poorer families, the female members cook and serve the males, then wait until these have had their fill. Thereafter the women scavenge the leftovers.
Boys get the first opportunity to go to school and get ahead in life. Girls are often denied this chance for there seems to be no need for them to become educated, since here are few work opportunities for women in Islamic societies. All to which a girl can aspire is to get married to a man who will take care of her. She inherits half of what her brothers inherit and has fewer rights. The rationale is that she would not need it because it is up to her husband to maintain her.
Daughters are liabilities to their families and they are “given away” in marriage as soon as possible. That could be as young as 9 years of age. All this conditioning happens with the blessing of “the best and the most perfect religion” of Islam. After all it was Muhammad who said women are “deficient in intelligence”. It was he who said men have a “degree of advantage over women”. It was he who said women who disobey their husband “should be beaten”. If Islam is the most perfect religion, then how can one dispute its teachings?
Thus Muslim women grow up knowing only one reality and that is they are inferior to men and must please them if they want to survive. The brainwashing is so complete that many Muslim women actually fight to preserve their lower status. Many of them insist on wearing veil and pride themselves in their servitude and lesser status.
-----
I will conclude this entry with an example of what I've discussed. A 16 year old Iranian girl was hung for "Activities Against Public Morality."
-----
"Peykeiran: After the public execution of a 16 year old girl by the name of Atefeh, in the city of Nekah in Mazandaran province, who was charged with ‘Activities Against Public Morality’, many other truths have been revealed about this cruel act that further enrage one.
Since Atefeh's family was very poor and she suffered from mental illness, she was very susceptible to sexual exploitation, although in the Islamic Republic this type of sexual exploitation is commonplace and routine. With prior knowledge of her vulnerable circumstances, several of the regime's militia were regularly taking advantage of her through friendly and immoral physical contacts.
-----
As I discussed in Part I, the Islamic courts place all the blame on the mentally ill minor, not the men in power.
Women, Islam, and Feminism (Part I)
"One of the reasons I don't see eye to eye with Women's Lib is that women have it all on a plate if only they knew it. They don't have to be pretty either."
-- Charlotte Rampling.
When the conflict erupted between theocratic, medieval, misogynist Islam - known as the war on terror - I quickly surmised that western women, feminists, and Islamic women had the most to lose (or gain in the case of Islamic women). If one is so inclined, there are many 'advantages' for men in Islam. Polygamy, pedophilia, near instant divorce, unequal favorable treatment under sharia, to being able to leave the house by oneself wearing the clothes you choose, these are available to men under Islam. Not so for women, and I intend to prove that shortly.
As I noted below in a previous entry, for some feminists the enemy remains President George W. Bush. In the hopeful belief this has something to do with uninformed factual opinion, not merely irrational, self-defeating, visceral hatred, I've decided to write a few posts on this subject.
There are several defenses I discovered while researching this post. One, Muslims claim that Islam allowed women rights they did not have in the West. The problem with this argument is that it focuses on history from hundreds of years ago. Second, many Muslims find the rights of women in the West to be horribly excessive. Muslims claim that women in bikinis on billboards, abortion, or birth control, prove corruption in the entire western approach to women. Some feminists, and Pat Buchanan (see blog entries below), would agree. Muslims often view depictions of women as intolerable. But this behavior is contracted freely by women who are not compelled to sell their likeness. This is one small aspect of western culture, despite Muslims choosing to judge us based on some billboards, movies, ads, or magazines. For brevity, and to avoid another morass, I'll leave abortion and birth control for someone else.
For a scholarly overview of Islam and Women (Lauren Weiner, Policy Review) generally, this article is excellent. There are differences from nation-to-nation, one historical period to another, within various branches of Islam, or from imam-to-imam, but this article is a wonderful overview.
In the first paragraph Weiner emphasizes the critical importance of this issue which summarizes my rationale for focusing on it also.
-----
Near the very heart of a question Americans have been asking themselves since September 11, 2001 "Why do they hate us?" lies the question of how different societies treat their women. Americans by now seem bored and faintly embarrassed when feminist stories make the headlines. Who wants to hear about chauvinism at a stodgy American golf course when most of the meaningful barriers to female achievement in the United States have already been scaled? Yet as routine as the self-assertion of women is here, in other parts of the world it may be the most contentious issue of all.
-----
It would be best to read the entire article, as Weiner's next point about Islamist women shows that many women vehemently defend their right to be considered inferior. In other words, there are many Islamic women who would fight against their liberation as hard as their male oppressors. The article is simply too long to summarize the whole thing. Again, please read it. But the following really struck me.
-----
When the mullahs suddenly revived concubinage in Iran, Wahhabi religious authorities in Saudi Arabia raised objections, saying that it contravened the Koran. But in general, Saudi fundamentalists, no less than Iranian, put the 1950s hall monitors in the shade when it comes to being moralists with sex on the brain. According to Soraya Altorki, a sociologist who has studied women, marriage, and the family in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, the Arabic word fitnah denotes the disorderly behavior of men who have been sexually tempted by women; the word also means femme fatale, a woman who can drive men to distraction and destruction. This linguistic conflation of cause and effect is one more reason to conclude that Islamism does not remove licentiousness from society but simply wraps it in layers of misogyny.
-----
This is fundamental (no pun intended). Islamic leaders often allow men to get away with rape, beatings, 'improper' sexual activity, or murder, literally, then place the blame on their female victims.
Efforts to reform the Islamic view of women run into roadblocks in basic docrine which can be ignored, but not overcome without changing the history of Islamc thought (perhaps with a memory hole).
Weiner continues.
-----
Several American feminists have put forward a feminist reading of the Koran, which in itself seems a very healthy development. One of the more prominent efforts in this line is Qu’ran and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective (Oxford University Press, 1999) by Amina Wadud, an African-American convert to Islam. Inasmuch as it is a linguist’s highly detailed study of the Arabic text of the Koran, I am not able to judge whether sound reasoning has been used to reach the conclusion that the words of the Prophet Muhammad offer justice to women as well as to men. Certainly Wadud is at one with the Islamic feminists I have been discussing in saying that domineering male interpreters of the text, not the text itself, are responsible for misogynistic practices under the aegis of Islam. Nor do readers of Wadud find a breezy multicultural endorsement of polygyny; she roundly condemns it.
The trouble comes when she announces that two of the three “commentators whose exegetical works were consulted” for Qu’ran and Woman were Sayyid Qutb and Syed Abdul Ala Maulana Maudoodi, the two principal Sunni theoreticians of Islamism. The political project of Qutb — inciter of the destruction of infidels and the coercion of nonfundamentalist Muslims — was to cure the Muslim world of the “hideous schizophrenia” caused by separating church and state. Yet to hear Wadud tell it, Qutb, in his writings on the Koran, “discusses the shared benefits and responsibility between men and women in the Islamic social system of justice” and is generally something of a feminist. This is not easy to reconcile with his rabid reaction against the social mixing of the sexes, mentioned above. True, one could argue that Qutb stood for a sexual politics of “separate (very separate) but equal.” But Wadud does not so argue. Neither Qutb nor Maudoodi (the foremost jihadi ideologue of the Indian subcontinent) is presented in political context. Filling in that context would have meant defending Qutb’s and Maudoodi’s fundamentalism or else trying to deny it. In any case, exercises in mainstreaming these ideologists of holy war do not serve the cause of women.
-----
(to be continued)
-- Charlotte Rampling.
When the conflict erupted between theocratic, medieval, misogynist Islam - known as the war on terror - I quickly surmised that western women, feminists, and Islamic women had the most to lose (or gain in the case of Islamic women). If one is so inclined, there are many 'advantages' for men in Islam. Polygamy, pedophilia, near instant divorce, unequal favorable treatment under sharia, to being able to leave the house by oneself wearing the clothes you choose, these are available to men under Islam. Not so for women, and I intend to prove that shortly.
As I noted below in a previous entry, for some feminists the enemy remains President George W. Bush. In the hopeful belief this has something to do with uninformed factual opinion, not merely irrational, self-defeating, visceral hatred, I've decided to write a few posts on this subject.
There are several defenses I discovered while researching this post. One, Muslims claim that Islam allowed women rights they did not have in the West. The problem with this argument is that it focuses on history from hundreds of years ago. Second, many Muslims find the rights of women in the West to be horribly excessive. Muslims claim that women in bikinis on billboards, abortion, or birth control, prove corruption in the entire western approach to women. Some feminists, and Pat Buchanan (see blog entries below), would agree. Muslims often view depictions of women as intolerable. But this behavior is contracted freely by women who are not compelled to sell their likeness. This is one small aspect of western culture, despite Muslims choosing to judge us based on some billboards, movies, ads, or magazines. For brevity, and to avoid another morass, I'll leave abortion and birth control for someone else.
For a scholarly overview of Islam and Women (Lauren Weiner, Policy Review) generally, this article is excellent. There are differences from nation-to-nation, one historical period to another, within various branches of Islam, or from imam-to-imam, but this article is a wonderful overview.
In the first paragraph Weiner emphasizes the critical importance of this issue which summarizes my rationale for focusing on it also.
-----
Near the very heart of a question Americans have been asking themselves since September 11, 2001 "Why do they hate us?" lies the question of how different societies treat their women. Americans by now seem bored and faintly embarrassed when feminist stories make the headlines. Who wants to hear about chauvinism at a stodgy American golf course when most of the meaningful barriers to female achievement in the United States have already been scaled? Yet as routine as the self-assertion of women is here, in other parts of the world it may be the most contentious issue of all.
-----
It would be best to read the entire article, as Weiner's next point about Islamist women shows that many women vehemently defend their right to be considered inferior. In other words, there are many Islamic women who would fight against their liberation as hard as their male oppressors. The article is simply too long to summarize the whole thing. Again, please read it. But the following really struck me.
-----
When the mullahs suddenly revived concubinage in Iran, Wahhabi religious authorities in Saudi Arabia raised objections, saying that it contravened the Koran. But in general, Saudi fundamentalists, no less than Iranian, put the 1950s hall monitors in the shade when it comes to being moralists with sex on the brain. According to Soraya Altorki, a sociologist who has studied women, marriage, and the family in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, the Arabic word fitnah denotes the disorderly behavior of men who have been sexually tempted by women; the word also means femme fatale, a woman who can drive men to distraction and destruction. This linguistic conflation of cause and effect is one more reason to conclude that Islamism does not remove licentiousness from society but simply wraps it in layers of misogyny.
-----
This is fundamental (no pun intended). Islamic leaders often allow men to get away with rape, beatings, 'improper' sexual activity, or murder, literally, then place the blame on their female victims.
Efforts to reform the Islamic view of women run into roadblocks in basic docrine which can be ignored, but not overcome without changing the history of Islamc thought (perhaps with a memory hole).
Weiner continues.
-----
Several American feminists have put forward a feminist reading of the Koran, which in itself seems a very healthy development. One of the more prominent efforts in this line is Qu’ran and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective (Oxford University Press, 1999) by Amina Wadud, an African-American convert to Islam. Inasmuch as it is a linguist’s highly detailed study of the Arabic text of the Koran, I am not able to judge whether sound reasoning has been used to reach the conclusion that the words of the Prophet Muhammad offer justice to women as well as to men. Certainly Wadud is at one with the Islamic feminists I have been discussing in saying that domineering male interpreters of the text, not the text itself, are responsible for misogynistic practices under the aegis of Islam. Nor do readers of Wadud find a breezy multicultural endorsement of polygyny; she roundly condemns it.
The trouble comes when she announces that two of the three “commentators whose exegetical works were consulted” for Qu’ran and Woman were Sayyid Qutb and Syed Abdul Ala Maulana Maudoodi, the two principal Sunni theoreticians of Islamism. The political project of Qutb — inciter of the destruction of infidels and the coercion of nonfundamentalist Muslims — was to cure the Muslim world of the “hideous schizophrenia” caused by separating church and state. Yet to hear Wadud tell it, Qutb, in his writings on the Koran, “discusses the shared benefits and responsibility between men and women in the Islamic social system of justice” and is generally something of a feminist. This is not easy to reconcile with his rabid reaction against the social mixing of the sexes, mentioned above. True, one could argue that Qutb stood for a sexual politics of “separate (very separate) but equal.” But Wadud does not so argue. Neither Qutb nor Maudoodi (the foremost jihadi ideologue of the Indian subcontinent) is presented in political context. Filling in that context would have meant defending Qutb’s and Maudoodi’s fundamentalism or else trying to deny it. In any case, exercises in mainstreaming these ideologists of holy war do not serve the cause of women.
-----
(to be continued)
In China, government spanks YOU, monkey!
How does this fit in with Chinese policies forcing birth control and abortion?
Wel, but don't come in, China.
Wel, but don't come in, China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)