Democratiya
Topic: Islamic Jihad
Some time back I stumbled upon the

Communities United Against Terror Website.

This particular page of it, the "Why we signed"

Christopher Hitchens (Writer)

Association with this statement and with many of its fellow-signatories involves two commitments. The first is the elementary duty of solidarity with true and authentic resistance movements within the Muslim world, such as the Kurdish guerrillas in Iraq and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, who were fighting against Ba'athism and Talibanism (and the latent alliance between the two) long before any American or British government had woken up to the threat. It should go without saying that, though the suffering of their peoples was intense, neither Jalal Talabani nor Ahmed Shah Masoud ever considered letting off explosive devices at random in foreign capitals. I have my political and ideological differences with both groups, but these differences are between me and them, and are not mediated through acts of nihilistic murder.

My second commitment is equally elementary. The foreign policy of a democracy should be determined only at election times or by votes in Congress or Parliament. It is one hundred per cent unacceptable even to imply, let alone to assert, that a suicide-murderer or his apologists can by these means acquire the right to any say in how matters are decided.

Both of these observations, and indeed this very statement, would be redundant if it were not for the widespread cultural presence of a pseudo-Left, and an isolationist Right, both of whom have degenerated to the point where they regard jihadism as some form of "liberation theology". The old slogans are often the best, and "Death to Fascism" is life-affirming in these conditions.

I figured any petition against terrorism signed by Christopher Hitchens was a good place for me to put my signature.

This morning I received this announcement from them.

Dear UAT signer,

One of the authors of the statement 'Communties United Against Terror',
Alan Johnson, has launched a new free online review of books. Its
called Democratiya and you can check it out at

http://www.democratiya.com/

In the first issue you will find an interview with Jean Bethke
Elshtain, the author of Just War Against Terror: The Burden of American
Power in a Violent World.

Please consider sending a note about Democratiya to your own friends
and email lists. Many thanks.


Yours,


The UAT organisers


One thing that is obvious from the Title of the Website, it is an International Website, and looks like it has some valuable and informative reading.

Peruse, and if you agree with the premises, spread the word about it.

Here in their own words is a brief bit About Them

Democratiya is a free bi-monthly online review of books. Our interests will range over war, peace, just war, and humanitarian interventionism; human rights, genocide, crimes against humanity and the responsibility to protect and rescue; the United Nations, international law and the doctrine of the international community; as well as democratisation, social and labour movements, 'global civil society', 'global social democracy', and Sennian development-as-freedom.



Democratiya aims to contribute to a renewal of the politics of democratic radicalism by providing a forum for serious analysis and debate. We will strive to be non-sectarian and ecumenical, and our pages are open to a wide range of political views, a commitment to pluralism reflected in our advisory editorial board.



Democratiya believes that in a radically changed world parts of the left have backed themselves into an incoherent and negativist 'anti-imperialist' corner, losing touch with long-held democratic, egalitarian and humane values. In some quarters, the complexity of the post-cold-war world, and of US foreign policy as it has developed since 9/11, has been reduced to another 'Great Contest': 'The Resistance' (or 'Multitude') against 'Imperialism' (or 'Empire'). This world-view has ushered back in some of the worst habits of mind that dominated parts of the left in the Stalinist period: manicheanism, reductionism, apologia, denial, cynicism. Grossly simplifying tendencies of thought, not least the disastrous belief that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' are once again leading to the abandonment of democrats, workers, women and gays who get on the wrong side of 'anti-imperialists' (who are considered 'progressive' simply because they anti-American).



This attitude is especially unfortunate at a time when there is 'reform ferment in the Arab world, an emerging democracy in Iraq, and the colour-coded democratic revolutions in post-communist societies', as Michael Allen notes in the inaugural issue of Democratiya. In this historical moment, as an editorial in The New Republic noted, '[L]iberals must realize their own future is at stake. Should democratization succeed with Democrats deeply involved, they will be able to claim a share of the credit. But, should it succeed despite their puerile detachment - or, worse, their objections - Democrats could well be branded as the party that opposes bringing human rights and responsible governance to people who don't yet benefit from them'. To which Norman Geras has added, 'For "Democrats" in the US, read "the left" in Europe'.



When over 8 million Iraqis voted in democratic elections in January 2005, at polling stations guarded by American and other foreign troops, emerging to dance for joy, their purple fingers held aloft, only for Britain's leading liberal newspaper to sneer that the election was 'at best irrelevant', it was clear that something had gone terribly awry. When Iraq's heroic free trade unionists were called 'collaborators' and 'quislings', while their torturers and murderers were hailed as a 'liberation movement', one could hear the rattling of loose political and moral bearings.



Of course our task is not to sing 'America! America!' As Irving Howe put it, 'The banner of critical independence, ragged and torn though it may be, is still the best we have'. But this is 2005 not 1965. It is no longer enough to say 'no' where the US says 'yes'. A more self-condident and constructively critical stance is needed.



We democrats will fare better if we are guided by a positive animating ethic and seek modes of realization through serious discussion and practical reform efforts. Democratiya will stand for the human rights of victims of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity. We will be, everywhere, pro-democracy, pro-labour rights, pro-women's rights, pro-gay rights, pro-liberty, pro-reason and pro-social justice. Against anti-modernism, irrationalism, fear of freedom, loathing of the woman, and the cult of master-slave human relations we stand for the great rallying calls of the democratic revolutions of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Democracy, even for the 'poorest he'. Liberte, egalite, fraternite. The rights of man. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those precious ideas were rendered the inheritance of all by the social democratic, feminist and egalitarian revolutions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. No one left behind. No one. We are partisans and artisans of this fighting faith and we pit it against what Paul Berman has called 'the paranoid and apocalyptic nature of the totalitarian mindset'.



In line with these aspirations, Democratiya will embrace what the Italian democratic liberalsocialist Norberto Bobbio called 'the most salutary fruits' of a certain intellectual tradition. He had in mind 'the value of enquiry, the ferment of doubt, a willingness to dialogue, a spirit of criticism, moderation of judgment, philological scruple, a sense of the complexity of things'.



Democratiya aims to be accessible to 'the common reader'. The discipline of the plain style, and a refusal of the obscurantist prose of contemporary academia, is today a political act of the first importance. We seek good writing, less adorned and more luminous, as well as thoughtful analysis, and a bit of style. Anyone seeking a model should look at Dissent. Careful exposition of the central arguments of the book under review is important. But so is the critical response of the reviewer. Authors will have a standing right of reply and reviewers a standing right of rejoinder.



Publishers may send books for review to Alan Johnson, Editor, Democratiya, Department of Social and Psychological Sciences, Edge Hill College of Higher Education, St Helens Road, Ormskirk, Lancashire, L39 4QP. All correspondence can be sent to the same address or to Alandemocratiya@aol.com If you would like to offer a review, please get in touch.



Alan Johnson

Editor

(emphasis added)

|

Isolation of the Dodo
Topic: Islamic Jihad
I ran across an interesting dialog on the Internet today.

Shannon Elizabeth comments on a post by Feministe's "Jill" arguing that, because 911 wasn't an act of war (which would come as a surprise to those who declared war on us, then attacked us with our own airliners filled with our own citizens), but was instead a simple act of terrorism, it is not worthy of being commemorated by the inaptly-named "war memorial"

Elizabeth: “Gee. And I thought I was an uninformed bimbo."*

It was responded to Shannon Elizabeth calls me a bimbo

Well ad hominen attacks are non productive. In the realm of ideas, my thoughts were as follows.

"The first military land action by the United States of America, was against a NGO of Muslim Terrorists known at the time as the Barbary Pirates.

The Congress of the day, Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton discussed whether a Formal Declaration of War was required.

They concluded that while a Formal Declaration of War was required to initiate a War, since our Shipping (the merchant marines were civilians I might add) and our Sovereignty had been attacked we were already in a STATE OF WAR
with the Barbary Pirates so no Formal Declaration was required.

Under the International Accords Customs and Laws of Land War at that time and today, A State of War ensues when either an attack occurs or a Declaration of War is issued.

Al Queda has declared Holy War upon the United States of America and has attacked us on our soil, and has attacked us elsewhere in the world.

There is now, and has been for some time, a State of War between us, there is Constitutional Precedent as I stated above for this claim."

On a more general note, during the last generation at the hands a of an Extreme Jihadist Sect, in Bangladesh, Southern Sudan, Dafur, Algeria and numerous other locales on the order of 5 million human beings have been slaughtered and about 50 million displaced.

I cannot think of a single religion that has not been attacked.

This combat has claimed the lives of citizens of almost every nationality on the face of the Earth and attacks have been carried out in North America, Europe, Asia, the MidEast, Oceania. So far I do not recall any attacks in South America or Antarctica, but give them time, they may yet hit those areas.

We are engaged in a Global War with an unprecedented range. What level of Mega Death is required for some people to actually see this?

The Forces arrayed against us divide the World into two portions

Dar Al Islam the House of Peace/Surrender/Submission
and Dar Al Harb the House of War/not-Surrendered/not-Submitted.

We used to think of the War Issue as between Hawks and Doves, then I wondered if it should be Hawks and Ostriches, due to the numbers who seemed to have their heads stuck in the Sand.

Now I think that they are not Ostriches, but Dodos.

The Dodo was just not smart enough to realize that something could be a threat.

The Dodo is now Extinct.

Muhammad al-Dura Myth, What Took So Long.
Topic: Islamic Jihad
Michelle Malkin has a new post up today,
"WHEN PICTURES LIE"
Remember these images broadcast by French state-owned television in 2000 that inflamed the Muslim world and inspired al Qaeda recruiters?

I recall those events quite well. I did some close looking at the video and some stills way back then.

In order to avoid bias, I downloaded the video and the still at the time, from Muslim Websites.

Those links are a few hard drives in the past, but I still recall what I saw back then.

First the Video. You see the boy and the Man behind a barrel the man is looking towards the Israeli lines and hollering.

Then, as I recall the camera view is obscured, not exactly blurred because you see a brief flash of something flesh colored, like a hand blocking the lense. When the view clears the man is sagging as if wounded, the boy is laying still.

In the still photos one can see on the wall behind the man and the boy bullet holes, but not elongated slashes, which would have been made by fire from the Israeli lines to the far right hand field from the perspective of the viewer, but round holes which could only have come from a viewpoint in the same line of sight as the camera and perpendicular to the wall.

That is how I remember it.

Yes Pictures, can lie, but if you look closely they can also tell the truth.

So my reaction to this sudden flurry after all this time is, what took so long for the truth to start getting some real recognition?

Oh and as for this?


a piece of Palestinian street theater, similar to the dramatic Palestinian funeral processions that were observed after the Israeli incursion into the Jenin refugee camp. During that public spectacle, a martyred "corpse" twice fell off the stretcher, only to hop back up and retake his place in the procession. (The Palestinians had claimed 3,000 deaths in Jenin ? the actual toll turned out to be 52.)

I have a link to that video clip, I don't know how many times I have looked at it and almost fell down laughing. Because it is obvious from the action that most of the crowd really thought the man was dead and when he is dropped off the flag colored stretcher and jumps up?

They scatter like a flock of chickens who have just spotted a hawk.

I will try to find that link and update this post with it.

UPDATE
Click here: DEAD WALK

|

I am Waiting
Topic: Islamic Jihad
For someone to start pontificating on the difference in the situation in Mississippi and Louisiana and New Orleans.

We don't hear that much about Mississippi, not because the devastation there is not terrible, In truth the main force of Katrina struck there and not Louisiana.

But the resulting chaos in New Orleans in particular is so much greater, it gets the lion share of the media coverage.

We as usual, had Howard Deans take on the tragedy and his reasoning for the situation in New Orleans.

(CNN) -- Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said that in Hurricane Katrina's wake Americans need to face the "ugly truth" that race and class played a significant role in who lived and died.

"We have to come to terms with the ugly truth that skin color, age and economics played a significant role in who survived and who did not," he said. "And this question, 40 and 50 years after Dr. [Martin Luther] King [Jr.] and the civil rights movement, is, 'How could this still be happening in America?' "

" he said. "I'm not here to point the finger of blame

Not much surprising there. About what we can expect from Screaming Howie. One does wonder what he sounds like when he is pointing the finger of blame?

Unless it's like some of these samples?

Howard Dean Scream Remixes

But what I am waiting for is Howie, the DNC and the rest of the assembled talking heads to realize despite their consistent fixation on Race and Skin Color that the folks in New Orleans were also DEMOCRATS.

The Governor of Mississippi, were things are running smoothly, compared to New Orleans that is, by no means can Disaster Recovery on a scale such as this be even called smooth and easy, is a REPUBLICAN.

Yes folks having already played the Bush let people die because they were of a certain RACE, I am waiting for the Mantra, Bush let people die because they belonged to a certain Party.

That if the leaders in Mississippi were REPUBLICAN things would have been handled much better there.

The really sad part is-- they will be RIGHT.

But not for the reasons they will think of.

Maybe the voters in Louisiana and New Orleans will wake up to truth, come the next elections.

Those that are still left that is.

UPDATE I am surprised it too almost three weeks. Michele Malkin has the details at

SHAMELESS SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Q: What do you get when you wrap the anti-Bush race card in tinfoil?

A: Democrat Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee blaming the botched Hurricane Katrina response on "minority votes being suppressed."


Marc Morano has details.

Black Voter Suppression Blamed for Weak Katrina Response

By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
September 29, 2005

Washington (CNSNews.com) - The Bush administration's slow response to Hurricane Katrina may be the result of minority votes being suppressed and Democratic candidates losing the last two presidential elections, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus has alleged.

|

The End of the Beginning
Topic: Islamic Jihad
Winds of Change has a section in its

Hatewatch Briefing 08/26/05

which indicates that in SOME parts of the MidEast the Hatred is now being directed at someone besides the US for a change.

Palestinian suicide bombers are seen as martyrs in the Arab world, fighting for a just cause, just like the 9/11 attacks were seen by many as a reaction to "America's hegemony" over the world and a response to the "U.S.'s pro-Israel foreign policy." However, when terrorism strikes home, the reactions change:

Anti-terrorism cartoons in the Arabic press

The MEMRI article
Reformist Cartoons - Part I Condemning Terrorism
By: A. Dankowitz

Is WELL worth reading and I encourage you to follow the Link and peruse it.

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words, so I will post a couple of the cartoons here to tempt you. ;-)

Satanic Figures Talk after the Sharm Al-Sheikh Bombings
Cartoon No. 16: "What did those animals [i.e. the terrorists] say, what faction are they from?"
"Those who committed this act are most despicable, they stooped lower than us."

From Al-Akhbar (Egypt), July 25, 2005. [23]

From Al-Ayyam (Bahrain), July 25, 2005. [19]

I think the message is clear enough for anyone to understand, with the possible exception of the mentally challenged demonstrators outside Walter Reed Hospital of course.

|

Resistance Is Futile. You Will Be Assimilated!
Topic: Islamic Jihad
"This is the Borg Collective,"Prepare to be assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctives to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile."

Does that sound familiar? If you are not
a Star Trek Fan, how about a strange
resemblence in tone and intent with

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

According to themselves, the Borg only seek to "improve the quality of life in the universe" and add to their own perfection. To this end, they travel the galaxy, improving their numbers and advancing by "assimilating" other species and technologies, and forcing captured individuals under the control of the Hive mind by injecting them with nanoprobes. They harbor no ill will to anyone; they merely fulfil their biological or programmatic imperative to assimilate. As they say, "Resistance is futile – you will be assimilated." They make good on that threat by their ability to quickly adapt to any attack to render it harmless. Thus, any successful defense depends on the ingenuity of the opponent to find a method to stop the Borg completely before they can neutralize it.

According to themselves, the Jihadists only seek to "improve the quality of life in the world" and add to the perfection of the Ummah. To this end, they travel the world, improving their numbers and advancing by "assimilating" other peoples and technologies, and forcing captured individuals under the control of the Hive mind. They harbor no ill will to anyone; they merely fulfil their religous or spiritual imperative to assimilate. As they say, "Resistance is futile – you will be assimilated."

To paraphrase

"I am Osama of Borg. Resistance is futile. Your life as it has been is over. From this time forward you will service us."

Oh to understand the "you will service us" allusion
do some research on Dhimmitude:The Status of Non-Muslim Minorities Under Islamic Rule.

Maybe this will help anyone who still clings to the illusion that what we face is a legal manner best handled as a criminal investigation, arrest and trial.

|

Seven Steps to the Caliphate.
Topic: Islamic Jihad
I found the following through a website called,
The Word Unheard. Man he got that right.

THE FUTURE OF TERRORISM

What al-Qaida Really Wants

By Yassin Musharbash

If there is anyone who might possibly have an inkling as to what al-Qaida are up to, it is the Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein. He has not only spent time in prison with al-Zarqawi, but has also managed make contact with many of the network's leaders. Based on correspondence with these sources, he has now brought out a book detailing the organization's master plan.
**************************************************
An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps

In the introduction, the Jordanian journalist writes, "I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaida members with different ideologies to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future." What he then describes between pages 202 and 213 is a scenario, proof both of the terrorists' blindness as well as their brutal single-mindedness. In seven phases the terror network hopes to establish an Islamic caliphate which the West will then be too weak to fight.



The First Phase Known as "the awakening" -- this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby "awakening" Muslims. "The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful," writes Hussein. "The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target." The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard "everywhere."


The Second Phase "Opening Eyes" is, according to Hussein's definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the "Islamic community." Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an "army" set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.


The Third Phase This is described as "Arising and Standing Up" and should last from 2007 to 2010. "There will be a focus on Syria," prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and -- even more explosive -- in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida's masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.


The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida." At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.


The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.


The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of "total confrontation." As soon as the caliphate has been declared the "Islamic army" it will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.


The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as "definitive victory." Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "one-and-a-half billion Muslims," the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years.




A Serious Plan?

But just how serious is this scenario? "Al-Qaida makes no compromises," says the book's author Fouad Hussein. He obviously believes that this seven-point plan could well become the guiding principle for a whole range of al-Qaida fighters. Hussein is far from an hysterical alarmist -- in fact he is seen as a serious journalist and his Zarqawi book is better than most of the reports in Arabic on the subject. Only last year, the journalist made a film which was received with great interest and was shown on the German-French TV channel arte. In it he provided deep insights into al-Qaida's internet propaganda machine.


.





Nevertheless, there is no way the scenario he depicts can be seen as a plan which al-Qaida can follow step by step. The terrorist network just doesn't work like that anymore. The significance of the central leadership has diminished and its direct commands have lost a great deal of importance. The supposed master plan for the years 2000 to 2020 reads in parts more like a group of ideas cobbled together in retrospect, than something planned and presented in advance. And not to mention the terrorist agenda is simply unworkable: the idea that al-Qaida could set up a caliphate in the entire Islamic world is absurd. The 20-year plan is based mainly on religious ideas. It hardly has anything to do with reality -- especially phases four to seven.

But that doesn't mean that we should simply discount everything that Hussein has uncovered. A few of the steps in the agenda are plausible. The idea that Syria will become a focus for the Mujahedin is regarded by experts as highly likely. "Close ranks, concentrate on getting more recruits, set up cells," was the call to the "Mujahedin in Syria" which appeared on one Web site at the beginning of August. From the point of view of the jihadists, Israel and Turkey are also fairly logical targets for an escalation of the confrontation. "Al-Qaida views every fight as a victory, because for so long Muslims didn't have any weapons at all," says Hussein. He may not be far off. As for Jordan, al-Qaida leaders such as al-Zarqawi, have already made attacks on the country. They have also stated on numerous occasions that Jerusalem is the real target.

Equally, the idea that in the future al-Qaida could increasingly become a movement that attracts young frustrated men, is hardly a theory plucked out of thin air. The terror network puts a lot of effort into its propaganda -- assuredly in order to expand its support base.

Attacks on the West: a Means to an End

What is interesting is that major attacks against the West are not even mentioned by Fouad Hussein. Terrorism here cannot be ignored -- but it seems these attacks simply supplement the larger aim of setting up an Islamic caliphate. Attacks such as those in New York, Madrid and London would in this case not be ends in themselves, but rather means to a achieve a larger purpose -- steps in a process of increasing insecurity in the West.

Nowadays, it is harder than ever to truly understand al-Qaida: the organization has degenerated into branches and loosely connected cells, related groups are taken in, and people who hardly had anything to do with al-Qaida before, now carry out attacks in its name. It is hard to imagine orders which come right from the top because Osama bin Laden spends all his time struggling to survive. At the same time, the division between foot soldiers in the organization and sympathizers is becoming increasingly blurred. It is all too easy to fall prey to disinformation -- al-Qaida also excels in this area. Even Hussein's scenario should be judged skeptically.

His book should therefore be read for what it really is: an attempt to second guess how al-Qaida terrorists think, what they really want and how they propose to get there.
****************************************************
This reminds me of a book I bought and read a few years back, and from an online Islamic Bookstore, might I add, not some redneck, neo-con webite.

It was called:

Methodology Of Dawah in American Perspective
In the light of the Dawah strategies developed by the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) at various stages of Islamic propagation, this book addresses the issues related to modern day Dawah and guides the Muslims on preparation, techniques, medium selection, and other related challenges particular to dawah in North America.

Now THAT sounded innocuous didn't it? Until you actually READ it and discover that one of the main attractions to the Author for turning America into a Caliphate is our economic and military power would in his eyes make converting the rest of the world SO much easier.

No, really they are that to the point in this book, I guess they don't think anyone but like minded Muslims would bother reading it. At $6.95 plus shipping I recommend picking up a copy, rather like reading Mein Kampf before Hitler made his place in History. It EVEN has a detailed plan over a long period of time, not to just convert Americans, but to infiltrate the government and over throw it.

You see they figure it is not necessary to convert EVERYONE just enough to get the job done. The first stages of Dawah are to be pacific and peaceful. the last stage after a core of believers is established is simply the armed overthrow of any previous system of government.

Well as I live and breathe, the man now has his own website at

FOR UNDERSTANDING ISLAM IN AMERICAN AND GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE

Be worth scanning to see what plans this guy has for us Infidels.

Of course this guy's worldview is not like that of most Americans. In his world, soldiers just do what their officers tell them to do. In our world? The main part of the population which tends towards military service is what is called Jacksonian American. The oath taken when enlisting is to Support and Defend the Constitution.
Jacksonians take that seriously and I do not see the rank and file following orders to overthrow the Constitution and set up an Islamic Caliphate.

Still it would be sweet to create a virtual universe in which this did happen and dump into it all the Useful Idiots who keep shrieking how Fascistic America is and let them find out what that would REALLY be like were it the Truth. ;-)

|

There ARE Other Women In The World
Topic: Islamic Jihad
We have been focused the last few days on ONE solitary woman. Her grief, her complaints, her demands and her political agenda.

You know? There ARE other women in the world. We should not be distracted from THEIR just demand for our attention, aid and succor. For it is not the Media Event in Crawford where the real story of the War we are in is being played out.

It is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Holland Canada and even here.

Heed the words now of a DIFFERENT kind of woman than the one who is having her 15 minutes of media glory in Crawford,

Ms. Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch parliament for the Liberal Party, was born in Somalia. She took refuge in the Netherlands in 1992 to escape an arranged marriage, and has had armed bodyguards after receiving death threats from Muslim extremists. She writes at http://www.ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/.

Unfree Under Islam
Shariah endangers women's rights, from Iraq to Canada.

BY AYAAN HIRSI ALI
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

In every society where family affairs are regulated according to instructions derived from the Shariah or Islamic law, women are disadvantaged. The injustices these women are exposed to in the name of Islam vary from extreme cruelty (forced marriages; imprisonment or death after rape) to grossly unfair treatment in matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance.

Muslim women across the world are caught in a terrible predicament. They aspire to live by their faith as best they can, but their faith robs them of their rights. Some women have found a way out of this dilemma in the principle of separation of organized religion and state affairs. They fight an uphill battle to achieve and hold on to their basic rights. Two cases demonstrate just how difficult that struggle can be, in the context of new as well as established democracies.

The first is the draft constitution of Iraq, now due next week. Iraqi women like Naghem Khadim, demonstrating on the streets of Najaf, are fighting to prevent an article from being put in the constitution that would establish that the legislature may make no laws that contradict Shariah edicts. The second case is the province of Ontario, in Canada. There, Muslim women led by Homa Arjomand, an activist of Iranian origin, are fighting--using the Canadian Charter of Rights--to keep Shariah from being applied as family law through a so-called Arbitration Act passed as law in Ontario in 1992.





It seems strange to associate the context of Canada with that of Iraq, but a closer look at the arguments used to reassure the demonstrating women in both countries reveals the similar ordeals that Muslim women in both countries must go through to secure their rights. It shows how their legitimate and serious worries are trivialized, and how vulnerable and alone they are. It shows how the Free World led by the U.S. went to war in Iraq, allegedly to bring liberty to Iraqis, and is compromising the basic rights of women in order to meet a random date. It shows how the theory of multiculturalism in Western liberal democracies is working against women in ethnic and religious minorities with misogynist practices. It shows the tenacity of many imams, mullahs and self-made Muslim radicals to subjugate women in the name of God. Most of all, it shows how many of those who consider themselves liberal or left-wing see their energy levels rise when it comes to Bush-bashing, but lose their voice when women's rights are threatened by religious obscurantism.
Hamam Hamoudi, the head of Iraq's constitution committee, refuses to discuss the article that worries the Muslim women. He also refused to put in the draft constitution that men and women have equal rights, creating a bizarre situation whereby the women had more rights under Saddam Hussein's regime than in post-Saddam Iraq. Mr. Hamoudi insists that women will have full economic and political rights, but the overwhelming evidence shows that when Shariah--which gives a husband complete control over his wife--is in place, women have little chance to exercise any political rights. Does Mr. Hamoudi realize that it took the removal of Saddam and the establishment of a multiparty democracy for men to vote, while if his draft constitution is ratified, women will need the permission of their husbands to step out of the house in order to mark their ballot? I thought that President Bush and all the allies who supported the Iraq war aspired to bring democracy and liberty to all Iraqis. Aren't Iraqi girls and women human enough to share in that dream?

Under Shariah, a girl becomes eligible for marriage from the moment she starts to menstruate. In countries where Islamic law is practiced, child-brides are common. Do the drafters of the constitution grasp what this will mean for the school curriculum of girls or the risks of miscarriages, maternal fatalities and infant deaths? These and other hazards that affect subjugated women are common phenomena in the 22 Arab-Islamic countries investigated in the Arab Human Development Report. An early marriage also means many children in an area of the world that is already overpopulated and poor.





The draft Iraqi bill of rights favors men in other respects, such as the right to marry up to four wives, and the right to an easy divorce, without the interference of a court, simply by repeating "I divorce you" in the presence of two male witnesses. A wife divorced in such a fashion will receive an allowance for a period of three months to one year, and after that period nothing. On the other hand, if a wife wants a divorce, she must go to court and prove that her husband does not meet her material needs, that he is infertile and that he is impotent. Once a divorce is finalized, if there are children, the custody of the children will automatically go to the father (for boys at age 7 and for girls from the start of menstruation). Inheritance based on the Shariah means that wives will get only a small portion of the property of their husbands and a sister will get half what her brother gets.
Canadian women are told that the Arbitration Act of 1992 was passed in order to provide citizens with the opportunity to resolve minor conflicts through mediation and thereby save valuable court time. They are reassured that Muslim women in Canada have nothing to fear because parties must enter into arbitration out of their free choice, and that there are enough limits to safeguard the rights of women. The Muslim women's arguments that "free choice" is relative when you are psychologically, financially and socially dependent on your family, clan or religious group seem to fall on deaf ears. The populations of battered Muslim women in "tolerant" Canada's women's shelters seem to be ignored. In Canada, battered Muslim women say that their husbands told them that it is a God-given right to hit them. If the current Iraqi constitution goes through, Iraqi wife-abusers will be able to add "It is my constitutional right to beat you."

An Iraqi constitution is necessary, and the need for urgency is apparent, but urgency is a bad argument for passing a bill that strips half the nation of its rights. In Ontario, minorities come first and individual women within minorities last, living as second-class citizens and suffering in silence.

Read and then, ponder, then answer the question posed by Patrick Henry.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren (and sisters) are already in the field!

Why stand we here idle?

|

I Don't WANT Bin Laden Caught
Topic: Islamic Jihad

That was a statement I made during my Holiday in Italy, that raised some eyebrows earlier this summer.

How did I get in Italy? Long story, but the short and sweet is, I went on a vacation with my girl friend who lives in St Petersburg.

No, not the warm one in Florida, on the Gulf of Mexico, the cooler St Petersburg, in Russia, on the Gulf of Finland. ;-)

She made all the arrangements with a Russian Excursion Tour Company. Made her getting a Visa to Italy much easier and she got us a GREAT deal. My company's credit Union sells Vacation Tour packages and what we paid fo the two of us was about what they charge for 1 and the last week we stayed in a Waldorf in Rimmini Italy.

That put me for one week, with 30 of 40 Russians, on a whirlwind, if this is Tuesday, this must be Naples type tour. My Russian skills are limited and except for my girlfriend, their English skills were a match. One couple had brought their teenage son who was studying English, so it turned out that one afternoon, though him, I and his father got into a conversation, on Life the Universe and Everything, including Politics.

With the state of the World these days of course the MidEast came up, but when I answered, "I Don't WANT Bin Laden Caught." to his query "Why have you not caught Bin Laden yet?", I did get some raised eyebrows.

I explained, If we capture or kill Bin Laden, he becomes a martyr and lives forever. Al-Qaeda is like a Hydra, cut off its head and it can grow a thousand new ones. But Bin Laden is an Old Man, someday, soon perhaps, he will die and then he is just another Old Man who died.

So no, I Don't WANT Bin Laden Caught, but I would like to USE him to locate and track and take out those underneath him the next generation of Al-Qaeda and the ones after that.

I want Ayman Al Zawahiri,Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, the ones at that level and below.

Everyone wants a Magic Bullet cure for the MidEast.
Take Bin Laden and its over and everyone can go home and leave the region to sink into oblivion.

Not going to work that way. Then you have the side who proclaim loudly that Bullets and Bombs won't fix things, and they have long involved arguments about what we should do INSTEAD, never even seeing that they suffer from the same tunnel vision, of which they accuse us.

Of COURSE Bullets and Bombs alone won't fix things, Passing Wind (my definition of diplomacy backed up with nothing but words) ALONE will not either.]

We never SAID they would. That side of the political dialog suffers from hearing impairment or reading impairment.

Here is what we SAID in the beginning

They hate what they see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

Oh that statement was greeted with a lot of derision when President Bush made it. Except not by Al-Qaeda, they agreed with the President

al-Zarqawi declared his loyalty to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden last year. In a statement posted Sunday on Islamic Web sites, he said his group has "declared a bitter war against democracy and all those who seek to enact it," and he declared all Iraqi candidates and voters enemies of Islam.

"Democracy is also based on the right to choose your religion," he said, and that is "against the rule of God."

Contrast that to what America and President Bush believe

"There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom," Bush said. This is not simply a statement of idealism, however -- the War on Terror began as a war to ensure our own safety, after all. The President continued: "We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one." However, there's always room for idealism in a just war. Bush also reminded us that, "we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave."

We cannot expect this War to be anything like our past struggles, it will be far different and fought on many fronts, militarily, financially and spiritually.


Now this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat. Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.



So No, I Don't WANT Bin Laden Caught. I do not want the Hydra suddenly headless to spring forth a thousand new ones. If I could locate Bin Laden, I would leave him to die as any man dies in his time. Because I do not think of these matters in terms of Revenge, Retribution, or Justice, as Legal matters where we hunt down the guilty and bring them before the Law.

I think of this as War, a Protracted Struggle where the goal is to Win, and make our enemies Dust with History.

So I would leave him in place, but if I knew that place I would USE him. For he is a connection to
Ayman Al Zawahiri,Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, the ones at that level and below. He is the Head they are the Heart. Cut off the Hydra's Head and new ones spring forth.

Cut out its Heart and it Dies.

After I finished talking about why I did not want Bin Laden caught, and what I DID want to see happen, they did not look surprised any more, they looked thoughtful.

If you want to hunt Tiger.

First tether the Goat.

|

The Paradigm Precipice
Topic: Islamic Jihad
"There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries. " William Shakespeare

The source of the Tide in this famous quotation from
Julius Caesar is most often, some Catastrophic Event which shatters the manner in which a People perceive the World, for the term Paradigm, means simply, "A new way of looking at things.

Pearl Harbor was such a Catastrophic Event, and the Paradigm Shift it engendered created a Nation with a World View out of the previous isolationist US. A generation rode this Paradigm to political power, and as usual in times such as that, some got it and were lead on to fortune, and some didn't and
their lives were bound in shallows and in miseries.

Vietnam a generation later engendered yet another Paradigm Shift and as above some got it and some didn't, with much the same results as the generation of their Fathers.

The Destruction of the World Trade Towers was also a Catastrophic Event and it in its turn has created a NEW Paradigm Shift and is always the case, some get it and some don't.

This lack of vision has no definitive political bias. The Paradigm Shift of the Vietnam Era was driven by political forces from the Left, but some of them GET it.

Some of the former greatest spokesmen for the Left get it.

Adam Michnik gets it. In A View from the Left: We, the Traitors he says

A German journalist published an article in the paper Die Tageszeitung in which he claimed that Vaclav Havel, Adam Michnik, and George Konrad, Europe's long-standing moral authorities, had suddenly become undiscriminating admirers of America.

I read that article with a twinge of nostalgia. Here we are, together again. Our three names were grouped to-gether for the first time by Timothy Garton Ash in his widely acclaimed essay nearly two decades ago. If I recall correctly, Havel and I were doing jail time then, and Konrad's books were banned from print in Hungary. Even though we did not meet very often, we maintained a common ground in our reflections on the worlds of values and of politics. We were united by a dream of freedom, a dream of a world infused with tolerance, hope, respect for human dignity, and a refusal of conformist silence in the face of evil.

Today, however, the primary threat is terrorism by Islamist fundamentalists. War has been declared against the democratic world. It is this world, whose sins and mistakes we know all too well, that we want to defend.

These are the reasons behind our absolute war on the terrorist, corrupt, intolerant regime of the despot from Baghdad. One cannot perceive totalitarian threats in George W. Bush's policies and at the same time defend Saddam Hussein. There are limits to absurdity, which should not be exceeded recklessly."

Christopher Hitchens gets it. In his statement on the Unite Against Terror Petition website
(which I was honored to sign) he says,

"Association with this statement and with many of its fellow-signatories involves two commitments. The first is the elementary duty of solidarity with true and authentic resistance movements within the Muslim world, such as the Kurdish guerrillas in Iraq and the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, who were fighting against Ba'athism and Talibanism (and the latent alliance between the two) long before any American or British government had woken up to the threat. It should go without saying that, though the suffering of their peoples was intense, neither Jalal Talabani nor Ahmed Shah Masoud ever considered letting off explosive devices at random in foreign capitals. I have my political and ideological differences with both groups, but these differences are between me and them, and are not mediated through acts of nihilistic murder.

My second commitment is equally elementary. The foreign policy of a democracy should be determined only at election times or by votes in Congress or Parliament. It is one hundred per cent unacceptable even to imply, let alone to assert, that a suicide-murderer or his apologists can by these means acquire the right to any say in how matters are decided.

Both of these observations, and indeed this very statement, would be redundant if it were not for the widespread cultural presence of a pseudo-Left, and an isolationist Right, both of whom have degenerated to the point where they regard jihadism as some form of "liberation theology". The old slogans are often the best, and "Death to Fascism" is life-affirming in these conditions.


Nick Cohen gets it, he says I still fight oppression and replies to his detractors on the Left

The liberals who say I have deserted the left should ask themselves where they stand on Islamism.

Some DON'T get it. Read the following on Instapundit
YOU’RE EITHER WITH US OR YOU’RE AGAINST US:
James Wolcott is beating up on liberal hawks (he singles out Roger L. Simon in particular) for making common cause with conservatives by supporting the Terror War:

The fact is that by subscribing to Bush's War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq with every corpuscle of your tired body you've made common cause with Republican conservatives, neoconservatives, and Christian fundamentalists who are dedicated to destroying those parcels of liberalism on which you stake your tiny claims of pride…Do you really think that conservative supremacy in the executive, congressional, and judicial branches of government means that gay rights and abortion rights will somehow be spared?.

UPDATE: On a related note, Harry Hatchett says many on today's anti-war left strikingly resemble right-wing nationalists and isolationists. It begs the question then. Who, really, are the new conservatives? I couldn't care less, personally, about being tainted with conservative cooties. But those who fear and loathe the idea might want to read Harry's essay.

Oh and for those who object to the anti-war left and the right wing nationalists being tarred with the same brush?

This quote from George Orwell fits that pretty well and shows us the concept is not anything news.

Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, "he that is not with me is against me". The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle,
**********************************************
, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security...In so far as it takes effect at all, pacifist propaganda can only be effective against those countries where a certain amount of freedom of speech is still permitted;in other words it is helpful to totalitarianism


My father was in the Navy. When I was a small boy, we lived on an Island in the Pacific, Midway.
I remember one of the things I liked to do was dive into a wave when it was just curling over. Done right, you could curl into a ball and it twirled you around and around. It was a lot of fun. Done wrong, missing the timing something quite different could happen.
The Wave SLAMMED you down on the beach floor. That could smart!

"There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries. "

I do believe the Irrational Left and the Democratic Party is about to learn what "something different
could happen" means.

|