Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald comments on the Sharia leanings of Iraq's new Constitution:
The Shari'a in Iraq will be akin to the American Constitution -- the final authority against which all laws will be measured. Great.This was all perfectly predictable. It was completely expected, even if the Constitution is tinkered with to keep some people happy (Sunnis and the Allawi camp, who on this matter are to be supported), and to keep the Americans around a bit longer to do more fighting and dying, to train more of the "Iraqi army" (a/k/a the Shi'a militia in uniform), and especially to leave some of that military equipment that the Americans are just dumb enough to leave -- anything is possible with the kind of people now running, with such wrong-headed self-assurance, foreign policy. Condoleeza Rice may be unable to speak or understand simple Russian, as her performance on Russian television proved, but she has some sense of Communism. However, during her latest visit to Israel she praised Abbas for nothing and hectored the Israelis (also for nothing). She made clear that she hasn't the faintest idea about what the siege of Israel is all about, or the Islamic sources of that particular local Jihad, or how borders are irrelevant, and only "darura" -- the doctrine of necessity that may stay the Arab hand -- will prevent another war. The mavens of State are self-assured and yet at the same time not nearly self-assured enough -- not enough to recognize that their greatest intelligence failure was about Islam itself: its contents, its instruments of Jihad, its worldwide threat.
For if they did realize it, they would be seeking ways to leave Iraq, not to "leave when the Iraqis tell them to leave," as Jaafari has said. Jaafari is, of course, an Islamic Da'wa Party member since 1968. That is the same party that has been on an American Terrorism List. He also spent the decade 1980-1990 in Iran, apparently without losing his appetite for Islam or Muslim rule, and is prepared to install a Shi'a-run pseudo-democracy, one which, while it is very far from what educated Westerners understand as democracy, apparently is good enough for some of the people in the Administration (who by prating so much about it only show that they themselves have so little understanding of what real democracy is). That we now have entirely inadequate leaders, here as elsewhere, is clear. That there may be some -- junior officers, Congressional aides, the odd Congressman or newspaper columnist, who do understand what is at stake -- is slim consolation for the colossal misallocation of resources, the colossal damage to equipment, the colossal squandering of money, the colossal harm done to our armed services which have done quite enough, and more than enough, to try to make the best of a foolish policy that continues because those at the top lack the ability to show, in the slightest, that just perhaps maybe quite possibly almost certainly they misunderstood the nature of Islam, and the nature of Iraq itself. Iraq is a three-vilayet state that, if it were to split into those vilayets, or exist not as a strong nation-state but as a constant source of future Sunni-Shi'a tension and even combat, would thereby provide a splendid boost to American efforts. Yet it is so far not even understood, much less contemplated: to divide, demoralize, and otherwise damage the forces of worldwide Islam, and to make Islam less attractive to Believers and Infidels alike.Encouraging the Sunni-Shi'a split is something that our ambassador, who may be a kind of "Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslim, Zalmay Khalilzad, cannot bring himself to recommend, and will never do so. Yet the Americans have nothing to lose, and a good deal to gain, from seeing an incipient Sunni-Shi'a civil war. That is not something to be deplored. It is something that is to be observed, exploited, taken advantage of -- and certainly not prevented. Should we have prevented, or tried to halt, the Iran-Iraq War? Of course not.
They are also missing the opportunity that Iraq presents to help foster a non-Arab sovereign state, that of a free Kurdistan, and thereby to raise the whole issue of Arab supremacist ideology within Islam and to encourage that theme among non-Arabs. This could lead quite possibly to demands for greater autonomy, or more, among the Berbers of North Africa (and not incidentally, help to split Berbers and Arabs within the Muslim population currently threatening the French within France), and could have other consequences as well. The very phrase "Arab world" is inaccurate and tendentious, as the acute Lebanesee blogger at www.eccelibano.blogspot.com has noted. It is the kind of thing that only those who accept the Arab Muslim narrative of the Middle East and North Africa would possibly promote. It is time to cut that little notion down to size. A free Kurdistan will help do it. It would also be a permanent worry for Iran, Syria, and yes, Turkey, too, a country which will not be in the E.U., and has nowhere to turn except to the United States. We have ways to get the Turks to accept a free Kurdistan, by telling them it will make the case for Kurdish independence in Anatolia not more, but less, compelling -- for the Kurds can now move to Kurdistan, if they wish for national self-expression.
But until there is some willingness to reconsider this "democracy" project, the waste will continue. And if this goes on for more than another few months, there is no chance the Republicans will be returned in the next election -- even though, as we all know, at present the Democrats, or all who have spoken, seem to be, if anything, even worse.
It's an extraordinary situation, the failure of people who learned about Communism to learn about Islam. They rely on a handful of the Higher Apologists -- that means Bernard Lewis and his most uncritical acolytes, those who see nothing wrong with his continual self-contradictions, his minimizing or scanting of the subject of non-Muslims under Muslim rule, his desire not to antagonize all those personal and professional colleagues in Istanbul or Amman, his generous hosts from an Osmanli princess here to a Hashemite prince there, that have at times turned his head, much to our collective chagrin, and led in Iraq to a quite unnecessary sacrifice of American lives. This is intolerable.
The Constitution, whatever it is, hardly matters. What matters is getting out. No "Marhsall Plan" as Jaafari complacently requested. No more being used by those who have their own agendas -- all those "nice" Iraqis, who were and are quite content to see America transform their country, first by getting rid of the regime, then by pouring in money and fighting, and now by sticking around to make everything hunky-dory in what is clearly an impossible situation. And of course none of these Chalabis and Ambassador Franckes and Istrabadis and the rest of them would like the Americans to decide that what we really must do in order to combat the worldwide Jihad is not hold Iraq together at all.
Of course they wouldn't like that. Of course it will horrify them. But however beautifully they may speak English, however plausible their pitch, one finds in the end that like so many "nice" Muslims, they will not dare to recognize, or to admit to, what Islam in the end is all about. Embarrassment, filial piety, practiced taqiyya-and-kitman -- whatever it is, there it is. And we have to part company with them now. We did our bit for them. Nearly 2,000 men killed, and nearly 15,000 wounded, many severely, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent.
No, it's time for a change -- a change in the policy, a change that relies not on continued innocence about Islam, but on a transformation of understanding. Are the people at the top up to it? We have seen no signs of it, but perhaps they are simply keeping their counsel.
One hopes. One devoutly hopes.
Beautiful Hugh!
Exactly so.
I have nothing to add.
Rebecca
Yes, pull out of Iraq and let the dark forces of Islam collapse inward on itself! Reality check!! What about the American addiction to oil? Our economy rides on cheap oil and letting Islam collapse inward on itself will inevitably cause problems with our supply of oil. Defeating Islam is just one angle on this whole mess. Oil is critical to our economy and I like having a job. Our politicians have to look at the big picture. Hugh, please provide input on how pulling out of Iraq will serve the interests of our economy.
"Americans are just dumb enough"... That is the whole problem aint it. These jokers from Bush down to every clueless idiot in airport security does not know the ABC's of Islam, Jihad, terror, etc. What a waste!
There is nothing that will happen to the price of oil that isn't happening already.
Get a grip. Oil will be sold, period, by everyone, to make money. If in the event that forces even darker, even more dangerous, than the hideous Al-Saud were to take control of Saudi Arabia, the American army could take control of al-Hasa province, in the east, where Shi'a live, the oil-bearing region conveniently located right on the coast, with those waiting tankers. Possibly part of the Rub al-Khali as well, where Totalfina and Elf are busy looking for, and finding, natural gas that will have to be exported through Oman.
But that hardly need be worried about.
As for the "cheap oil" you think we are now getting, if it costs $1 to lift a barrel of Saudi oil that then costs nearly $60 to a buyer, is that cheap? You tell me.
You seem to think that our remaining in Iraq will keep oil less expensive than it might otherwise be. Why? On what basis? And even if you could show me that it might be slightly less expensive, so what? I don't what cheaper oil; I want us to get as much off oil as we can, so that we can diminish, in the end, the total revenues available for the forces of Jihad, the forces of Islam world-wide. Am I missing something here? Is there some reason why I should work so that the Arab and Muslim states will continue to take in even more than the $10 trillion they have taken in over the past one-third of a century?
No Muslim state and no Muslim people are our firends. We are Infidels. Some Muslim states, and some Muslim peoples, can cause us more harm, and others less. It depends on what arms they possess. It depends on what "wealth weapon" they may possess. It depends on how many mosques and madrasas in the Western world they pay for. It depends on how many Muslim migrants they send to settle behind enemy lines, in the Lands of the Infidels.
You talk about economic matters. Well, why don't you think about what might be done with an extra 100 billion a year spent, not on Iraq or Afghanistan (where warlords, properly re-supplied, can bloody well, and bloodily well, keep the Taliban at bay with minimal American effort, as long as we keep reading Paksitan's janus-faced generals the riot act). What would that do for nuclear, solar, and wind energy? And what would just the installation of solar panels all over the country, or new systems of mass transit, or the buiiding of windmills or nuclear reactors, do for the American economy, not to mention that they would do in the end to cut malevolent Muslim oil states down to size?
You want American soldiers to continue to be killed and wounded, you want to make Iraq a secure nation-state by spending more tens of billions reconstructing for people who will pocket whatever they can but will never be friendly, you want to spend more money, damage more equipment in desert conditions, cause still more harm to the regular and civilian soldiers, and damage to their morale, you want to keep attention off the Jihad world-wide and especially the islamizaion of Europe, while we all keep focussing on quite trivial Iraq, you want us to deprive ourselves of the chance to set up a non-Arab Muslim independent state, or to create the conditions for a permanent Sunni-Shi'a battlefront that will be a constant source of friction -- you want all this, you say, because you "like having a job" and the only way you think our economy can stay afloat (what about all those jobs mentioned above in new kinds of energy sources -- is that nothing?), and therefore that you can "have a job" is by keeping us in Iraq? I refuse to believe that that is how you think you should decide matters of high policy -- whether, in your view, it will help you "have a job." Or rather, I allow myself to believe that isn't true.
Hugh,
I agree with you. Let them kill each other.
I just finished reading Crisis of Islam by Lewis. He whitewashed a lot of stuff, stats at the end were interesting, but really, he is not telling our leaders the truth, and my read of this book proves it. Esposito, Norquist, and Lewis all on the taqiyya payroll and fooling our leaders who simply refuse to read a critical book. I bet if you sent a copy of Robert's new book on Islam and the Crusades to Rice, she would recoil in horror. That is how pathetic and clueless she is. She looked totally lost on that buzz in to Israel. Idiot. Get that woman a brain.
HOly crap! Im sitting in Al-Hasa right now! haha....come on ya lazy oaks...come and liberate us! (ah well getting back to Buffalo in a month...so wth)
Peace!
THE PROBLEM IS THE DEMOCRATS HAVE MANAGE TO KEEP ALL THEIR ANTI ISRAEL AND KEPT OUT BOLTON WHAT IS THAT WHILE THE PRANTS ARE AWAY??
THEIR EXCUSE FOR THE HATE ISRAEL??
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/605342.html
BUT WHAT ARE THEY DOING ABOUT WHAT CLITON DID WITH ALL AT&T SOLD AND WHAT ABOUT GE???
WE ARE MAD BECAUSE WE MESSED UP AND LIKE A CHILD ARE PLACEING THE BLAME ON SOMEONE ELES AND IT IS ALWAYS TO BLAM ISRAEL???
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/6/19/180118.shtml
Chinese Space Espionage
Charles R. Smith
Monday, June 20, 2005
Hughes Network Systems Barred by State Dept.
The Bush administration has imposed sanctions against a U.S. company trading high-tech satellite technology to China. The announcement made in the Federal Register noted that the "Department of State has imposed an administrative debarment against Hughes Network Systems (Beijing) Co. Ltd." "Such debarment prohibits the subject from participating directly or indirectly in the export of defense articles or defense services for which a license or approval is required," stated the announcement.
The State Department debarment noted that Hughes had previously violated International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) export control laws and that there was a "reasonable basis for the Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance to believe that the violator cannot be relied upon to comply with the AECA or ITAR in the future."
Hughes Network Systems, according to its own advertisements, is currently selling lightweight small satellite terminals or Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Network technology to China. The miniature – man-portable – satellite uplink terminals can be quite useful for military applications.
READ THE WHOLE THING??
In 2002, Hughes was charged with violating 123 counts of national security violations, providing a vast array of U.S. satellite, space and missile technology directly to the PLA through front companies such as China United Telecommunications.
In fact, Hughes Network is still dealing with the same Chinese army-owned company that it was fined for breaking U.S. national security with in 2002. According to the sanction report of 2002, Hughes violated U.S. national security with China United Telecommunications Satellite Co., Ltd.
"The turnkey system was to include two satellites to be launched from China on the Long March 3B SLV, five gateways, one network operations center, one satellite operations center and an initial purchase of 70,000 user terminals, with the ground network equipment and handsets to be provided by HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS," states the 2002 report.
READ THE WHOLE THING??
What information the Criminal Division compiled on C. Michael Armstrong may never be known. However, it is worth noting that Armstrong's legacy is his success in what became known as "Chinagate," the sale of advanced satellite and space technology to the Chinese army.
The role in Chinagate played by Armstrong is clearly displayed in his own words. In 1995, Armstrong wrote then Clinton National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, seeking to transfer satellite export authority from the State Department to the Commerce Department.
"The USG [U.S. government] does not require Congressional approval to remove commercial satellites from the United States Munitions List (USML), which is under State Department jurisdiction, and placing them on the Commerce Control List (CCL), which is under Commerce Department jurisdiction," wrote Armstrong.
OH MY READ THE WHOLE THING??
THIS IS WHY STATE IS TRYING TO COVER THEIR TRAKS AND IS BLAMING ISRAEL AND THE DEMOCRATS HAVE HELPED BY BLOCKING BOLTON??
Thank You, Bill Clinton
In 1996, President Clinton moved the oversight of satellite exports from the State and Defense departments to the Commerce Department. In response, Armstrong and his counterparts wrote a thank-you letter to Clinton.
In a May 3, 1996 letter signed by the CEOs of Hughes, Lockheed and Loral, the three executives expressed their thanks directly to Bill Clinton.
"In October of last year we wrote to you asking you to complete the transfer of responsibility for commercial satellite export licensing to the Department of Commerce. Your administration recently announced its intention to do just that."
"We greatly appreciate this action which demonstrates again your strong commitment to reforming the U.S. export control system," states a letter signed by Hughes CEO Armstrong, Lockheed CEO Norman Augustine and Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz.
In the end Hughes was charged with 123 counts of violating national security. All of the violations took place during Armstrong's term as head of Hughes. Hughes pleaded no contest to the 123 charges filed by the U.S. State Department and has since paid a record fine.
Armstrong's contention that "a commercial communications satellite is not a defense item" is simply false. In fact, Hughes executives admitted that the satellites sold to China were military items. Ironically, the admission came when the company tried to sell a former Chinese satellite to the U.S. military.
AsiaSat, a company founded in 1988 in part by the Chinese army, made a March 1996 satellite purchase from Hughes to build the AsiaSat-3 with a $220 million loan from a consortium of banks.
Asiasat-3 was placed into an incorrect orbit by a Russian Proton booster rocket launched from Baikonur in 1997. In 1998, space insurance companies paid off the satellite loss and transferred ownership to Hughes.
BETTER READ THE WHOLE THING??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
OH YEA I FORGOT REMEMBER RON BROWN??
WHAT DEPARTMENT WAS HE HEAD OF??
HOW MANY BOOKS HAS CLINTON SOLD IN CHINA??
AND HILLIARY TOO??
OH MY??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
"I agree with you. Let them kill each other."
Letting them kill each other is just a short-term solution. Muslims have been killing each other for over ten centuries. Muslims use internecine violence to sharpen their swords and practice becoming better military killers. Letting Muslims kill each other will result in Muslim deaths and inward focus of hate-energy in the short run, but in the end it will only make them stronger warriors to fight what they know, even in the midst of killing each other, is their true and eternal enemy: Us.
Oil! Oil! Oil!
1. The ME is NOT the only place in the world with oil. We have oil, Mexico has oil and there is oil off the left coast as well, not to mention way up north. There is oil in Africa and Im willing to bet plenty in South America as well.
2. We do need to start changing to alternatives, but that takes time and bags and bags of money. Our infrastructure is based on oil. Thats not cheap to change.
3. There are more markets out there in world for that oil, and that is what drives the prices up. Yes, OPEC is probably taking us for a ride, but higher demand will cause higher prices unless the supply increases.
An Islamic Meltdown may be the one thing that will end this horrible plague that has crippled 1/4 of the world for 1400 years. Islam is due to end soon, if they dont clobber themselves, they will eventually put us in the corner to the point where we break out the really bad stuff.
Either way thats a lot of death, but the first could be in the millions, but the second option would be a billion or two. And please note, 90% of the figures would be muslims.
Always a pleasure to read your work Hugh, and thought provoking.
Hhhmmm, however....
A country for the Kurds, Kurdistan for the sake of a name, is long overdue, and indeed, was promised to them after WW1 by the Brits/French, but never happened.
Would this country just be the northern part of Iraq, or would the Kurdish dominated part of Iran be included, and would the Kurdish part of Syria also be included ?
I would include the Kurdish part of Syria, and push that a bit to give the Kurds some seafront and a port on the Mediteranean, allowing them to export their oil directly to the world.
Taking some of Iran, the part that is majority Kurd, would add considerably to the strength of Kurdistan, and take Iran down a peg or two, something they richly deserve.
This new country, Kurdistan, would need U.S. military protection for a long time, but at least they would appreciate it.
OK, seems more and more like a good idea Hugh, and would get us of the hook of our 'democratic Iraq' promise.
"Crisis of Islam by Lewis"
The title of such a piece would already turn me off.
I like the "honey-pot-doctrine" - If it is true that the Jihad freaks
gather in Iraq to die then we should continue to fight them there. For if we don't, we'll have to fight them in Europe and in America.
But I'm not too sure about this concept.
I'm just hung up on internment, deportations, summary executions, razing of mosques, Imams detained and flogged daily in Gitmo...
Perhaps I'm just old fashioned...
We should pull out and treat them with 'Daisy cutters' when needed. The rest is up to themselves...
I agree with Hugh's point about allowing the Kurds to have their own nation. It might set off more discord in the Arab world, and begin to break the back of Arab domination, both good results. However, I have a real concern about the Assyrians living in the midst of a new Kurdish state. The Kurds have taken shameful and often violent advantage of the Assyrians for a long time, but especially since the US set up a protetorate for the Kurds in the early 1990's. The Kurds, in typical Islamic fashion, have seized land from the Assyrians, deceived US aid agencies by stealing resources that have been earmarked for Assyrian infrastruture and generally grown emboldened in their treatment of the Assyrians as dhimmis. The Turkomens also have similar complaints about the dominant Kurds, although they share the same faith, Islam. In summary, I also believe it would be good to have Iraq in a state of chaos. But, before that happens, I pray that a liberal immigration policy would be enacted for all Iraqis who are non-Muslim, be they Christian, Jewish, Zorastian, Mandaean, to enable them to leave the country before the civil war begins. Otherwise, these groups will almost certainly face mass slaughter at the hands of the Sunnis, Shiites or Kurds, all their "peaceful" Muslim neighbors.
Catherine good on you
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
well said
this is not about oil, not about 9/11 ,,,,, its about the U.S. having the hart for the Jews in this 3th world. where Jesus was born. lets look at the 1970's alone and forth, ambassys and military bases, hijacking, invading, killers w/ bombs willing to leave family behing to fend for them selfs. '' WHAT gOD WOULD HAVE THAT. i dont understand this. LIVE for your GOD!!!!! and do good. show love!!! how simple is it, and nice and peaceful lots of people from countrys have died because of these works of ART, [lack of better word] wow killing their own!!!!! no surprise!!! ive worked with Iraq civilians in the U.S. and over sea's. i found this people quit nice mostly ,,, more so in the U.S. gee wounder why?!!!!!
as an America living in Australia, where people are easy going. i seen and heard [them ] say on the day of 9 11 , '' this is a happy day'' .... ''about time the Yanks got it'' them not knowing iam a Yank, {American] and storys from fiends at work here in Australia, they blessed 9 11. there was beatings of mus slums here too. although you in the U.S. would not see or here this, let me tell you its true, kick em when their down!!! it made me very sad, thinking these people liked being in Australia was wasted in my mind. i bet 90% of all mus slums injoyed that day of 9 11. and laught in their little way......
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
to all men serving , may God be with you and yours.
"I have a real concern about the Assyrians living in the midst of a new Kurdish state. The Kurds have taken shameful and often violent advantage of the Assyrians for a long time..."
--- from a posting above
Yes, this is a worry -- a worry that will exist whether Iraq stays tenuously together, or whether it reverts -- a word chosen deliberately -- to the three Ottoman vilayets of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra. Even within the last two years Christian Assyrian girls (at least one working for a Kurd) have been raped and murdered, and nothing done. In both the 1894-96 and the 1915-1920 massacres of Armenians, Kurds as well as Turks took part; after all, these were not so much "Turkish" massacres as Muslim massacres of Christian Armenians.
The Assyrians who came to northern Iraq after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and those who had never left, discovered in 1933 how hollow were the promises made by the local Muslims (Arabs and Kurds) to the departing British. One can read, for more on this, William Saryon's "70,000 Assyrians." The figure was actually higher.
But Kurdistan can exist only with American diplomatic support, and possibly some air cover (as it enjoyed before the Iraq War, when Saddam Hussein was still in power), or equipment that can be left there as we leave. And this reliance on the Americans will be good for us, and for the Kurds. It is to America's advantage that the oil of Mosul and Kirkuk, the oil under Kurdish lands that has been stolen by the ruling Arabs (just as the ruling Arabs will steal all the oil revenues in the southern Sudan, under the lands of the Christian and animist black Africans who have managed so far to stave off the steady islamization/arabization that has been taking place in the Sudan for the last half-century). And the Kurds need a way to export that oil -- it is unlikely that they will want to send it through Iran.
It is not impossible to imagine a deal, with Turkey, so worried about losing part of Anatolia to a new Kurdistan. Why would Turkey agree to such a thing? It would be a way to inhibit the Kurds from making territorial demands on Anatolia, as a price for such a pipeline. It would require the Kurds to turn their attention to possible expansion of Kurdistan by including Kurdish parts of Syria and the Kurdish parts of Iran. Iran is scarcely 50% Persian, in any case, the regime may be less interested in what happens in the oil=less Kurdish-inhabitated parts of Iran, than in suppressing the "Khuzistanian people" (i.e. the Arabs in southwestern Iran, where there is oil) and in possibly greating a greater Shi'a state with the Arabic-speaking Shi'a of Iraq -- many of whom, like so many Shi'a in the Arab states of the Gulf, of Persian descent.
One of the recent themes in American policy is that the old support for "stability" in the MIddle East -- meaning support for corrupt regimes such as those in Saudi Arabia and Egypt -- has not furthered American interests. But there is a much more important kind of "stability" to overturn in places -- the so-called permanence of borders that are quite recent, that gave the Arab Muslims complete control of everything except Israel and Iran, and ignored the interests of the Maronites in Lebanon (who are Arabic-speaking but, as the more historically and culturally aware Maronites, from the days of Bishop Moubarac of Beirut and the suave Charles Malik, to Brigitte Gabriel and Franck Salameh today, not Arabs at all--the Phoenicians did not simply disappear off the face of the earth; they left descendants), the Kurds, the Berbers, and others. The de-arabization of the Islamic world, the support for non-Arabs, including those who are Muslim, and attention put on the Arab supremacist ideology within Islam that is such an obvious feature (see Anwar Shaikh, see Ali Sina, see Ibn Warraq, see V. S. Naipaul) of Islam, and that can be noted as a way to encourage non-Arab Muslims to begin to question both the Arabs and perhaps, the wonderfulness of Islam itself (would it not be helpful if some in Pakistan began to read, if not K. S Lal, at least Ibn Battuta, to find out what lead their terrified ancestors to convert to Islam), is something that a free Kurdistan will encourage.
That kind of "instability" of borders instead of, or in addition to, a turning of our backs on all those regimes that the BBC and NPR and even some government or ex-government officials insist on seeing as our "allies" (let's get this straight once and for all: NO Muslim state can conceivably be the ally of an Infidel state. It violates the tenets of Islam, the attitudes of Islam, the atmosphericds of Islam. Temporary cooperation, in order to win something from the Infidels -- reprive from a settling of scores, or more money, or more F-16s -- that is a different matter. But allies? Not possible). having a stake in stability is correct.
An indifference to "stability" of borders, if by re-arrangement of those borders can promote our interests, the interest in constraining Islam, is fine. Western governments, or some in them, seem at times to forget. We in our supererior, non-Islamic world, are not here to fulfill some kind of Infidel Man's Burden, to rescue Muslims from the failures that Islam itself causes, not as long as they are intent everywhere in spreading Islam, or damaging Infidels (and they are, they must be -- that is what Islam teaches). We need not be so lavish with foreign aid to Muslim states and would-be states, nor give them military equipment or money or transfer knowhow or make our universities and technology and medical care so easily available to them (as Naipaul notes: they will take whatever the West offers, but not connect their own failure to have such things with Islam, and while they continue to depend on the West, their hostility to that West remains unaffected). There is no Infidel Man's Burden, not least because behind enemy lines the criminal negligance of Western elites has permitted, to our great sorrow and danger, millions of adherents of a belief-system that has no room for pluralism, or human rights, though those adherents will exploit that faith in "pluralism" and those guaranteed rights in order, ultimately, to do away with genuine pluralism (there is none, and never has been any, anywhere that Muslims have come to dominate and rule), and with those rights that so offend the letter, and the spirit, of Islam.
All Infidel governments, all Infidels, should work to protect themselves by limiting the appeal of Islam to both the psychically and economically marginal (and the easily impressionable) within Infidel countries, and the appeal of Islam to Muslims themselves. The former requires informing people who now rely, absurdly, on Muslim "outreach" groups -- i.e. apologists and conductors of Da'wa -- who do not present Islam as it is, but every conceivable kind of Taqiyya-cum-Tu-Quoque possible, in the most affable, smiling, soft-voiced (unless someone shows just a bit too much familiarity with Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira -- in which case all smiles suddenly stop, and quite a different, nearly hysterical tone, quickly emerges)-- rather than on the systematic presentation by non-apologists and scholars of Islam who know what is in the texts, have studied how they are received, can deal with every last bit of taqiyya-and-tu-quoque (all the same Qur'anic passages, most of them abrogated, and a studied refusal to discuss the "authentic" Hadith or, above all, the details of the Life of Muhammad, are part of the usual strategy).
And the appeal of Islam to Muslims can be dealt with. It is being dealt with, right now, in Iran, where a quarter-century of the hideous Islamic Republic of Iran has done more to damage the hold of Islam on that part of the population which thinks, and feels, than anything we could do. Leaving Iraq, letting the natural antipathies work their way, can only help us. With a free Kurdistan, and with a kind of mini Iran-Iraq war, involving like the large-scale one, outside forces coming in to support Sunni, or Shi'a, as the case may be. It is fortuitous that, though the Shi'a make up only 20% of the world's Muslims, their position in Iran and Iraq gives them access to nearly 40% or more of the OPEC oil, and if somehow the Shi'a-populated Al-Hasa provicne of Saudi Arabia were to become part of that expanded Shi'a polity, that would not be good from the Sunni point of view, but as long as Iran is deprived of its nuclear capability (which would have to happen, whatever else does or does not happen, and whatever regime does or does not follow the current one in Iran, for no Muslm state can be allowed to possess such weapons).
The final goal is this: to point out how the political, economic, social, and intellectual failures of Muslim peoples and polities are all a direct result of Islam itself. That is the goal. Every time a policy or a change in policy is being considered one should ask: will this policy help show both Infidels, and Muslims, that Muslim failures, the wretchedness of Muslim countries, are a result of Islam -- of its endorsement of the despot as long as he is Muslim, of its inshallah-fatalism and reliance on the jizyah of foreign aid; of its mistreatment, and marginalization, of non-Muslms and women; of its intellectual failures, which arise from that Total Explanation of the Universe, combined with a Complete Regulation of Daily Life, and above all that inculcated habit of mental submission, which allows Muslims to be mere technicians (computer engineers) but not scientists, expressive artistically only in architecture and calligraphy, the former based so much on the Byzantine models that were copied or appropriated; the latter -- well, if you would like a museum full of Qur'anic calligraphy to stimulate your mind's eye, welcome to it; even that is not a patch on the Chinese art of calligraphy. The Arabs and Muslims blend, as Islam forces them to blend, a kind of megalomaniacal world-view with a deep hidden insecurity, and quickness to flail out and balme the Infidels, because to admit that Islam itself was the problem -- well, better anything than that. But we are not Arabs and Muslims; we are Infidels, and our interest is in protecting ourselves, and in limiting the damage that Islam, and its carriers, can do to us.
That makes sense. Nothing else does.
Excellent article followed by thought provoking discussion. One point; as for our dependence on oil from our enemies and their accomplices (including Hugo Chavez); folks, this is a war for the survival of civilization. We should all be carrying around gasoline ration coupons. The extent to which our "dependence" on enemy oil is distorting our foreign and domestic policies is immoral, shameful, and self-destructive. I can't get that picture out of my mind of Dubya kissing that saudi pig.
Repeat after me:
Islam is the Enemy.
Fools. Do you REALLY think Condi Rice doesn't "understand" what was been going on in Israel?
SHE DOESN'T CARE, people. She works for the Saudis, just like her Boss.
Catherine, Yankme, you two are a disgrace to the men and women that have fought this war for NOTHING.
Catherine, the POST was about the CURRENT administration's dhimmitude. Why not talk about that? Or, to put it in your verncular:
WHY ONT TALK ABOUT TAHT???
OH MY??
READ IT ALL!!!! (no link)
How 'bout that SIXTH COLUMN?
The poster above ascribes more deviousness, based on a presumed loyalty to Saudi interests, of Condoleeza Rice and, of course, of her employer George Bush. He assumes she must know that Israel faces a relentless Jihad that has no end, and can have no end, and does not depend in the slightest for its lessening on territorial surrenders, whether done piecemeal, or all at once.
But if many Israelis cannot understand the nature of the siege they are under, why should one expect all Americans to do so? It was Sharon who started this idiotic "disengagement," and it is Sharon who will not put a stop to it, even though all of his assumptions -- about intolerable pressure from the E.U., for example (the E.U. as a political force is spent, and in Europe there is a growing understanding of what Islam means for Europe as well as for Israel -- but Sharon is too sluggish in mind to understand that, and to change course accordingly).
There are those who ascribe every American folly in the MIddle East to the fact of Arab money, and Saudi influence. No doubt there is plenty of that. Look at how J. B. Kelly, when he was at the Heritage Foundation round about 1980, had such difficulty getting heard. How many people in Washington have yet read his essay "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies?" or his book "Arabia, the Gulf, and the West?" How many instead prefer to believe that we have had a "strategic understanding" with Saudi Arabia, which was once, and could be again, our "ally" (Saudi Arabia is not now, and never has been, our "ally" and any "strategic understanding" has only been over clear threats to either Islam -- which allowed the Saudis to work with us in supplying the Afghani mujahedin -- or to Saudi Arabia itself, which is why the Saudis were so quietly enthusiastic about getting the Americnas to invade Iraq, and why Rumsfeld assured Prince Bandar that "you can take it to the bank" and why the Saudis were kept informed of everything even before members of NATO, or Australia, or Israel.
Saudi Arabia has never ever done the United States a "favor" that was not in Saudi Arabia's own interest -- or in the interest, more narrowly conceived, of the continued existence, and prosperity, of that desert tribe that deefeted the Jamal Shammar in 1920, the Al-Saud.
Yes, there is James Baker, and Fred Dutton, and Raymond Close, and all sorts of people who, directly or indirectly, have benefited from Saudi conections and Saudi largesse. But it is simple-minded to assume that only venality, and not the simplemindedness, of others (for example, the uneximained belief that we need not antagonize Saudi Arabia for fear that this will affect our access to, or the price of, Saudi oil-- it won't, and it won't), explains stupid policies.
Let's be wholesomely full of folk wisdom and proverb lore: You can't teach an old dog new tricks. Well, there are plenty of people wandering around Washington who, having understood Communism, seem unable to grasp a more menacing and also more complicated problem --that of Islam. The soothing belief that so many Muslims are "moderate" -- which simply means that they do not openly express their support for all of the teachings of Islam, and for all I know some of them do not support it, but neither I nor anyone else has some surefire way of telling, or of being sure that these views will not metamorphose into a more full-bodied Islam, the kind that for Infidels cannot be swallowed, not least because that full-bodied Islam does something to their trusting throats -- is not a substitute for study of the actual texts of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira that form the basis not only of khutbas, but of all of the belief-system that regulates so much of Muslim life, and Muslim thought, and with that study, discussions with defectors from Islam, and non-Muslims who have grown up in Muslim societies, and consultation with Kelly, and Bat Ye'or, and Ibn Warraq, and a hundred others (including some young officers in the American armed forces who are, on their own, not swallowing the official line and furiously studying Islam, and coming to conclusions not dissimilar from those posted here -- they are the hope of the army, the marines, the air force, the navy).
Condoleeza Rice is not in the pay of the Saudis. Nor is this Bush. But a great many of the "experts" running around Washington still can't allow themselves to understand Islam, still wnat to believe, if not Esposito, at least Bernard Lewis with his "democracy" prescriptions (if you want a good example of how Lewis flatly contradicts himself, see his 1993 essay in which he describes the permanent clash of Islam and democracy -- the very suggestion he now attacks and deplores). And there are all sorts of thrusting Young Conservatives, young men or not so young men on the make, who fresh from defending to the death Bush against Kerry, will not or cannot do other than support the Administration, to the ridiculous hilt, without considering the much larger question of this world-wide Jihad. They deserve to be tossed off their shows, tossed out of their editorial officesw -- but it won't happen. They will, possibly, quietly, hoping not to be observed, change their stated positions to accord with that fountain of all wisdom in these matters, Jihad Watch -- but it will have to be done the way Tom Friedman is trying to do it, slowly, awkwardly, without losing face or admitting he has been comppletely wrong about the MIddle East, the one subject he supposedly knows about, and instead of charging $45,000 per lecture, he ought to be charging $45 -- or perhaps be charged that amount, by any audience foolish enough to have to endure him.
After reading these two posts from Jihad Watch (here and here) on the new Iraqi Shari'a based constitution, I can now make a prediction.
This is it. This is the turning point in the war on terror. The administration had in right when we attacked Iraq. They had it completely wrong when they decided to frame the GWOT as a fight against radical Islam and ignored the historical and cultural differences between Islam and the West that will ultimately define this war for what it truly is - a clash of civilizations. The seed of peace and freedom will never germinate until our actions against the radical elements of Islam reach such a level of brutality that it will be clear in the minds of moderate Muslims everywhere which worldview dominates. Only then will they have the courage to reformulate their societies free from theocratic and radical tendencies. In this, we have failed.
The weakness with the administration's approach to protecting America does not stop here. That nothing substantive has been done about Iran's nuclear ambitions, or Iran and Syria's contribution to the insurgency in Iraq, can all be traced to a weak and myopic belief that it is "all about the radicals". Frightened by our own shadows and overly concerned with appearances, we are dangerously close to allowing these same radicals access to the infrastructure necessary to develop nuclear weapons.
It is this same poor leadership and lack of understanding that drives the administration's failed policy on immigration - a policy best symbolized by a President whose own impotency on the manner was manifest to all when he dared to call concerned citizens "vigilantes" - men and women who took it upon themselves to do a job that he is unwilling or incapable of doing.
Whether or not we will consider the sacrifice of American soldiers in Iraq to have been squandered will depend on the leadership the President shows in the coming months. I for one will not be fooled by the self-congratulatory pat on the back of politicians who know they have failed and are more concerned with legacies and party politics. Iraq will vote, and some will call this act of democracy a success - but if the result is a theocracy then our policies have failed. Dress it up how you want and spin it until the cows come home. A failure is a failure is a failure.
Both parties are to blame - the Democrats because they will always be weakened by their ridiculous yearning for understanding and dialogue with an enemy that scoffs at such things, and the Republicans because they are too frightened to challenge the monolith of political correctness.
More here
"Iraq will vote, and some will call this act of democracy a success - but if the result is a theocracy then our policies have failed. "
Recall that they only voted after Sistani told them to. Any idea what the turnout would have been had he told them to stay away from the polls?
"Both parties are to blame - the Democrats because they will always be weakened by their ridiculous yearning for understanding and dialogue with an enemy that scoffs at such things, and the Republicans because they are too frightened to challenge the monolith of political correctness."
-- from a posting above
And blame the "experts" too. With C.I.A. intelligence agents at the level of Scheuer (a schoolboy, with a schoolboy's understanding of Islam, and his worldview vitiated by his peculiar views on assorted Jewish cabals here and there), with a former National Security Couynci "senior director for MIddle Eastern affairs" who continues to suggest (see Flynt Leverett, "Ambassador with Portfolio" in The New Duranty Times, July 26, 2005) that we should work to "combat terrorism" jointly with the Saudis and should reach out to the new Ambassador Prince Turki, and who repeats phrases about "access to oil" and the oil market that show he hasn't the faintest idea how the world oil markets work, or what the role of Saudi Arabia has been in oil-pricing over the past 1/3 of a century and even believes that the "war on terrorism" is "at its heart, a war on Al Qaeda." Naturally such a person has no conception of why the islamization of Europe, even if it occurred in a completely peaceful fashion, would be a mortal threat to the United States and to Western civilization --- well, when such a person talks about reestablishing our "strategic partnership" with Saudi Arabia (by which one assumes he is referring to the fact that the Saudis wanted to help, for their own Muslim reasons, defeat the Russians in Afghanistan, and for their own Wahhabi and Al-Saud reasons, wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein and were thrilled to have the Americans do it, just as twenty years ago they were happy to help, with the Americans, resupply Saddam Hussein with American tanks, their Saudi markings painted over by, among others, an acquaintance of mine). And Flynt Leverett is a great believer in appeasement of the Saudis, which he thinks is necessary. It is contained in a sentence toward the end of his Op/Ed piece: "[In order to win over Prince Turki to join the fight against terrorism] the United States cwould need to be prepared for a seriouis conversation about modifying its policies toward regional security, stability and peacekeepin g in Iraq and the Arab-Israeli peace process to recognize Saudi interests and initiatives -- a conversation that Prince Tuirki could facilitiate." This is the mixture as beofre -- more of the same appeasement that has been tried for the past 33 1/3 years, when a different understanding of Saudi Arabia, the kind that J. B. Kelly set out so brilliantly in his detailed "Arabia, the Gulf, and the West," in which we never put in place taxes, ever-increasing, on gasoline at the pump, or on oil, in a way that would have allowed us to recapture oligopolistic rents (perhaps several trillion dollars) because we were all so busy with the likes of Western hirelings (lawyers, public relations agents, businessmen who wanted to sell arms and others who did not want to diminish those petrodollars because they derived such individual profit from "recycling" them, diplomats, intelligence agents who lacked intellignece, and the likes, it seems, of this Flynt Leverett.
And this Flynt Leverett, who let me remind you is the "former senior director for Middle Eastern Affairs at the National Security Council," ends his Op/Ed with this remarkable paragraph:
"The 60-year partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia was not, as President Bush alluded [sic] in a 2003 speech, a mistake. It was, and remains, an indispensable element in America's quest for a mroe stable regional and international order. The administration should take advantage of Prince Turki's presence in Washington to give that partnership the attention it deserves."
What deserves attention is how someone capable of thinking that there has been a "partnership," and not a consistent snookering, of Infidel America by malevolently anti-Infidel Saudi Arabia, was ever allowed near a government office, much less allowed to become the "senior director for MIddle Easter affairs at the National Security Council." I can hear Kelly's scorn and bitter laughter now. With this kind of "expert" helping direct or form our policy toward Saudi Arabia, we are lost.
The Flynt Levereetts of this world, who so misunderstand Saudi Arabia and the nature of that hollow "parntership," do not realize that the Saudis have never been our allies. Sometimes there has been cooperation when, for their own interests, they wished to back Iraq against Shi'a Iran, or the muhajedin against the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, or were happy to see the Americans remove Saddam Hussein. But that is very different from saying we have been partners. In Afghanistan, once the Soviets had gone, the Saudis backed to the hilt (and so did the U.A.E.) the regime of the Taliban, and the Taliban, in turn, gave aid and comfort and refuge to the Saudi-financed Al Qaeda forces of Bin Laden. While the Saudis dislike the Shi'a of Iran, they do not dislike them because they find the Islamic Republic of Iran hideous in its imposition of the Sharia and in its totalitarianism, but merely because the Iranian Shi'a and the Saudi Wahhabi are mortal enemies. If the Saudis were happy to support the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, it is not becuase he massacred nearly 200,000 Kurds -- the Saudis saw nothing wrong with that, and never mentioned it. Nor did they care about his massacres of teh Shi'a. No, all they cared about was Saddam Hussein's threat to them. It is the same with terrorism. They are indifferent to terrorism, except that which is directed at them, and their interests. Why should they care if Al Qaeda, or Hezbollah, or Jaish-e-Mohammad or Laskar Jihad, attacks Hindus, Jews, Christians? Why? It would violate everything the Saudis so deeply believe in, even if some smoothy, with liquid brown eyes, and a soft voice (is Prince Turki one of those, one of those whose daggers-and-dishdasha war dances of triuimph are only behind the scenes?) assures us, or some Barbara-Wawa level of interviewer, otherwise.
There is no need to appease Saudi Arabia on anything. In fact, we should be letting them know that the continued existence of the House of Al-Saud, or of its control over the Al-Hasa Province, and its continued belief that the Americans will protect them, can no longer be taken for granted. And one test will be whether the Saudi funding for mosques, madrasas, Da'wa of every kind (look at the Freedom House report on Saudi anti-Infidel hate literature all over American mosques) ends. Because if it doesn't end, we can regard Saudi Arabia as the declared enemy, and begin to seize its illiquid assets. Such talk will get their attention. It is the only way, in fact, to get their attention.
Will someone in the Pentagon please bring J. B. Kelly over for a little walk down Memory Lane, about Sheik Zayed, and Pachachi in Abu Dhabi back in 1971, and why Oman and Sultan Qaboos are not getting their due, and why Saudi Arabia is by far the most malevolent state in the entire area -- what would it cost? A plane ticket? A hotel room for a week? Bring him over. If someone in the Pentagon sufficiently high up is reading this, you know what to do.And while yoyy're at it, how about having Bat Ye'or come in to discuss the islamization of Europe -- or, Eurabia? Another ticket, another hotel room. Last I looked, the Pentagon was spending half-a-trillion, or has it gone up? Can you afford two tickets, and two hotel rooms, possibly with a Saturday-overnight so that you can save a little on the Pentagon budget, for more rah-rah propaganda about the Democracy Is On the March stuff? C'mon Pentagon, you can take a moment from your busy busy schedule to listen to J. B. Kelly and Bat Ye'or in the flesh -- can't you?
Under this new Iraqi constitution (I realize it's in draft form but some basics will not change and I'll bet this is one), who, besides Jews and Israelis, cannot have Iraqi citizenship, dual citizenship or regain lost Iraqi citizenship? Any answers?
kj
WHAT DO YOU CALL THIS??
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/6/19/180118.shtml
Chinese Space Espionage
Charles R. Smith
Monday, June 20, 2005
Hughes Network Systems Barred by State Dept.
SEE KNEW YOU DON'T GO TO THE LINKS AND READ THE WHOLE THING??
REMEMBER HISTORY MATTERS??
IF YOU WENT TO THE FRIST LINK AND READ THE STORY THEN READ THE 2ND STORY YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT WAS IN THE MIX BUT NO YOU AS ALWAYS DON'T DO YOUR HOME WORK?????
COME ON DON'T LET SOME LITTLE REDNECK GAL WHO LOVES HER SHORT SKIRTS AND CAN'T SPELL BEAT YOU???
SHAME SHAME SHAME??
LIKE THE BIG GUYS ON THE TARGET RANGE SAW A SHORT SKIRT AND THOUGHT WOW I'M GOING TO SHOW OFF BUT WAS NERVOUS WHEN THIS GAL IN A SHORT SKIRT PULLED HER TARGET AND LOOKED AT THEIR'S TO SEE ALL THEIR MISSES AND ALL MY HIT'S
WON'T TALK ABOUT WHERE MY AIM WAS??
Part of the American Tribe
Sqirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM GIVE THE WORLD STRENGTH TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THEM LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN
PS
kj
SHAME YOU MAKE YOURSELF LOOK BAD DO YOUR HOME WORK!!
THERE IS ONLY ONE SIDE IT IS THE AMERICAN SIDE IF YOUR AN AMERICAN WE CAN HAVE THIS FIGHT IN ANOTHER 4 YEARS BUT NOW IT IS TIME TO PLAY TOGETHER BECAUSE THEIR ARE REAL MONSTERS IN THE WORLD???
PSS
HOW MANY GOATS WERE OFFERED FOR CHELSE HAND IN MARRAGE??
last i heard it was 20?? and some cows too??
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/27/101320.shtml
Wednesday, July 27, 2005 10:11 a.m. EDT
ACLU Sues to Have Quran Approved for Use in Court Oaths
When witnesses are sworn in, the religious texts of non-Christian faiths should be allowed in North Carolina courts along with the Bible, the ACLU argued in lawsuit filed against the state Tuesday.
Denying the use of other religious texts would violate the Constitution by favoring Christianity over other religions, the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina said in its lawsuit.
Hugh
You ask WHY??
Why should they care if Al Qaeda, or Hezbollah, or Jaish-e-Mohammad or Laskar Jihad, attacks Hindus, Jews, Christians? Why? It would violate everything the Saudis so deeply believe in, even if some smoothy, with liquid brown eyes, and a soft voice (is Prince Turki one of those, one of those whose daggers-and-dishdasha war dances of triuimph are only behind the scenes?)
I will tell you because they will fear the USA we do get a little pissed once and a while??
Like T.Tan. Said we will do a little woop ass??
On this thing about Iraq it aint over yet the People have to Vote and will they vote for islam yea you bet??
What will we the USA do will we help them rebuild I think not??
Will we leave our goods for them to give to the iranis HELL NO WE WILL DO LIKE EVERY DOWNED HELO OR TRUCK IF WE DON'T HAVE IT WE DESTROY IT!!!!!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
PS
We got what we came for!!
http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/04/07/53936299.shtml?Element_ID=53936299
Wamp: Oak Ridge plays 'key role' in removing Iraqi nuclear material
Associate Press
OAK RIDGE, Tenn. -- Experts from the Energy Department's nuclear weapons and research complex in Tennessee played a ''key role'' in removing radioactive material from Iraq that could be used in a dirty bomb, U.S. Rep. Zach Wamp said.
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced in Washington on Tuesday that DOE and the Defense Department removed 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and about 1,000 highly radioactive sources from a former nuclear research facility in Iraq.
The material was flown to the United States on June 23.
The uranium will be stored temporarily at a ''secure DOE facility'' and the radioactive sources were taken to a ''DOE laboratory'' for further examination, DOE said.
Catherine..you make my brain hurt.....
God! This is a fascinating, stimulating (and terrifying) discussion, any way you look at it.
And it shows the value of this internet discussion-type blog where we can read & discuss & THINK about this world-changing issue.
My compliments to Jihad Watch, Robert, Hugh, and the other posters. I'm mostly lurking, learning and worrying about this "clash of civilizations"--including the new Iraqi "government" and what sort of Islamic Evil it might turn out to be.
Onward, NON-Muslim Soldiers...
One has to wonder: WOULDN'T IT BE NICE if there was a way to reach the **women** in Iraq, now that they have the vote (before the vote is taken away from them AGAIN.)
The WOMEN could vote for the closest thing to a REAL democratic candidate. It's entirely, completely, unarguably, TOTALLY in their best interests to do so.
A "Radio Free Iraq" for WOMEN only.
Yeah, I know. I'm dreaming. Ugh.
So here's the image: Several Iraqi women gather in each house, quietly circling the radio and leaning in to listen and dream of a world where they could drive a car, learn to read, marry whom they choose (or not marry at all), send their daughters to school, participate in government, learn about the world outside, make changes within their own culture, and begin to be regarded as half of humanity instead of cattle to be owned & tortured. And then they could VOTE...
And these meetings of women could start happening while the men are out sharpening their swords, shouting "Allah Ahkbar," knocking thier collective heads on the floor of some hellish mosque and raptly listening to the fanatical imam spewing hate, violence, slavery, adulation for Mohammad and the intense desire to continue reeling backward into the 5th century???
I must be off my meds...
Hugh says, "Let's be wholesomely full of folk wisdom and proverb lore."
here's a couple maybe appropos:
Distance lends enchantment to the view.
-Thomas Campbell
Dogs bark but the caravan moves on.
-Arab proverb
Don't look where you fell but where you slipped.
-Liberian
A false friend and a shadow attend only while the sun shines.
-Ben Franklin
From the BBC news http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4720083.stm
Iraq's interim Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari has called for US troops to leave the country soon, but added no timetable had been set for withdrawal.
Mr Jaafari was speaking in a joint press conference with US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who is in Baghdad on a surprise visit.
It looks like the Americans are withdrawing at Jaafari's request! Or rather now that the US have told him they are going and his pleas for them to stay have been ignored, he demands it, it's his will and his victory (maybe he needs to cuddle up with the jihadis a little closer once he has less muscle)!
On another more serioius point, Hugh 's posting seems to miss one crucial element. The mullahocracy will not collapse. Such a US policy could also turn to their advantage as well, it could end up bolstering their regime. Hugh seems to be measuring sucess for muslims in our terms. Who says that the IRoI is a 'failed' state? - islamicists would be proud of it. Proud that it produces an ever increasing pool of cannon fodder for the jihad (if these were ever let loose, the bomb might prevent any Naipaulian type response). Proud that it maintains poverty, hence islam. Proud that the regime is able to survive despite widespread hatred of it by its own people (where in the Qu'ran or Hadith and Sira did it ever suggest that the people should love islam? - note the fates of Mo and the immediate caliphs). If the IRoI is ever threatened with serious unrest then the islamicists will act - decisively. It doesn't take no more than say 15-20% fo the population to support the islamicist agenda, that core can never give up islam no matter how desperate the situation gets. I am afraid that one has to accept that the logic of terror historically works. The brown shirts of islam are from the grass roots, they are schooled first at home and the wider community, for communism & fascism it's in state schools, there is a vast difference. Islam may be weakened by Mr. Fitzgerald's prescription but not destroyed. It will survive and then who knows in another three to four hundred years when we have all forgotten again?
I did not realize that if my prescription offers only a sure way to weaken the appeal and strenght of Islam, among both Infidels and Muslims, it should still be dismissed, or made light of, because "it will survive and then who knows in another three to four hundred years when we have all forgotten again?" as the poster above predicts.
Somehow, if my prescriptions are followed, if all we will have to worry about is what happens in "three to four hundred years when we have all forgotten again," then I will certainly have earned the Nobel Prizes for Peace, Literature, Good Behavior, Greatest Improvement, and Most Civilized, and I want that cash on the barrelhead right now.
Cher Hugh,
I think you should also be a shoo-in for the Nobels for Most Likely to Succeed and Most Popular.
Yrs
Robert
Catherine..you make my brain hurt.....
Posted by: pocadon at July 27, 2005 03:57 PM
Yea but I'm really cute!!
http://www.beecy.net/frank/
Hugh
thought you needed that? Think this rock is rolling down the hill so fast and can't be stopped.
Think about some islamic terrorist shooting his wad to soon??
this is good for us the word is going out and they aint going to like what they get?
a little some thing that should make you happy and sad we tried to save the Iraqi people but they have elected another monster what can we do they have elected someone who sold them out to iran now they can change this[BY ELECTING SOME ONE WHO WANTS FREEDOM] or start the suffering all over again??
Hope they do the right thing and elect some one who wantS Iraq to be Free but we will not stay if the people don't want us to??
If the Iraqi people reelect jaffi we will not stay....
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161944,00.html
Iraq, Iran Plan Military Cooperation
Friday, July 08, 2005
Last year, former Iraqi Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan (search) called Iran his country's "first enemy," accusing it of supporting Iraqi insurgents and allowing them to freely cross the border.
Tehran says it is trying to control the border, but at nearly 1,000 miles long, the frontier is hard to police.
On Wednesday, the first day of al-Duleimi's visit, Shamkhani demanded the Iraqi government push for the removal of American forces on its soil, saying their presence serves Israel's interest.
"Iran demands that the Iraqi government make a decision on this case," Shamkhani said. "The government and people of Iraq should not allow foreign forces to consolidate their control in the area with the aim of providing security for Israel.
WE WILL NOT BE BLACKMAILED WILL THE IRAQI PEOPLE WANT FREEDOM OR TO GO BACK TO SLAVORY??
ALL WE CAN DO IS WAIT AND SEE??
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163810,00.html
AP: Iran Achieves Solid Fuel Technology
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran said for the first time Wednesday it has fully developed solid-fuel technology in producing missiles, a major breakthrough that increases the accuracy of missiles hitting targets.
SO THEY SAY LOOKS LIKE CHINA HAS BEEN VERY NAUGHTY???
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163775,00.html
Iraq Insurgents Claim Kidnapped Algerians Dead
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
At a joint news conference with Rumsfeld, Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari said the time has arrived to plan a coordinated transition from American to Iraqi military control throughout the country.
IF THE IRAQI PEOPLE DON'T WANT FREEDOM WE WILL NOT FORCE THEM??
Asked how soon a U.S. withdrawal should happen, he said no exact timetable had been set. "But we confirm and we desire speed in that regard," he said, speaking through a translator
BUT WE WILL NOT DIE FOR THEM EITHER NOTHING TO FIGHT FOR IF THEY DON'T WANT FREEDOM!!
Speaking earlier with U.S. reporters traveling with Rumsfeld, Gen. George Casey, the top American commander in Iraq, said he believed a U.S. troop withdrawal could begin by spring 2006 if progress continues on the political front and if the insurgency does not expand.
WE WILL NOT WASTE ANY MORE TIME IF THEY WANT IRAN TO RUN THEIR COUNTRY WELL SO BE IT??
WE DON'T NEED THE OIL IT IS ALL UP TO THE IRAQI PEOPLE AND HOW THEY VOTE??
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163786,00.html
Coal, Nuke Power and Corn Win in Energy Bill
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
WASHINGTON — A wide-ranging energy bill expected to move through Congress this week includes more than $8.5 billion in tax incentives and billions of dollars more in loan guarantees and other subsidies for the electricity, coal, nuclear, natural gas and oil industries.
Efficiency and conservation programs would get about $1.3 billion of the more than $14.1 billion in total tax breaks over 10 years, according to lawmakers who have been briefed on the legislation worked out in negotiations between the House and Senate. About $3 billion in tax breaks would go for renewable energy source, mostly to subsidize wind energy.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (search) of New Mexico, the ranking Senate Democrat participating in the energy negotiations, bemoaned the reduction in support for energy efficiency and conservation programs in the tax package. The Senate had approved more than $3 billion in tax breaks.
But he said he will support the bill when it comes before the Senate, possibly as early as Thursday. The House could take up the measure late Wednesday.
"Given the makeup of the Congress today and given the policies of the administration this is as good a bill as I think we could hope to get," Bingaman said in a conference call with reporters.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who led Senate negotiators, said the measure would help diversify the nation's energy portfolio by spurring development of new technologies to help put in service the next generation of nuclear reactors and find ways to burn coal with less pollution.
DAMN RIGHT AND REMEMBER THINGS TAKE TIME BUT WE ARE AMERICANS AND WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHUVE WE GET MOVING FAST!!
"We mandate more conservation and higher efficiency," said Domenici, citing among other things new efficiency standards for 14 commercial appliances such as large refrigerators and cooling systems.
The nuclear industry, corn farmers and the coal industry did particularly well with the legislation.
The bill would require refiners to double the use of ethanol (search), mostly from corn, as an additive to gasoline to 7.5 billion gallons a year by 2012.
I KNOW SOME WILL SAY THIS IS A FARM BILL BUT IF WE ARE TO CHANGE OUR SYSTEM WE HAVE TO WINE OFF AND MOST CARS ALREADY WILL TAKE THE MIX!!!
REMEMBER ROME WAS NOT BUILT IN A DAY??
HELL WE ALREADY HAVE STOVES THAT USE CORN AND THINGS LIKE CHERRY PITS TO HEAT PEOPLES HOMES AND I HEAR INDIA IS USEING SOME SOLAR TO COOL THEIR HOMES??
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163861,00.html
New U.S. Ambassador to Israel: End the Violence
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
NOT TO SURE ABOUT THIS GUY BUT DO LIKE THIS??
Touting the Bush administration's strong support for Israel, Jones said the "special relationship between the United States and Israel is strong, perhaps stronger now than at any time in the past."
With Israel due to relinquish Gaza and part of the West Bank beginning in three weeks, Jones said "the administration's commitment to this effort is steadfast."
HUMM??
Sen. George Allen, R-Va., offering lukewarm praise of Abbas at the hearing, said Abbas was "clearly better than Yasser Arafat (search), that corrupt, reptilian terrorist."
WHAT IS THAT TRUST BUT VERA-FIE??
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163753,00.html
Extra Aid for Palestinians Comes With Strings
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
WHO SAYS WE DON’T KNOW HOW TO PLAY THE GAME??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO STAY THE COURSE TO VICTORY TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM GIVE THE WORLD COURAGE TO STAND UP AND FIGHT THIS EVIL LET NOT THE WORLD BE DECEIVED BY THEM AMEN
In three to four hundred years the oil and oil wealth will have run out. The middle east will again have no wealth, therefore no power. Except demographics of course.
Hugh, you have my vote....As always.
Mr. Fitzgerald's prescription but not destroyed. It will survive and then who knows in another three to four hundred years when we have all forgotten again?
Posted by: jv at July 27, 2005 07:54 PM
IS A FOOL AND WE AINT GOT THAT MUCH TIME??
MAYBE 20 YEARS AT THE MOST. MOST OF EUROPE IS LOST IF THEY DON'T START ARMING THEIR PEOPLE RIGHT NOW!!!
THERE ARE A FEW COUNTRIES WHO CAN HOLD OUT BUT THE LIBS HAVE TAKEN THE PRIDE OF THE USA WE NEED TO SEE PEOPLE IN THE STREETS OF EUROPE IN SUPPORT OF THE USA OR EUROPE WILL BE LOST??
NO ANDS IFS OR BUTS??
SAD BUT TRUE??
YOU NEED THE BULL RIDERS AND FIGHTERS NOT LAWYERS??
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
GOD BLESS THE USA AND HER FIGHTING FORCES AND ALL WHO FIGHT WITH HER GIVE THEM STRENGTH, WISDOM, SIGHT, AND COURAGE TO DESTROY ALL ISLAMIC TERRORIST AND ALL WHO SUPPORT THEM AMEN
PS
Hugh is some what right but we need to get medeviel on the enemy....
"it should still be dismissed, or made light of"
Hugh,
Who said I was dismissing or making light of, you just can't recognize a complemment when it's gifted to you.
What exactly are you looking for Mr. Fitzgerald?
Out and out sycophants?
JV