|
« Genital politics
Main |
November 21, 2003
Why won't Britain listen?
As was entirely predictable, the reaction from parts of our unintelligentsia to the carnage in Istanbul was the claim that Britain was only attacked because of its support for America. As was even more predictable, the most ludicrous version of this was promulgated this morning by John Humphrys on the ineffable Today programme. What was less predictable was that the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, actually called a spade and spade and got the better of him. Humphrys claimed al Qaeda attacked Britain because it had invaded Iraq, thus drawing more Islamist terrorists into the fight and targeting Britain. But as Straw said, Islamist terror had not only committed the atrocities of 9/11 but had been attacking American and other interests for the previous decade. It is perfectly plain, from what al Qaeda consistently says, that it is waging a religious war against the west, which has committed the crime of modernity and thus has to be destroyed. Christians, Jews, Hindus, secularists and reformist Muslims are directly in its sights. In other words, as Straw said, the whole of the civilised world is under threat and has to fight this fascist terror. The idea that taking out Saddam created a threat to Britain where none previously existed is risible. And even if it did further enrage the jihadists, as Humphrys suggests, it is as spineless to say we should therefore have left Saddam alone as it was in the 1930s for Chamberlain to have looked the other way from Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia for fear of enraging Hitler. And as for Humphrys's complaint that despite the war on terror the world today is a lot less safe, well honestly! What would this man have said after Dunkirk? Straw, to his credit, also grasped that what Humphrys was saying was not only idiotic but morally repugnant. For as Straw pointed out, Humphrys was effectively saying the Istanbul atrocity was America and Britain's fault -- thus shifting the blame from the perpetrator to the victim. That is indeed precisely the moral inversion that lies behind the appeasement tendency's whole position. It is disgusting and decadent. And what, for the umpteenth time, is the BBC doing continuing to permit such outrageous bias to drive its premier radio current affairs show? When is it going to start putting its journalistic house in order? Posted by melanie at November 21, 2003
Comments
As Jack Straw, Britain's Foreign Secretary, said on 21 November 2003: "We must never, ever shift responsibility away from the terrorists." Remember Unit 101 and the night of 14-15 October 1953? "Unit 101 was commanded by an aggressive young major Ariel Sharon. Sharon's orders were to penetrate Qibya, blow up houses and inflict heavy casualties on its inhabitants. His success in carrying out his orders surpassed all expectations. The full and macabre story of what happened in Qibya was revealed only during the morning after the attack. The village had been reduced to a pile of rubble: fort-five houses had been blown up, and sixty-nine civilians, two-thirds of them women and children, had been killed. Sharon and his men claimed that they believed the inhabitants had run away and that they had no idea anyone was hiding inside the houses. The UN observer who inspected the scene reached a different conclusion. 'One story was repeated time after time: the bullet splintered door, the body sprawled across the threshold, indicating that the inhabitants had been forced by heavy fire to stay inside until their houses were blown up over them.'" [Source: Avi Shlaim: The Iron Wall (Penguin Books, 2000), p. 91] Posted by: Bob at November 21, 2003 01:27 PMNo Bob - the TERRORISTS! The people responsible, not those who take action against them. ===== "The Palestinian critics of the attack do not mention that Israel had suffered more than 450 civilians murdered in attacks by "fedayeen" terrorists sponsored by neighboring Jordan and Egypt in the prior three years. IDF tactics had been ineffectual in countering the onslaught that terrorized every part of Israel. Sharon's 101 Unit was ordered to hit the fedayeen, the army bases that supported them, and the villages that housed them. A particularly vicious murder of a Jewish mother and her two infants in Yehud, east of Tel Aviv, the previous night by attackers believed to be from Qibya prompted retaliation against that specific village. In the attack, as the force approached the village, hundreds of Qibya residents were seen fleeing. Sharon's unit believed that all residents had fled. But some of the Arabs thought the action against the village would entail only the harmless destruction of a few outbuildings, as had been the prior Israeli practice, and so hid in their houses. According to the official IDF Encyclopedia, the soldiers found a young girl in one house and an elderly man in another. Any such inhabitants discovered were chased away. IDF engineers blew up dozens of Qibya houses. When the mission was complete, Sharon and his men reported that they had destroyed 42 buildings and killed 10 to 12 people, all soldiers or guards. Had it been the Israeli intention to kill civilians, the defenseless villagers fleeing Qibya would have been prime targets – instead the IDF allowed them to leave unharmed. Afterward it was discovered that 69 civilians were hiding inside the homes. In "Warrior," Sharon's autobiography, he wrote that he found out about the civilian casualties only the next day, listening to Jordanian radio. Their deaths were not deliberate; they were unfortunate casualties of the defensive action of the IDF responding to terrorist attacks. It is standard propaganda tactics to call this accident of war a "massacre" or an "atrocity" while ignoring the deliberate targeting of the Israeli civilian population by the fedayeen. Apparently Palestinian Arabs have no problem with killing Israelis (in 1953 or now), but if Israel takes steps to defend itself any Arab casualties are an atrocity." ===== [Source, "Palestine Facts" Posted by: Tom Paine at November 21, 2003 01:39 PMAre you the Tom Paine that wrote "The Rights of Man " ? -- you must be quite old now ! Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 21, 2003 02:31 PMBob is of the type that always blames Jews, whatever the circumstances. Given Britain effectively made itself a partner of genocide with the Nazis by its 1939 White Paper and its total failure to lift a finger to assist the victims of the Holocaust (never mind the countless Jewish deaths that were a direct result of assaults by British-trained murderers in Palestine), his attacks are particularly hypocritical and repellant. Like every anti-Jewish propagandist he sees what he wants to see: ignoring the fact that Israel doesn't use a fraction of the force Britain has used in any single war she has been involved in during the last century; not mentioning the literally thousands of Jews who have been murdered in Israel by Arab terrorists before and after the State of Israel's founding; totally blind to the vicious racism of an Islam which condemns Christians and Jews to permanent second-class status and which ethnically cleansed virtually all Jews from Arab lands. No, like some latter-day miniature Goebbels, he trawls the internet seeking any piece of out-of-context and partial piece of information that will make Jews look bad. He is the living proof that the European gentile will never ever change. He is one yet more piece of evidence to add to that mountainous pile which strongly suggests that the Jew will never ever be safe in Europe. Posted by: Pooh at November 21, 2003 03:21 PMOf course BBC bias as it manifests itself though inbuilt prejudices of its reporters needs to be weeded out but of all the examples I don't understand how you could feel a prime example to be an interview where both sides of an argument are put - one by Humphry's fulfilling his role as interragator and one by Straw. As it is we felt Straw came out on top - and if he could not he should not be in his job. What would you rather?: Humphrys "so Foreign Secretary what would you like to say to the nation". Have you ever wondered why the Today programme get's so much stick? - because people always notice when people they support are getting a hard time. BBC bias is at its most insidious, not in these one on one encounters, but in 'impartial' reports when challengeable assumptions are given as facts or in multi-people discussions where certain viewpoints are not given time to be heard, or are not allowed on in the first place. Posted by: alex at November 21, 2003 06:15 PMAlex, your second point is valid your first however is way off. You are far too lenient. It is not the job of an interviewer simply to challenge the interviewee in all circumstances. It is a fallacy that the media must always seek balance. There is no balance to be found between acts of good and acts of evil-these are not relative terms - think child rape. Sometimes the moral case is so firmly on one side that no debate of where right and wrong lies is possible. Indeed the questioning of it, as in the humphries interview, betrays either a lazy formulaic approach on the part of the interviewer or else something more sinister. Posted by: Paul at November 21, 2003 08:05 PM"Bob is of the type that always blames Jews, whatever the circumstances. Given Britain effectively made itself a partner of genocide with the Nazis by its 1939 White Paper and its total failure to lift a finger to assist the victims of the Holocaust . . ." I had boyhood friends who came from German refugee families and later met others who had also sought refuge in Britain before WW2. It is just simply a lie to claim nothing was done. And remember, on 3 September 1939 Britain declared war against Germany, a country with twice Britain's population, to honour an unsolicited pledge to defend Poland's territorial integrity made on 31 March 1939. America did not enter the war in Europe until Germany declared war on America shortly after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Mind you, the Americans were good about lending us money to buy food and ships while we stood alone in Europe against Nazi Germany until Hitler made the blunder on 22 June 1941 of invading the Soviet Union, with which Germany had signed a Friendship Treaty on 28 September 1939. "No, like some latter-day miniature Goebbels, he trawls the internet seeking any piece of out-of-context and partial piece of information that will make Jews look bad." But my source wasn't the Internet. As reported above, the source was Avi Shlaim's widely acclaimed book: The Iron Wall (Penguin 2000). The author is an Israeli and professor of international relations at St Anthony's College, Oxford. That same source continues: "The Qibya massacre unleashed against Israel a storm of international protest of unprecedented severity in the country's short history. The cabinet convened on 18 October under the chairmanship of BenGurion, who had just completed his three month's leave. Sharett, horrified by the scale and brutality of the action, proposed an official statement expressing regret over the action and its consequences. Ben Gurion was against admitting that the IDF carried out the action . . ." My interest was the parallel between what happened at Qibya and what the Nazis infamously did at Lidice in Czecho-Slovakia on 10 June 1942: http://www.lidice-memorial.cz/index_uk.htm I expect they also had a tale or two to tell to explain it all. Coming more up todate, we have this: "The last Israeli tanks ground their way out of Beit Hanoun yesterday, exposing the worst destruction since the military assaults on Jenin and other West Bank cities more than a year ago. "Palestinians who flooded back into areas of the small Gaza town occupied by the Israeli army for six weeks found that armoured military bulldozers had levelled dozens of homes and factories, torn up roads and uprooted trees, up to the edge of the only public border crossing from Israel into the Gaza strip. "'I don't know why they destroyed it,' said Mohammed Bishara who returned to discover his house flattened. 'The Israelis say they had to do this because Hamas was firing rockets from here but they weren't. Everybody knows they were using the fields. Anyway, they destroyed my house and it didn't stop the rockets so I think it means they wanted to punish me for what Hamas does.'" - from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,988618,00.html Posted by: Bob at November 21, 2003 10:31 PMTell us Bob, what should the Israelis do? Just sit there and let the Palestinian terrorists cross into Israel and blow up men, women and children with impunity? Is that what the rest of the world should do—just sit there and not retaliate against Islamic terrorism when it strikes against innocents? Just for the record: There were 52 people killed at Jenin. It was not a massacre! While the world may fault the Israelis for many things from illegal settlements to heavy-handedness against terrorists, one thing remains true: The Arabs began the terror against Jews, way back in 1919, prior to Israel's existence, with the first suicide squads called by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Thereafter, these people supported the Nazis! Here is a lovely photo of Palestinian children being taught jihad and goose-stepping for Allah: Goose-stepping Palestinian Child http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/031121/481/bei10511211743&e=16&ncid=708 What sort of a psychotic society teaches its children to become suicidal terrorists? The Palestinians could have declared a state in the same manner and at the same time as did the Israelis. They, along with their Arab brethren, chose terror. They also could have had a state in 2000, had they negotiated the Camp David accords, instead they again–still— chose terror. While I may not agree with what Israel is doing with respect to the settlements, she has EVERY RIGHT to defend herself in any manner deemed necessary and possible against Islamic terror! Terror that Islamists began. ". . .Anyway, they destroyed my house and it didn't stop the rockets so I think it means they wanted to punish me for what Hamas does.'" Yes, indeed, because it has been shown over and over again that the GREAT majority of Palestinians support the intefada and Islamic terror. They teach their children that it is good to wish for death via suicidal jihad. They dress their babies up as jihadis. The more Islamic terror attacks there are against innocents the world over, the more Muslims will be blamed for it—en masse. After all, it is Muslims who are breeding, supporting and funding Islamic terror—world wide via zakat (tithing) and private donations. Let the terror continue and Muslims may see plenty of "collective" punishments against them. Why? Because with the silence of so-called moderate Muslims, who do NOT speak out or demonstrate against terror, it is clear that they support Islamic terror. Clearly radical Islam is aiming for a World War between Muslims and the rest of us. The civilized world may have no choice but to isolate Muslims and leave them to their own devices if they don't see fit to have a bona fide Reformation and repudiate the sections of the Qu'ran that call for terror against the "infidel" and the Jews. Lili Posted by: Lilith Paloma at November 22, 2003 03:06 AMPaul, I believe you are wrong and I will explain why. Your comparison with 'child rape' is a fallacious one - in this country there are millions of people who believe the war was misguided. They are not evil (just as incidentally most of those who argued for appeasement in the 1930s were not 'evil'). They are not as yet even proven to be wrong - indeed their complaint that the war would lead to a (short term) upsurge in terrorism is probably justified. Of course many seem to fail to understand that most who support the war would agree - what we are concerned about is the long term. The problem is that there is a danger that we who support the war by and large have no say in its aftermath. We have a right to be critical of the way the occupation is being handled, because if we fail in Iraq then we will have to accept that we were wrong. It is not enough to use the argument that we have 'good intentions' or 'it is better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all' - that is the argument our leaders would have been forced to use when the Versilles peace and League of Nations ultimately failed, and the fate of Germany's fledgling democracy should be a warning to us all that it is not enough to provide democracy in Iraq - it must be a firm based democracy that is sustainable. One can understand why those who don't believe we will succeed may have doubts. We in Britain are used to a Government tactic of setting deliberate high targets and failing to meet them, but congratulating themselves on 'trying'. We can look in the history books and see that North Korea was never defeated and the Americans were ultimately forced out of Vietnam. As I said those who dissent are not 'evil' and their views must be expressed. Indeed the Governments of our countries must be constantly pressed on these points they must be forced to defend their course every day until they succeed - because it reminds them of their purpose and would make it that much harder for them to attempt to row back on their promises. So this is not a good example of BBC bias - as long as our leaders can perform as Jack Straw did and continue to hold firm and win the argument then we should be optimistic - it is when Humphrys starts having to argue our side of the argument that we should be worried. Posted by: alex at November 22, 2003 07:00 AMLilith, "what should the Israelis do?" For starters: 1. Read Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall; Penguin (2000), and then stop rewriting history and lying, especially to yourselves, about Israeli state terrorism and the settlements on Palestinian land stopping terrorism. They plainly haven't and won't. The Qibya atrocity happened more than 50 years ago and there have been many worse since. Remember what happened in the Sabra and Shatila camps in South Lebanon in 1982? Remember the Khiam Prison in South Lebanon? Who lead Israel into that? Remember this report of November 2000: "Physicians for Human Rights USA (PHR) finds that the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has used live ammunition and rubber bullets excessively and inappropriately to control demonstrators, and that based on the high number of documented injuries to the head and thighs, Israeli soldiers appear to be shooting to inflict harm, rather than solely in self-defense. . ." - from: http://www.phrusa.org/research/forensics/israel/Israel_force.html 2. Listen to the former heads of Shin Bet, the Israeli security service, who are warning of catastrophe ahead: "Israel is heading for a 'catastrophe' unless government policy switches course to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians, four former heads of the Shin Bet security service said on Friday. "The unprecedented attack, in the Yedioth Ahronoth daily newspaper, follows recent criticism by Moshe Yaalon, the Israeli army chief, who said the crackdown in the occupied territories was against Israel's 'strategic interest' in fostering militancy. However, the current Shin Bet leadership favours maintaining tough restrictions to prevent attacks. . ." - from Financial Times of 14 November. 3. Listen to IDF reservists who are refusing to serve on Palestinian lands. "With the Israel Defense Forces in the fourth year of battle with the Palestinians, the most dominant institution in Israeli society is also embroiled in a struggle over its own character, according to dozens of interviews with soldiers, officers, reservists and some of the nation's preeminent military analysts. . . Nearly 600 members of the armed forces have signed statements refusing to serve in the Palestinian territories. Active-duty and reserve personnel are criticizing the military in public. Parents of soldiers are speaking out as well, complaining that the protection of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is not worth the loss of their sons and daughters." 4. Arrest Sharon on the charge of complicity in war crimes and pack him off for trial at the International War Crimes Court in The Hague. 5. Stop electing terrorists to serve as prime ministers of Israel. Footnotes: a). While the US and the Soviet Union voted for partition at the UN debate on the Palestine mandate in November 1947, Britain abstained warning that partition would lead to continuing conflict, an assessment that has proved correct. b). The claim, made above by Pooh, that Britain is somehow reponsible for the holocaust is just risible as the well-documented historic facts show. Britain declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939 to honour an unsolicited pledge made on 31 March 1939 to defend Poland's territorial integrity. Apart from lending Britain the money to fight the war, America stayed aloof until Germany declared war on America on 10 December 1941. The judgement of Shirer in his classic: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, is that America would have stayed uncommitted to the war in Europe but for the declaration of war by Germany and he was based in Washington at the time. Stalin had no ideological scruples about the Soviet Union signing a Friendship Treaty with Nazi Germany on 28 September 1939. c). Bush and Blair are just pursuing re-election agendas: the Iraq war hasn't stopped terrorism. Some of us said it wouldn't and would be more likely to stoke it. Never mind the recent huge demonstration in London against Bush during his state visit. By many polling reports public opinion in both America and Britain is almost evenly divided over the Iraq war. Blair and the Bushies are lying when they claim opposition to the Iraq war reflects anti-Americanism. It doesn't in Britain: Brits like Americans. When Clinton has come here on informal visits he has been warmly welcomed. d). Disraeli, a grandson of immigrants to Britain, was prime minister in 1868 and 1874-80. I don't see any automaticity between dealing with Iraq and blowing up HSBC; none whatever. Why HSBC ? Why not Barclays ? Terrorism likes to imply a logic, but it has none, because they are not clever, rational, or sophisticated; they are weak and irresolute, so they strike out for impact and pictures. In the past terrorist outrages got column inches, now it is prime-time minutes. Why should I bother to find rationality in Bin Laden ? He is not a clever man, just a deranged one: he franchises terror. We had Carlos, we still have Mugniyeh, and we still have Arafat, though Abu Nidal is gone. If they continue to bomb as they do, soon they should give Muslims throughout the world enough reason to hang them. Every bombing shows we are winning. The Iraq war has moved the bombs from Manhattan to the Middle East....that is success ! The front line is best kept out of your own front yard. There is no compromise with terror; it can only be death, but lethargic societies have become lazy thinking money buys peace, or some trinket or compromise. In a world of relatives they ca no longer respect absolutes. France 1936 had a similar attitude and within 4 years they got peaceful coexistence....an easy going relationship when they comprised at Compiegne. Frankly, Al-Qaeda is so weak, that it needs spectaculars; it needs our Media to propagandise for it. It is time to think of eradicating bin Laden and his brood; and pursuing this particular hare to death and destruction. Soon we shall have the Arab Street baying for his blood......for too long Muslim countries have suffered from bombings and murder; when our Media had no interest....dead Caucasians are much more televisual than dead Muslims in the MIddle East or Indonesia. Just how many Indonesians need to die in a bombing before it makes the News in the sybaritic West, and how few Western sybarites ? Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 22, 2003 04:22 PM". . .Soon we shall have the Arab Street baying for his blood......for too long Muslim countries have suffered from bombings and murder; when our Media had no interest....dead Caucasians are much more televisual than dead Muslims in the MIddle East or Indonesia. Just how many Indonesians need to die in a bombing before it makes the News in the sybaritic West, and how few Western sybarites ?. . ." While I hope it will happen, I doubt that it will, Peter. This fight will go on long after our generation passes away and into the next millennium if not beyond. The issue is Islam. Until there is a call for a bona fide Reformation in Islam repudiating the literal "Satanic" verses, those that call for violence against the unbelievers— there can be no peace. The problem is that these violent verses were "revealed" later than the original "Islam is Peace" verses and they supersede the peaceful ones. These violent verses, by the hundreds, are the ones being quoted by Islamic terrorists, clerics and even ordinary Muslims. Given that the Qu'ran is considered immutable and unchangeable, this is going to be quite a challenge. ". . .Just how many Indonesians need to die in a bombing before it makes the News in the sybaritic West, and how few Western sybarites ?"
Lili
Amazing how everybody forgets the the events in Egypt when terrorists killed tourists and locals. Avi Shlaim? The "revisionist" Israeli Historian has had various accusations of distorting facts. Here is an interesting bit of PC appeasement to Islamic terrorist and anti-Semites: "The European Union's racism watchdog has shelved a report on anti-semitism because the study concluded Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups were behind many of the incidents it examined. . . "
How many innocents' deaths will it take for the world to realize that Islam as it is practiced today is not peace? How long will the world appease radical Islam? How long until so-called "moderate" Muslims march against terror instead of demonstrating and celebrating for it? How long until Islamic clerics, heads of Islamic governments and ordinary Muslims demand a Reformation in Islam to bring it out of the 7th century into the 21st? How many innocents must die before that ever happens? My bet is millions! Lili Posted by: Lilith at November 22, 2003 07:02 PMAs the American writer, Tom Wolfe noted over thirty years ago: "People do not become terrorists to further a cause, they take up a cause so that they can become terrorists." Posted by: TWG at November 22, 2003 07:29 PM"Terrorism likes to imply a logic, but it has none, because they are not clever, rational, or sophisticated; they are weak and irresolute, so they strike out for impact and pictures." Would that were true. The terrorist events of 9-11 indicate a significant scale of prior planning and organisation. Most of us, fortunately, lack the fanaticism and barbarity to become terrorists so we find the mindset of those who do impenetrable, whether the terrorism is state sanctioned, as at Qibya in 1953 and with the Pan-Am airliner over Lockie in 1988, or at the instance of some fanatical cult as with Aum Shinri Kyo on the Tokyo subway in 1995. But then most of us also have problems understanding the motivation of psychopaths or the likes of a Hitler or Stalin. However, that does not mean such people lack an internal logic applied to their own premises. The point has often been made in the professional literature that psychopaths can be highly intelligent as well as manipulative. What seems extraordinary to me about an organisation like al-Qaeda is that so much enterprise, finance and skill is invested in achieving murderous and destructive objectives when it could be applied to alleviating the persisting poverty in so many Islamic countries. Posted by: Bob at November 22, 2003 09:45 PMBob, you and our so-called terrorism "experts" are giving the likes of al Qaeda far too much credit. While 9/11 was a horrific attack, it was, even by ObL's own admission on video— a "lucky shot." They certainly did not expect those towers to pancake and collapse. The megalomaniacal drive of these piss terrorists causes them to "take credit" for such things as the great American blackout a few months back. ROTFLMAO!!! On the other hand, they see everything including 9/11 as a "Zionist plot." The stupidest thing we are doing is not believing the Islamofascists when they say that they want to "kill us," ALL of us "infidels" whether Muslim or otherwise. However, 9/11 and the other Islamic terror attacks all over the world since have made it perfectly clear what the Islamofascist agenda is—anarchy. They can't deal with modernity, freedom, secularism, pluralism, democracy and don't want anyone else to have these either. Far from being an "international corporation" al Qaeda et al. is more like a franchise without much central control. Although the "product" is the same all over—death and worse for innocents. Every disaffected, indolent Muslim with more fanaticism than brains fancies himself to go down in history for some "spectacular" attack against innocents. Thereafter, he gets in Paradise what Islam will not permit in this life: Wine, women (72 dark-eyed virginal ones) and song. ". . .What seems extraordinary to me about an organisation like al-Qaeda is that so much enterprise, finance and skill is invested in achieving murderous and destructive objectives when it could be applied to alleviating the persisting poverty in so many Islamic countries." I have said for years now, if the Islamists spent the billions they spend on terror for development of their failed Islamic societies, then they would have something besides the world's disdain. I have no doubt that ObL is intelligent as well as totally nuts. However, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to make an ammonium nitrate bomb. Neither would it take a technological genius to make a "dirty" bomb. Plenty of chemicals about these days for other mischief. One doesn't even need them to spread various diseases such as Hepatitis. No need to have been a boy scout to think of scores of ways to drive home terror via the salad bar and destroy the world economy for good measure. ObL did not write the ultimate terror manual. Credit for that must be given to that clever Mohammed who dictated the so-called "revealed" Qu'ran, wherein are laid out ways to terrorize the "unbeliever" and the Jew via the latter "revealed" texts. What a marvelous way to solidify the Islamic empire: Convert, submit (with dhimmi status and poll tax) or die! Those who want to leave Islam are apostates and must be killed. So simple, this group coercion — and it works— works just like any modern cult. The ummah watches everything every Muslim does to make sure s/he does not "stray" from the path of Islam. Oh, how diabolically clever! BIG BROTHER centuries before 1984. Islam is unique in one regard. It has documented, sanctioned and codified in Islamic culture, theocracy as well as jurisprudence terror against the "other" in its "holy" book. Until Muslims repudiate these Satanic texts in the Qu'ran there can be no peace.
Lili, "They can't deal with modernity, freedom, secularism, pluralism, democracy and don't want anyone else to have these either." I agree with that part but some of us think that they are not alone in sharing those aversions. Also, unfortunately, Islam is not the only religion with theocratic pretensions. Strictly, Christianity does not have a theocratic theology - Christ said: Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. But that didn't prevent the Christian church from exercising theocratic ambitions through to the Reformation and beyond, as reference to the histories of France and Italy shows. In Italy, it took Mussolini to curb the influence of the Vatican. In England, Henry VIII wisely nationalised the church in the early 16th century in order to control it but religious divisions continued to exert a powerful influence on British history through to the 19th century and still do so in parts such as Northern Ireland, albeit in a diminishing way. Even now, the heir to the British monarchy cannot by law marry a catholic. That is an absurd aberration now but it necessary to know much English history to understand how that restriction came to be enacted in the Act of Settlement of 1701 and is still with us over 300 years later. Europe is presently engaged in debating whether to adopt a Constitution for the European Union. Some want in it an explicit commitment to Christian, or at least religious values. Others, like myself, think it better to keep Constitutions entirely secular. Religion is a personal matter and there is no knowing how the European Court, if it became intent upon judicial activism, might choose to interpret clauses in the Constitution committed to pervasive religious values in political affairs. Theocratic ideologies, like ethnic ideologies, inevitably exert a baleful influence on governance and progress. I've posted before about lunchtime conversations of some 30 years back with a professional colleague who happened to be Hindu - in fact, neither of us were or are devoutly religious. He then forecast that Islamic countries would have difficulties in making transitions to democracies and contrasted the experience of the secular state of India, which has maintained political pluralism through from its independence in 1948. By comparison with many countries, that has been a highly unusual achievement. The explanation, he suggested, was that Hinduism is a polytheistic religion so the notion of rivalrous deities is built into India's culture. At least when India's Congress Party has been in government, it has been quite usual to have moslem ministers in cabinets. The terrible events of 9-11 seemed to me at the time to be well orchestrated. It also seemed to me likely that the timing had been motivated to attempt to tip the global economy into a fully fledged recession. It can be a big mistake to under-estimate one's enemy. Napoleon had a contemptous regard for Wellington - a mere sepoy general, Napoleon said. OTOH Wellington had a high regard for Napoleon's capabilities as a battlefield commander. I suppose the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 proved them both wrong. Several years back in an American general political forum I bemoaned how misinformed many posts were on economic policy issues. Another correspondent, who came with an economics background like myself, made what still seems to me to be an astute observation. When it comes to discussions on social, political and economic issues, many folks are unable to distinguish between objective analysis and making aspirational or prescriptive statements. The trouble is that aspirations and prescriptions tend to block out sound analysis. Posted by: Bob at November 23, 2003 01:37 AM
Don't be so arrogant, Bob, dear. Believe it or not those of us living on the other side of the pond have also gone to university, travel, speak other languages and are even schooled in history. All Americans are not chips munching porkers who only have Saturday night on their minds! So, is the gist of your massive post above to say that we should not underestimate the enemy? ". . . It can be a big mistake to under-estimate one's enemy.. . ." Yes, indeed, Bob. That is clearly what I have been saying (in less verbose terms) all along. It is foolish of the PC illiterati of Europe to underestimate the Islamic threat! However, they won't do that for long. Because radical Islam will make it very, very clear just what they are after—world domination, one way or the other. There is nothing like a religious threat from the East to help "Christians" get religion. God help us, if we thought that we had left religious wars behind in the middle ages. Looks like oh, so "secular" Europe may have to rethink its position with respect to the Knights Templar. ;-) Indeed, even the Catholic Church has made its point regarding the aggression of Islam through the ages into the present: The Church and Islam. “La Civiltà Cattolica” Breaks the Ceasefire "Through the prestigious magazine, the Vatican denounces with unusual harshness the oppression of Christians in Muslim countries. . . " http://213.92.16.98/ESW_articolo/0,2393,41931,00.html
Lili, "Don't be so arrogant, Bob, dear. Believe it or not those of us living on the other side of the pond have also gone to university, travel, speak other languages and are even schooled in history." Believe me, there is a vast difference in discussions of economic policy issues between America-based general political forums - or British, for that matter - and real economists' blogs like, say, Brad DeLong's out from Berkeley: http://econ161.berkeley.edu/movable_type/ The social sciences are often favoured topics for bar room talk and it has to be said that many folks without a graduate background in the social sciences tend to have problems distinguishing between "hard", objective analysis and aspirational or prescriptive statements. It rather seems as though the Bush administration does too. The US is headed for mounting fiscal deficits for the foreseeable because of the Bush tax cuts, which mainly benefit the very rich. That deficit is likely to suck in savings from the rest of the world until investors start wondering whether America can continue to service the mounting debt, especially if the Dollar continues to weaken. There will also be some difficult times in the medium term as the baby boomers reach retirement and exert pressures on the social security and medicare programmes. Btw this is Keynes' General Theory, one of the seminal economics texts of the 20th century in case readers here would like to try a dip to see how they get on: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/index.htm Good luck! "It is foolish of the PC illiterati of Europe to underestimate the Islamic threat!" From online reading experience in several places, quite a few Americans seem to be under the lamentable misapprehension that Europeans are unaware of the threat of terrorism. Europe is a big and diverse place with hundreds of millions of folk and lots of mainly autonomous countries but as these following news reports gathered quickly for an earlier response show, the French and Germans have certainly been aware of the threat from al-Qaeda and other, perhaps entirely unrelated terrorist organisations connected with the Middle East or North Africa: "Twenty-four alleged members of an Algerian extremist network have gone on trial in Paris for a wave of bombings that left 12 dead. Ten people were killed and more than 100 injured in the worst attack on an underground train at the St Michel metro station in Paris in July 1995. . . The men are suspected of being supporters of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria. . . One of those believed to have played a major role in the bombings, Khaled Kelkal, was shot and killed by police later in 1995." - from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/357808.stm "A French court has convicted three men of heading support networks for Islamic insurgents in Algeria at the end of France's largest ever trial. Mohamed Chalabi, Mourad Tacine and Mohamed Kerrouche, were among 138 men accused of backing Islamic radicals seeking to overthrow the Algerian Government." - from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/260393.stm "Europe's first al-Qaeda trial opened in Frankfurt on Tuesday. At stake is the fate of five Algerian men accused of planning a bomb attack in Strasbourg and Germany's reputation as a serious terrorist-fighting country." - from: http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1432_A_499109,00.html "A Jordanian man has gone on trial in Duesseldorf accused of plotting attacks in Germany on behalf of a Palestinian group. Shadi Abdallah is accused of being a member of al-Tawhid, a group with alleged links to al-Qaeda." - from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3016166.stm "Germany has issued official arrest warrants for a group of suspected Islamic extremists detained in the past two days, which the authorities say had been planning to carry out attacks in the country." - from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1949762.stm As for Britain, we have endured periodic bouts of terrorism relating to Northern Ireland politics for the last 30 something years. Current news reports in the Sunday press say Britain's internal security services are searching here now for two al-Qaeda sleeper cells: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-905015,00.html It seems a little perplexing to me to read claims above that the al-Qaeda network poses a serious threat to our lives, property and values - which it plainly does - alongslide claims that the people in it are just a load of dumbos anyway, which I don't accept. There is more benefit IMO in discussing al-Qaeda's modus operandi and aims than in posting put-downs. Posted by: Bob at November 23, 2003 10:41 AMHi Lilith: well I am one who believes that if the US had run proper security screens at its airports - it always was sloppy - several people, planes and buildings would be around today. Not hi-tech but low-tech solutions; people solutions, security and a culture of checking and paying people to do a proper job. As for the EU Survey ......I guessed as soon as I saw today's headline that our politicos are frightened to tell us just how much we must tolerate in the name of "multi-culti" instead of common values which held our societies together, whereas we now get balkanised. The political class is getting confronted with the bankruptcy of their chilhood childish dreams and has to hide the intolerance of those they have tolerated. Karl Popper said something about not toleraing the intolerant; but the excuses are so many and the secrets are from their own people.....no wonder cynicism is such a widespread creed Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 23, 2003 02:18 PM"Europe is presently engaged in debating whether to adopt a Constitution for the European Union. Some want in it an explicit commitment to Christian, or at least religious values. Others, like myself, think it better to keep Constitutions entirely secular. Religion is a personal matter and there is no knowing how the European Court, if it became intent upon judicial activism, might choose to interpret clauses in the Constitution committed to pervasive religious values in political affairs."
It is anti-Christian because it is a French document. The structure of the European Commission is French; the whole operation of the EU is a surrogacy for France, whose sole aim is to keep Germany down and Britain out. The French secularism is perverted, and now it is crumbling as Islam refuses to accept it. Europe has a Christian heritage; it has shaped the society, Reformation and Counter-Reformation. As a European entity espousing Guardian values it will degenerate into utilitarian pragmatism as it did when Lenin and Stalin gave Russia a post-Christian taste of hell. The pragmatism of putting 20% population through labour camps and gulags required a post-Christian belief system; and the Russians paid a real price for the secular Marxist-Leninist state. Giscard d'Estaing represents all that is the very worst in Europe; the son of a minor civil servant administering Occupied Germany after WW1 he thinks he is an aristocrat like Talleyrand shaping the minions of Europe into a new post-democratic State. The European Union has evolved into a bureaucratic and ramshackle empire for French vanity, and has neither purpose, nor soul, nor any roots; it is in Marxian terms a superstructure impose upon the people. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 23, 2003 06:26 PM". . .Btw this is Keynes' General Theory, one of the seminal economics texts of the 20th century in case readers here would like to try a dip to see how they get on: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/index.htm Good luck! . . . " You know Bob, I find you irritatingly patronizing and condescending. What makes you think that educated Americans or other peoples don't know who John Maynard Keynes was? After all, the very BEST universities in the world are still in the US! People from all over the world flock to them to learn how to think independently–rather than learn by rote as in European universities. I would guess you must be a graduate student with newly "found" knowledge. Those of us who have lived a little understand how economic theories don't necessarily translate into full employment or economic prosperity. ". . .From online reading experience in several places, quite a few Americans seem to be under the lamentable misapprehension that Europeans are unaware of the threat of terrorism. Europe is clearly pacifist, Bob and has said so. They let the US do the heavy lifting while they enjoy the socialist "good life" and sit in their cafes while criticizing the US ad nauseam. It is time for Europe to pay for its own defense. The American tax paper is rather tired of not being able to "afford" health insurance because the world, particularly the Euros, must be defended. ". ..It seems a little perplexing to me to read claims above that the al-Qaeda network poses a serious threat to our lives, property and values - which it plainly does - alongslide claims that the people in it are just a load of dumbos anyway, which I don't accept. There is more benefit IMO in discussing al-Qaeda's modus operandi and aims than in posting put-downs. . ." When you begin doing that, instead of posting put-downs about how "ignorant" Americans are, then perhaps we can move on! I am eager to hear what one could do besides pacify the Islamists. BTW—I am all for prosecuting Sharon as a war criminal IF the Palestinian leadership including Arafat and his al Aqsa "martyrs" brigade are also prosecuted. I would love to see Arafat's wife give back some of the stolen millions she is spending in Paris. I would love to see her live in "Palestine" with the rest of her suffering people instead of in "decadent" Paris. As for Europe knowing the terrorist threat. Sure they "know" it, but they also ignore it to a great extent blaming everything on the Jews and the Israeli/Palestinian situation. It is common knowledge that Europe has been and still is very anti-Semitic and that they now pander to the Muslims because these threaten, "Say Islam is the religion of peace or we shall kill you." The squelching of this report makes the above crystal clear: EU body shelves report on anti-semitism "The European Union's racism watchdog has shelved a report on anti-semitism because the study concluded Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups were behind many of the incidents it examined. . . "
". . .Soon after the book’s publication was approved in France last April, its translator, French writer Guy Milliere, began to receive death threats. “I sent him (the publisher) the translation of the first thirty pages,” said Milliere in a written interview. “A couple of weeks later I started to receive death threats by e-mail: ‘You must be an enemy of Islam; you will die for what you do’; ‘You must be a Jew; I hope somebody will slit your throat, you dirty Jew pig’, etc...I asked the police to act; I have received no answer.” . . . “My publisher preferred to give it up,” said Milliere. “But he is a nice man, and a bold one; he asked me to write a book about what happened.” For his part, Spencer calls the cancellation of his book’s publication “...a symptom of the Islamic agenda in France and the silencing of non-Muslims as ‘dhimmis’.” “What you have here is a subjugation of public opinion in France,” he said. “It’s ironic. If you don’t say Islam is a religion of peace, they will kill you. My book doesn’t advocate murdering anyone. It only investigates questions about Islam, but it is so threatening that they’ll " It is a fact that many, many terror cells have been free to operate in Europe with impunity—specifically in Germany, France and the UK. It's not called Londonistan for nothing! Numerous jihadis have actually been Euro born! One of the issues is that Europe does not assimilate its immigrants in the same manner as does the US. Indeed, Europe does its best to not permit immigrants full citizenship.
I would agree with Peter on this! Facing the intolerance of Islam (and not just "radical" Islam) will be the greatest challenge of the 21st century. Because without security, we have nothing! And speaking of security. While we can have much security at airports, etc. it is impossible to secure everything in our free societies. Certainly the Islamists know that. They wish to use the freedoms of our open societies against us. It is simple to cause panic in a population via poisoning the salad bar. The "low tech" solutions to which Peter refers often include "watching" others. Let's be honest, fighting Islamofascism will infringe on some of our traditional democratic freedoms. I don't know about you, but if clerics in mosques are preaching hate and violence, then they need watching. If Muslim "charities" are covers for terror funders then they need watching. OTOH—those who have been detained or arrested should have charges brought and a speedy trial under the rule of law. Holding people indefinitely only undermines democracy. Lili Posted by: Lilith at November 23, 2003 07:39 PMI don't understand quite the context Keynes is being used in here. Still, The General Theory is a beautifully-written book, reads like a novel it is so fluent. He intended it to be read by Everyman and subsidised Macmillan by 3d/copy if they would sell it at 5/- so it was affordable. It is a truly great book, and well worth reading. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 24, 2003 12:04 PM". I don't know about you, but if clerics in mosques are preaching hate and violence, then they need watching. If Muslim "charities" are covers for terror funders then they need watching. OTOH—those who have been detained or arrested should have charges brought and a speedy trial under the rule of law. Holding people indefinitely only undermines democracy. "
All Muslim clerics should be accredited to a Muslim training College in Alexandria or such like, and not used as a means of getting a tribal elder into Britain. It should be prohiobited for Local Authorities or the NHS to produce literature in languages other than English.....our local hospitals have signs in 6 languages; 1 is English, the other five are dialects from the Indian Subcontinent......they have translators, but Polish and Ukrainian must be pre-ordered as these came into Britain in 1946- and speak English. The fact is that now Britain has been out of India for 60 years, fewer speak the dialects and MI5 needs to recruit Muslims to infiltrate these groups......where the cell-structure is overlaid with tribal loyalties. The 'communities' in Britain are not homogenous but replications of particular villages in Kashmir and the like. If you wanted to create deliberately a tangled mess, politicians could not have done a better job of things. "I would guess you must be a graduate student with newly 'found' knowledge. Those of us who have lived a little understand how economic theories don't necessarily translate into full employment or economic prosperity." Actually, I spent WW2 living in inner London dodging bombs, V1s - the precursor of cruise missiles, and V2s or ballistic missiles. A V1 landed down one of the road where I lived then and a V2 down the other. Sme of us know what it's like to be bombed for real. Posted by: Bob at November 24, 2003 11:49 PMGlad to know you are a "mature" soul, Bob and know all about UXBs first hand. ;-) So, again I ask, tell us what exactly is your point? That we are "racist" and "bigoted" if we say Islam is NOT peace and while all Muslims are not terrorists—that ALL Islamic terrorists are Muslims? Lili Posted by: Lilith at November 24, 2003 11:58 PMLili, I'm notoriously sceptical about religions, especially when I notice how many wars throughout history have been motivated by religious divisions. From what I've posted before, you must know I have few illusions about the tolerance of Islam towards others religions - within the last twelve months or so, Christian communities have been massacred in Indonesia and Nigeria. I mentioned a past colleague, a Hindu, who said 30 years back that Islamic countries would have difficulties making transitions to democratic systems of government, basically because the theology of Islam is explicitly theocratic. But then whatever the respective theologies, the institutions of other religions, including Christianity and Judaism, have also had theocratic pretensions and that almost invariably also lead to strife. The number of victims from 9-11 is relatively modest compared with the scale of the massacres of the Huguenots by Catholics in 16th century France: http://www.geocities.com/hugenoteblad/hist-hug.htm On behalf of Islam, it is at least an inclusive religion. Were I so minded, I fancy I would have much less difficulty in being accepted as a convert to Islam than I would have in converting to Judaism. As best I can judge, the Palestine conflict did not originate in terms of religious divisions since, historically, Palestine had long been a multi-ethnic country with a plurality of religions, including Islam, Judaism and Christianity. The tensions developed over the scale and assimilation of inward migration by jews seeking refuge mainly from persecution in Europe. There were inter-communal riots because of the tensions even before WW2. As the British government forecast at the UN debate on Palestine in November 1947, partition would lead to continuing conflict. And so it has. I really do think it would be beneficial to read Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall to gain perspectives. It would not be correct to suppose that terrorism is the exclusive preserve of radical Islam. In Britain, we have endured bouts of terrorism relating to Northern Ireland for the last 30 something years. West Germany had the Baader-Meinhof gang from the late 1960s into the 1970s. Italy had the Red Brigades and France has had recurring although changing terrorist movements relating to Algeria, which was regarded as constitutionally part of Metropolitan France until its independence was agreed in 1962. Believe me, Europeans are very familiar with terrorism. What is relatively new is the comparatively recent ascendancy and internationalisation of radical or fundamentalist Islamic movements. There were historic precursors but those were more modest in geographic scope with usually only a national focus, like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. If there is one strong consensus in Europe now it is the perception that invoking the spirit, let alone the barbarity of the Medieval Crusades will exacerbate conflicts. Posted by: Bob at November 25, 2003 04:26 AM". . . Were I so minded, I fancy I would have much less difficulty in being accepted as a convert to Islam than I would have in converting to Judaism . . ." Oh, there is absolutely no problem "reverting" (all people are born Muslims you know) to Islam. It is only necessary to say, "There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger 3 times—and you are in. However, IF you should change your mind, then you would be an apostate. The penalty in Islam for apostasy is death! And then of course there is "no compulsion in religion" according to the Qu'ran—except when there is: Bombs found in Christian Schools. Pupils Warned to become Muslims or Die. http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/Archive/Iraq/Iraq-20031120.htm ". . . Believe me, Europeans are very familiar with terrorism . . " Islamic terrorism is not at all the same as plain old political terrorism, Bob. You don't have the ETA or the Baader-Meinhof people going all over the world committing their terror in the name of their god. They don't have religious clerics inciting the faithful by the millions to commit terror against innocents. The common political terrorist is generally aiming at some minor political goal and not attempting to take over the world because "god" has commanded that they do so. ". . . If there is one strong consensus in Europe now it is the perception that invoking the spirit, let alone the barbarity of the Medieval Crusades will exacerbate conflicts. . . " Why is it that people "forget" that the Crusades were a RESPONSE to Islamic aggression? After 400 years of Muslim violence, finally, Pope Urban II called the first Crusade at the Council of Clermont-Ferrand in 1095 because Islam had conquered the traditionally Christian and Jewish Holy Land. Given what we now know about the teachings of the Qu'ran is it any wonder that the following Crusades were as bloody as they were? I agree that violence will get us nowhere, given that there is an unending supply of jihadis in the Islamic world. Among 1.5 billion Muslims, if just 1% become radical (probably a low number) we have got BIG problems. They are willing to sustain millions of casualties for Allah. I doubt that we are willing to do the same. Here is a warning to Europe: "Europe hasn't faced up to 'new terror' http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,221803,00.html
THE Europeans have got it wrong in thinking the terrorist threat can be contained by taking a localised, kid-gloved approach. What the world is grappling with now is a new, globalised menace, one that has to be fought jointly by developed countries and moderate Muslims, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew said in an interview with Newsweek. 'The Europeans underestimate the problem of Al-Qaeda-style terrorism,' he said. 'They compare it to their own many experiences with terror - the IRA, the Red Brigade, the Baader-Meinhof, ETA. But they are wrong.' Describing Al-Qaeda-style terrorism as 'new and unique', he noted that an event in faraway Morocco was capable of provoking extremist groups in Indonesia . . ."
But, if a country becomes a terrorist have—as Melanie has already stated—We will come after you! Lili
You are of course telling Europe that now the US has experienced terrorism on its own soil - McVeigh in Oklahoma etc, that it has no notion. When a terror group in the US kills the Head of the US Employers Federation; murders leading judges, sets fire to Bloomingdales on a crowded Saturday, or kills CEOs of Fortune 500 corporations like say the CEO of Citibank (cf Alfred Herrhausen), the US might understand the Baader-Meinhof. When apartment complexes explode in New York, the US might understand what Chechens do in Russia; or when Mass Gen is seized by terrorists who execute patients.
When Congressmen are kidnapped by terrorists, or cities held hostage, maybe the Shining Path in peru or the gangs in Colombia can be appreciated. When trains are bombed or a full assault is made by gunmen on the Capitol or the Exective Office Building by gunmen maybe Americans will understand how Indians feel when their Parliament is assaulted. It is all a new experience for the US. They specialised in disaster movies on ships, planes etc because they had never experienced streams of refugees fleeing invading tanks as in France, Poland, Ukraine, Russia.....nor the burning towns and executions. Welcome to the Modern World ! It is just not a good idea to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. If the CIA were up to them job they would not be desk-bound. Just how many US Colleges teach Arabic, Urdu, Hindi, Gujerati, and how many agets does the CIA now have to track terrorists ? Or is it hoping they use mobile phones and speak in English so the NSA can monitor it all via satellites ? The Germans have Intelligence networks in Iran, the French in much of the Arab world, as do the Russians. Doing it ALL Rumsfeld's way is destined to fail because people will lose interest and vote for President Quiet Life as they did with Clinton, twice. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 25, 2003 10:51 AMRummy's keeping a rather low profile these days, isn't he? Why's that, do you think? Posted by: M Wilkins at November 25, 2003 12:56 PMBtw Lili, let's not forget America's financial and moral support for Irish Republican terrorists over the years. Perhaps you'd like to apologise for that on behalf of youe country? Posted by: M Wilkins at November 25, 2003 01:00 PMLili, "Given what we now know about the teachings of the Qu'ran is it any wonder that the following Crusades were as bloody as they were?" Compare and contrast: "[The Crusaders] passed through Emmaus, without incident, till, on June 7, 1099, they camped before the Gates of Jerusalem. "The City was in the hands of the Fatimid Governor, Iftikhar ad Daulah. The City defences were good. At news of the Crusaders approach, he poisoned the water outside the City. He ordered all Christians out of the City. "The Crusader forces were not nearly great enough in numbers to monitor the walls of the City. They took up positions where they could be near to the walls, concentrating their forces there, and began the siege. But Iftikhar had ample supplies of food and water. "On June 17th, supplies arrived in the harbor at Jaffa for the Crusaders. They scrounged wood for siege machines from the forest near Samaria, the closest available. The heat was brutal. In July, it was learned an army was on its way to Jerusalem. A vision came to some dedicated Crusaders, in which the late, well respected, Bishop of Le Puy (Adhemar) gave instructions to fast and walk in procession around the walls barefoot for nine days at which time Jerusalem would fall. The procession was led by the Holy Relic of the Lance. "This and the siege machines they completed, seemed to bolster the courage of the Crusaders. On July 13-14, the main attack began. Godfrey of Bouillon gained the north wall, and with his brother, Eustace, commanded the troops from there. The Arabs within, seeing their defences broken, fled to the Temple Dome of the Rock. They surrendered to Tancred. Iftikhar realized by midday that the City was lost. He took refuge in the Tower of David. Iftikhar surrendered to Raymond there, and Raymond allowed him safe passage from the City. They were the only Moslems allowed to leave and live. No Jews were spared either. The Crusaders, in their fury, slaughtered all. Moslems in the Dome, or Jews in their Synagogue, all were killed without regard." - from: http://www.medievalcrusades.com/kingsofjerusalem.htm Posted by: Bob at November 25, 2003 01:52 PMI think the Crusaders get such a bad press. i was in a little Church recently and someone showed me a Crusader tomb....I never knew they had special tombs in the Church like that. I thought the Muslim hordes had reached Rumania and the Pope asked for a peacekeeping force to repel them. In those days knights had to buy their own kit and sponsor themselves, so it was very generous of them........have the Moors ever paid compensation to Spain ? A lot seem to have been French...and when you see how dreadfully the Pope treated the Knights Templar it brings tears to your eyes. Posted by: Peter Williamson at November 25, 2003 02:18 PMI certainly agree with you all that "Rumsfeld's way" is not a good idea. I am merely pointing out that Islamic terrorism is a harder nut to crack than plain old home-grown stuff. And BTW—the English have themselves to blame for Irish terrorism according to the Irish radicals. And they have themselves to blame for letting so many radicals from the former colonies into the UK and continuing to pander to them. I can't apologize for supporting Irish terrorism because I am personally not responsible for that and have no knowledge of it. LOL We don't teach terrorism support in our churches like the Muslims teach it in the mosques. Sure the US is now concerned about terrorism since we were hit on our own soil. That's only natural. Every nation cares about its own security. Now, that their own are being killed of course, Muslims are having second thoughts. One mufti was quoted as saying, "I didn't think it would come to this" or go this far. . . As to the Germans, whether they have intelligence units in the Arab world appears to be of no consequence given that Atta and his gang hatched their plot for years in Hamburg. Somewhere I have a report that exposes how the Germans threatened to deport a CIA agent for urging them to arrest the group. They certainly were known. Ditto for terror cells in France or Belgium or Italy, etc. US intelligence had a WHOLE room dedicated to bin Laden and still they failed. The 9/11 suspect photos and names were on the net within hours of the attack. They knew who these people were. Let's face it Western intelligence screwed up and continues to screw up. The Mussies know this. My point is that the civilized world must work together. The Islamists are dividing and conquering don't you think? --- ". . .The Crusaders, in their fury, slaughtered all. Moslems in the Dome, or Jews in their Synagogue, all were killed without regard." Bob, as I recall all the people in the Twin Towers were not all killed so I guess that makes the Islamic Crusaders a better lot. ;-) You continue to obfuscate and evade the issues and litter the board with needless history lessons. The Crusades were a RESPONSE to Islamic aggression after 400 years. The War on Terror is also a RESPONSE to Islamic aggression once again! While Christendom has repented, reformed and been enlightened, as well as apologized and stopped crusading long ago Islam has not! Islam continues to try to take over the world. Not that it would know how to turn on the lights once it attained it. Granted, we "propped up" many of the theocratic despots in the Islamic world. However, don't forget that the rest of the world, particularly Europe, has been happy to assist with that. The EU uses plenty of oil and has plenty of business interests in the Islamic world. The world runs on oil. The Arabs can't eat it and we can't live without it. I speculate that should there be a WMD attack in the US the sands of Saudi Arabia might be turned to glass. The Islamic world is well aware of this and is furiously trying to get atomic weaponry so they can strike "preemptively" for Allah. Why don't you check out this link on the Crusades? "The Real History of the Crusades" http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm Lili Posted by: Lilith at November 25, 2003 02:53 PM"they have themselves to blame for letting so many radicals from the former colonies into the UK and continuing to pander to them. " Actually the radicals or "militans" in BBC-speak are actually not from our colonies. The gang they seek at present are Algerians, and they experienced counter-terrorism from the French Army that would make the US Army wilt. What the Alfgerian Army does to them would make Wolfowitz squirm. That is why they flee to France and Britain using the outdated asylum laws. Just why they signed up to the 1967 New York Amendment to the 1951 UN Treaty I do not know....but the US did too. Algeria belonged to France. The others are Kurds and they control a lot of heroin and people-smuggling; also not our colonials. Actually, much as we go on about Muslim terrorists, to date the ones highlighted here are Syrian, Egyptian, Algerian, Kurdish, Iranian et al........in fact mainly Arabs......when France kicked many out after they bombed too many Metro stations and Jewish schools....they came here. Blame M Thatcher, John Major - look at the autobiography of that Counter-Intelligence Chief Stella Rimmington...the index does not contain the word Muslim.....they ad a deal. Live here, don't bomb here.......and for years Saudis and Jordanians have tried to extradite these terrorists.......but it is virtually impossible to extradite anyone from Britain. London is the Arab centre, and it will be fascinating to see if they p@ss in their own pot and invite a crackdown.
"London is the Arab centre, and it will be fascinating to see if they p@ss in their own pot and invite a crackdown." Muslims, in particular Arabs, are very good at that, Peter—fouling their own nest in the name of Islam. Two arrests today and more to come surely. . . http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20031127/wl_nm/security_britain_dc "Actually the radicals or "militans" in BBC-speak are actually not from our colonies. The gang they seek at present are Algerians, and they experienced counter-terrorism . . . " BTW-—that Abu Hamza fella, from the Finsbury Park mosque, who founded Al-Muhajiroun, who was deported, I don't believe he was N. African. http://www.geocities.com/englishgateway/jihad.html Some of these 7th century cretins are hysterical. They look like something out of a 'B' horror movie—beards, hand-hooks, eye-patches and all. Oh, if they only used all that negative energy to build something instead of destroying. Lili
Abu Hamza was born as Mustafa Kamel Mustafa in Alexandria, Egypt, to middle-class parents. Yes, yes, I know. That is so typical of these extremists, contrary to the theory that being "poor" is the root of extremism. Speaking of the root of extremism. Telling the truth in Saudi Arabia, where much of Islamic militancy is born, bred, supported and exported, will get you the lash:
Telling the Truth, Facing the Whip http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/28/opinion/28MANS.html By MANSOUR AL-NOGAIDAN RIYADH, Saudi Arabia A week ago yesterday I was supposed to appear at the Sahafa police station to receive 75 lashes on my back. I had been sentenced by a religious court because of articles I had written calling for freedom of speech and criticizing Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia's official religious doctrine. At the last minute, I decided not to go to the police station and undergo this most humiliating punishment. With the nation at a virtual standstill for the holiday Id al-Fitr, the sentence remains pending. I will leave this matter to fate. Even before the attacks on foreign housing compounds in Riyadh in May, many writers and intellectuals in the kingdom, myself included, were being bombarded with letters and e-mail and telephone messages full of hate. We still receive death threats from Al Qaeda sympathizers. I have informed the Saudi authorities of the threats and provided them with the names and numbers of some of the people involved, against whom I have also filed a lawsuit. So far, no official action has been taken. The most recent government crackdown on terrorism suspects, in response to this month's car-bombing of a compound housing foreigners and Arabs in Riyadh, is missing the real target. The real problem is that Saudi Arabia is bogged down by deep-rooted Islamic extremism in most schools and mosques, which have become breeding grounds for terrorists. We cannot solve the terrorism problem as long as it is endemic to our educational and religious institutions. Yet the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Islamic Affairs have now established a committee to hunt down teachers who are suspected of being liberal-minded. This committee, which has the right to expel and punish any teacher who does not espouse hard-core Wahhabism, last week interrogated a teacher, found him "guilty" of an interest in philosophy and put on probation. During the holy fasting month of Ramadan, imams around the country stepped up their hate speech against liberals, advocates of women's rights, secularists, Christians and Jews — and many encouraged their congregations to do the same. I heard no sermons criticizing the people responsible for the attacks in Riyadh, in which innocent civilians and children were killed. The reason, I believe, is that these religious leaders sympathize with the criminals rather than the victims. I cannot but wonder at our officials and pundits who continue to claim that Saudi society loves other nations and wishes them peace, when state-sponsored preachers in some of our largest mosques continue to curse and call for the destruction of all non-Muslims. As the recent attacks show, now more than ever we are in need of support and help from other countries to help us stand up against our extremist religious culture, which discriminates against its own religious minorities, including Shiites and Sufis. But we must be aware that this religious extremism, which has been indoctrinated in several Saudi generations, will be very difficult to defeat. I know because I once espoused it. For 11 years, from the age of 16, I was a Wahhabi extremist. With like-minded companions I set fire to video stores selling Western movies and even burned down a charitable society for widows and orphans in our village because we were convinced it would lead to the liberation of women. Then, during my second two-year stint in jail, my sister brought me books, and alone in my cell I was introduced to liberal Muslim philosophers. It was with wrenching disbelief that I came to realize that Islam was not only Wahhabism, and that other forms preached love and tolerance. To rid myself of the pain of that discovery I started writing against Wahhabism, achieving some peace and atonement for my past ignorance and violence. And that is what Saudi Arabia, as a nation, also needs: a rebirth. We need to embrace the pain of it and learn how to accept change. We need patience and the ability to withstand the consequences of our crimes over the past two decades. Only when we see ourselves the way the rest of the world sees us — a nation that spawns terrorists — and think about why that is and what it means will we be able to take the first step toward correcting that image and eradicating its roots. What are the chances of such a change occurring? Some of the younger generation of princes, including Abdul Aziz, son of the ailing King Fahd, have been trying to create alliances between the liberal and the religious wings of society, which could possibly play a pivotal role in the future of the country. But can any of these young men become a truly great leader like the country's founder, King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud, or his son King Faisal? Those in charge must realize that to avert disaster we will have to pay the expensive price of reforms, to be ready to live with the sacrifices that starting over entails. Only then will I be hopeful of the future of my country. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/28/opinion/28MANS.html?pagewanted=print&position=
------ One wonders how long it will take for Europe to "get it"??? Will it be too late once they do??? Lili Posted by: Lilith Paloma at November 28, 2003 05:28 PMEurope got it long ago. Noone particularly likes Saudi Arabia, but they have money; and just as they employ State Department officials after they leave office in the Us, so they 'perform' while in office; so they buy politicians in Europe
The Saudis known how to sprinkle cash on the leaves of political parties, and how venal politicians are. Just look at how the Hindujas brothers buttered up Blair, Kennedy, Hague, and imagine how the Saudis known how to be gracious to politicians and ease their money worries, and dine and wine them. It is all a game. Poor people die, people of influence get fat. It is the way of the world, dictatorship or democracy; people of influence can be bought so you don't need sticks; people of virtue must be beaten because they won't be bribed I am afraid I don't agree with you, John. The reason the Euros "don't get it" is because the people don't want to get off their cafe-sitting derrieres and make some sacrifices for the freedoms and good life they enjoy. Life has been much too good for Europe for several generations. I don't think one can always blame the politicians. For example, no matter how much the politicians tell the Euros they need to economize and cut back on social spending or they will go broke—the people are not yet willing to listen. Neither are they willing to listen to the threat that Islam poses from within Europe. Europe's people believe that "Islam is Peace" because they can't seem to be bothered to inform themselves that Islam is really violence and terrorism and has been since the days of Mohammed. This Islamic movement is a plague that is a greater threat to world peace than the Nazis ever were. But, in no time the Euros shall learn that Islamic terrorism is not at all the same thing as the home-grow variety such as the IRA. Already the attacks have begun on Turkey—the only pseudo democracy in the Muslim world. Soon, they shall move toward central Europe with a vengeance because the cells are already there in place, waiting to strike at innocent Europeans. Below is a warning to the Europeans from Asian Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew as to why the Islamic threat is NOT the same as the "garden variety" terror they are quite used to. I certainly agree with him. Europe and the rest of the world must wake up to radical Islam. Whether they do it on their own or by the force of terrorism is entirely their choice. Every nations gets the government it deserves.
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,221803,00.html
THE Europeans have got it wrong in thinking the terrorist threat can be contained by taking a localised, kid-gloved approach. What the world is grappling with now is a new, globalised menace, one that has to be fought jointly by developed countries and moderate Muslims, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew said in an interview with Newsweek. 'The Europeans underestimate the problem of Al-Qaeda-style terrorism,' he said. 'They compare it to their own many experiences with terror - the IRA, the Red Brigade, the Baader-Meinhof, ETA. But they are wrong.' Describing Al-Qaeda-style terrorism as 'new and unique', he noted that an event in faraway Morocco was capable of provoking extremist groups in Indonesia. 'There is a shared fanatical zealousness among these different extremists around the world. Many Europeans think they can finesse the problem, that if they don't upset Muslim countries and treat Muslims well, the terrorists won't target them.' But that is a fallacy, he said, bringing up the terror threat in South-east Asia as a case in point: 'Muslims have prospered here. But still, Muslim terrorism and militancy have infected them.' He told Newsweek that both Singapore and Thailand had been targeted in recent years, even though neither had mistreated its Muslims. The more forceful American approach had its shortcomings too. 'You must use force. But force will only deal with the tip of the problem. In killing the terrorists, you will only kill the worker bees.' What is needed, he said, is to get at the 'queen bees' - the clerics who spread their twisted ideas of Islam, poisoning the minds of the young. SM Lee contrasted the case of Amrozi Nurhasyim - sentenced to death for plotting the Bali bombing - with that of cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, the spiritual head of Jemaah Islamiah, who was given four years for relatively minor offences. 'Men like Bashir are the real force behind the terror,' he said. 'It is Bashir who churns out these kinds of people.' To win the war against terrorism, he said, the United States and its allies must give full backing, with their resources and other forms of support, to moderate, modernising Muslims. 'Only Muslims can win this struggle,' he said. 'Moderate, modernising Muslims, political, religious, civic leaders together have to make the case against the fundamentalists. 'America can't do it alone,' he explained. 'You can't go into the mosques, Islamic centres and madrasahs. We don't have any standing as non-Muslims. Barging in will create havoc.' Assessing the results so far, he warned of the dangers of a divided alliance - with the US and Europe at loggerheads over Iraq and Japan hesitant about committing its troops following the escalating violence in the country. 'When America and Europe are divided, when Japan is hesitant, the extremists are emboldened,' he said. 'The terrorists' tactics for the time being are to hit only Americans, Jews and America's strong supporters, the British, the Italians, the Turks, warning the Japanese but leaving others alone. They intend to divide and conquer.' He said Iraq had become a test of US perseverance, but he believed the Americans would see it through. 'It is related to the larger struggle. You must put in place moderates who can create a modern society,' he said. 'If you walk away from Iraq, the jihadis will follow you wherever you go. You may think you've left them behind, but they will pursue you.' http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0,1887,221803,00.html? Unusual ideas can make enemies. We all lie somewhere between the brain stem and the neo-cortex. Going back and forth about facts will not get us far, as we see what we need to see based on our individual sense of terra firma. When we are ready to confront our limited natures, change will come. Regretably, we must all live some lies to get to a reflective place. Sooner or later, (later) religions will get to the same place. But not until we all unload the notion Lord Kames foisted upon us, that we cannot be content without a sense of property. An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger Posted by: Shimura Haru at December 20, 2003 10:15 PMIt's a sign of mediocrity when you demonstrate gratitude with moderation. Posted by: Torre Leslie at January 9, 2004 09:06 AM |
