In Human Events today I discuss the reactions to Bhutto's death from Hillary and Obama (links in the original):
Benazir Bhutto has been murdered and the Democrats, stampeding to the microphones to make a statement about her death, have shown themselves as clueless as ever. Quickly after the assassination, a top foreign policy adviser for Barack Obama, Susan Rice, contrasted her boss’s approach with that of Hillary Clinton: “Sen. Clinton’s view,” she asserted, “has been closer to Bush’s, which is to see Musharraf as the linchpin but democracy as something that is desirable, but not necessarily essential to our security interests. Whereas Obama feels that democracy and human rights in the context of Pakistan are essential to our security.”Hillary’s campaign reacted quickly to show that they could be just as Carteresque as Obama, if not more so. Lee Feinstein, Hillary’s foreign policy adviser, took issue with the claim that his candidate supported Musharraf. He wrote indignantly: “Sen. Obama’s continuing and deliberate efforts to politicize this tragedy by blaming Sen. Clinton for it are unbecoming someone seeking the office of the presidency. Sen. Clinton has opposed the Bush administration’s coddling of President Musharraf and stood steadfastly with the people of Pakistan in their struggle for democracy and against terrorism.”
Obama himself said in his statement on Bhutto’s death: “We have to make sure that we are clear as Americans that we stand for Democracy.” Clinton, for her part, declared: “I grieve for the people of Pakistan who deserve to have an opportunity to vote for leaders of their choosing….I certainly will do anything I can to support the continuing efforts to democratize a very important and critical nation to the future of that region and the world.” So evidently both Clinton and Obama agree that Musharraf is odious, and Obama offers advocacy of “democracy and human rights” as an alternative.Neither candidate seems to have any awareness of the harsh reality that has led Bush to back Musharraf's regime for so long, despite its authoritarian character and its spotty commitment to counterjihad efforts. With a September poll showing Osama bin Laden enjoying the approval of 46% of Pakistanis, with 66% believing that the United States is engaged in a war against Islam and 43% approving of Al-Qaeda, it is entirely within the realm of possibility that free democratic elections in Pakistan would lead to the election of a pro-Osama, pro-jihad government -- just as elections in the Palestinian Authority led the jihad terror group Hamas to power. Musharraf is indeed odious, but Bush has calculated that he is better than the jihadist alternative. And indeed, his regime’s reputation may be worse than the reality: David Frum has noted that the Musharraf regime has “presided over important economic reforms and impressive economic growth: an average of 6.5% per year since 2003. The World Bank reports that under Musharraf, poverty in Pakistan has declined ‘significantly.’”
In light of all this, to posit “democracy and human rights” as the solution to all of Pakistan’s ills is just as short-sighted as Jimmy Carter was in the 1970s, when he abandoned the Shah of Iran – not least because of his poor human rights record -- and allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini, whom Carter praised as a fellow “man of faith,” to take power in Iran. The result? According to Steven F. Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute in his book The Real Jimmy Carter, “Khomeini’s regime executed more people in its first year in power than the shah’s SAVAK had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years.” A democratically elected regime in Pakistan would likely behave the same way, dwarfing Musharraf in brutality.
There are no good or easy choices in Pakistan, a land that provides yet another illustration of the limitations of seeing democracy as the cure to all the ills of the Islamic world. But it is unfortunate that Clinton and Obama, in this as in other issues also, seem determined to reapply solutions that have been tried and failed in the past. One of the great weaknesses of the free and bipartisan American system is a lack of continuity in policy, and a lack of historical sense compounded by a tendency to allow partisanship to obscure historical lessons. Carter was an incompetent and a failure. Simply because he was a Democrat, must the Democratic candidates subject us to more Carterism?
Advocates of democracy and human rights in both parties should bear in mind that the strict Islamic law that jihadists want to implement in Pakistan and elsewhere denies human rights to women and non-Muslims in a thorough and draconian way that is worthy of the most authoritarian of regimes. Rather than abandon the women and Christians of Pakistan to its tender mercies, perhaps it is time for some out-of-the-box thinking. Will a candidate dare to confront the jihad and Islamic supremacism as such? Or will it forever be the Enemy That Must Not Be Named?
Islamic countries, if given the vote and the illusion of 'democracy', will vote one man, one vote, one time: for Islam.
How's that supposed to help us? When Bush went into Iraq, he said the US is not into 'nationbuilding', now, 5 years later and America's taxpayers a trillion dolars poorer, nearly 4000 dead Americans, he still wants to bring the- Bush-'light to the Muslim nations', what could possibly be dumber than that?
But don't call me a pessimist just yet. Democracy, as poorly understood and as miserably implemented as in the US, is not, cannot be the answer to all things. A benevolent dictatorship (Singapore comes to mind) is not necessarily a bad thing.
But the one size fits all approach is wrong. Totally.
Appeasement is also wrong, as we can see here:
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/01/02/dutch-dhimmis-plead-for-tolerance/
You end your article with the phrase "The Enemy That Must Not be Named."
I have several times at Jihadwatch put up a different version, one that I suggest might do the trick better, and be rememebered more easily.
Here's the posting in which it first occurs (in the first sentence of the second paragraph). I've been waiting for it to be picked up, but since it hasn't been I will try yet again, by re-posting, to start the verbal ball rolling. It has worked before:
"Is it possible that feelings that cannot be expressed, towards the belief-system, and those adherents of that belief-system, causing such physical, intellectual, and moral disruption, upheaval, and sense of menace within European societies and to European peoples, out of fear, are instead being diverted, without recognition of what is happening, toward much easier and more obvious and more conventional targets, the Catholic Church in this case and, wherever possible, the state of Israel and, of course, that whipping-boy 9with or without the gaucheries of the current President, the government and people of the United States0, which more than once has helped to rescue Europe, and may (or may not) do so again.
"But it's not antisemitic to criticize Israel" claim the most transparent of vicious critics, and they are quite wrong, because if that criticism consistently omits the legal, moral, and historic claims of the Jews, leaves out the nature of Islam and hence the nature of Arab and Muslim opposition to Israel, accepts without a moment's hesitation the most obvious fabrications, as the "Palestinian people." And as for the bad press of the United States, a country whose generosity is matched only by the naivety with which it continues to accept the role the world has apparently assigned to it -- responsible for rescuing people after every disaster, no matter how vicious those people or the country they come from, protecting Europe with the gigantic sums still devoted to defense, even thought the average European works far less, and has a much higher real standard of living, than do long-suffering Americans (and not least those Americans who supply the troops, both in the regular army, and in the Reserves and the National Guard). The Western world should be falling all over itself thanking Israel for so long guarding the Holy Land, keeping it out of Muslim control, and for being the lightning rod of the Jihad for so long -- and doing everything it can to support Israel. And that same Western world may deplore the naivete of American policy, but it should not for one second criticize anything the Americans have done in, say, Iraq or Afghanistan on moral grounds. And all those in Europe who want it to remain part of the West should be declaring their solidarity with the United States and Americans, in every conceivable way.
Meanwhile, don't expect any criticism of Islam and The Hate Whose Name We Dare Not Speak. Fear is all over. Fear of frothing members of fanatical mobs; fear of the use of the "wealth" weapon by the recipients of oil revenues, who did nothing to deserve that wealth but are good at employing it, whether through boycotts (the denial of custom) or bribery (Western hirelings of Arabs), fear of others who, preaching a belief-system full of inculcated hate and hysteria directed at all Infidels, working quietly, with outward smiles and calls for "dialogue" and promises of something called, but never defined, as "European Islam" (and what would that "European Islam" be like? What Qur'an would it use, and what version of the Hadith?, and how would the Muhammad of "European Islam" differ from the one we have before us today, animating the minds of hundreds of millions, who find him uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil?). Why bother to mock those who threaten death world-wide to every Dane, and by implication to all those within the Lands of the Infidels who would dare to publish cartoons that might, in just the teenist-tiny way, make reference to the possibilities of violence that at least some might detect in -- Islam?
[Posted by: Hugh at March 14, 2006 10:18 AM]
RS: Will a candidate dare to confront the jihad and Islamic supremacism as such? Or will it forever be the Enemy That Must Not Be Named?
#1. I doubt it, every single one of them knows who Ibrahim Hooper is, and don't want their agendas bogged down fending off attacks from CAIR etc.
Besides everyone running in both camps is an elitist, except maybe for Paul, elitism is it's own brand of supremacism. That alone could cause conflict. Islam will never share it's supremacy with infidels...It's not even possible.
Islam and globalism, have the same goal, globalism.
But only one can reign supreme.
2. I don't think identifying the real enemy will take forever, but if someone of authority does not start doing that soon, we may all be chanting 'Allahu Akbar', by the time they get around to it...
It's frightening to think that people like Obama ans Clinton, in all their childishness, have a shot at leading this nation.
They are both cut from the same cloth as Jimmy Carter, and both would would lead us back into that great twilight zone Carter had us in for four years.
This country is too great and important to make policy based fantasies.
We need leadership that sees the world as it is, and isn't afraid to say so.
The reason that democraties flower in the West is due to the long history (and tradition) of democracy in the West. From Ancient Greece to Iceland to Great Britian and the United States, democratic thought has been a part of our culture for over two thousand years.
Where are democratic traditions in the Middle East?
Where are democratic traditions in Islam?
Muhammed made no preparations for successors and the history of Islam has been full of powerful, ruthless men wresting control of the faith from other powerful, ruthless men. Bin Laden is just the latest of this group.
Just as we assume that democracy is THE form of government, the victims of Islam (that is, the followers of Islam) assume that tyranny is THE form of government. It says so in the Qur'an, so why would anyone question it?
An individual is never free, unless they free themselves.
We cannot foist freedom on those who do not desire it.
Meanwhile, don't expect any criticism of Islam and The Hate Whose Name We Dare Not Speak. Fear is all over.
by Hugh
Unless we find our courage and speak the truth, we will get exactly what we deserve. We think keeping quiet will placate those whose only goal is world domination. We are wrong. Our inaction only emboldens them.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.
Blaise Pascal
If the Democrats are clueless, how would we categorize the Bush administration? As Bill Clinton was said to be our "first Black president", is George Bush our "first Islamist president?"
The events that have resulted from both Bush's policies and the actions of citizens in majority Muslim nations have ushered in several Isamist regimes.
Unfortunately this is an inherent problem with our system. No cohesive policy. Old "solutions" are recycled, given a little paint and put forth as "new" and "unique." We are held back in this nation because too many politicians think they are sooooo much smarter than their predecessors that if They had been in office it would have worked. Hence why the abomination known as socialism still hanging around in this nation. As well as the continued attempt by every administration to bring "peace" to the ME. Of course now Congress thinks it can affect peace simply by traveling to Syria and what not. It is all symptomatic of what is wrong in this nation's political body. An inherent refusal to learn from history.
Thinking about this "Democracy" thing, ever notice how in ancient Greece, the past two hundred+ years of the US, elsewhere in the West, that "Democracy" was not made available to everyone all at once. That it was a gradual introduction of the right to vote (I know rascism and sexism) for all citizens that separates the Western tradition of democracy from what is being fostered on countries nowadays. There was an evolution in the political processes of this country that is lacking in places like Pakistan, Iran, Gaza, etc and is lost upon our so-called leaders. Even assuming (an awful lot) that Islam could be compatible with Democracy, we cannot expect still feudal countries like Pakistan to suddenly become USA (Islam light)style democracies overnight. Why isn't our so-called media pointing this out? Why aren't our so-called leaders pointing this out?
I simply cannot get over the stupidity and short-sightedness of the so-called "leaders" of this country.
If Obama gets elected I will know for sure we're headed in one direction - down.
It is undeniable that part of Pakistan's economic success comes from the fact that the US government has infused it with billions of dollars. American money has had a stabilizing effect on one of the world's most turbulent regions. President Musharraf has ridden roughshod over Pakistan's constitution, institutions and the civil liberties of it's citizens. The fact that he's done so to keep the place from exploding seems to escape most American politicians.
But President Musharraf has also played both ends to the middle. He tells the coalition forces they cannot pursue Taliban into Pakistan and won't pursue them within his own country. Lest we forget that he is the Pakistani Army's intelligence apparatus's own boy, he walks this fine line of appeasement to the West and keeping the imams of the now infamous madrases from fomenting revolution against him. Is not the money he gets from abroad not jizya?
What is alarming is that both Sen. Clinton and Obama live in a world devoid of understanding of the complexities involved in the current political conditions of the only Islamic country with a nuclear arsenal. From the statements emanating from their "advisers", one can only assume that they are equally bereft. The real tragedy in all this is that I seriously doubt that the Republican candidates and their advisers are any more adept than their Democratic counterparts. Woe is us...
Shalom,
Theosebes
"Whereas Obama feels that democracy and human rights in the context of Pakistan are essential to our security.”
The problem is that so many of these politicians do not understand the nature of "democracy". When we speak of "democracy" what we mean is that we live in a society where public opinion matters via the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions. Essential to "democracy" is the powerful protection by the majority of minority opinions-ideas. Minority (even unpopular) opinions-ideas are to be well heard from-and given power in proportion to their ability to persuade via logical argument. Without that protection of minority-opinions-ideas-criticism public opinion and "democracy" are a farce.
As Hugh has pointed out "democracy" means more than merely head counting and if the majority (1st amendment style) does not protect dissent and criticism of the majority by the minority, "democracy" is meaningless. There are maybe 15-20 countries in the world that are "democratic" (including Israel). In each "democratic" society the majority militantly protects unpopular opinions-ideas-criticism. Muslim societies are not democratic and are not capable of being democratic because the majority does not militantly protect minority-opinion-ideas-criticism of the majority.
"Democracy" is a new idea in history. In the past, there have been few societies where the majority protects minority dissent. Without that legal-moral-social protection there is no "democracy".
The foolish promotion of democracy as an end in itself is dangerous, and yet continues to gain popularity. The purpose of democracy is to safeguard liberty, by distributing power to those who lack wealth and influence, so that the pilfering hands and oppresive boots of incumbent leaders are tied. Unfortunately, an unconstrained democracy where every law on the books is open to reform, including those laws which protect the fundamental rights which secure liberty itself, is a democracy which is quite capable of bringing about precisely that which it is intended to avoid i.e. a totalitarian state.
The Democrats, who squalor in an intellectually bankrupt bog of relativism, have not the moral sense to stand up to Islam and its abhorrent tenents. In place of any moral compass, democracy has taken on an almost revered importance, and become a all-purpose solution to every problem. In this climate it is taken for granted that democratisation of anything and all can only be for the better, individuals be damned, whatever their race, religion or sex. It is time to submit to the collective, and if politicians decide to sell your rights for the votes of those who would oppress you, then so be it.
The politician typically has only his own immediate interests at heart, as those who do not rarely become successful politicians.
Lee
Mister Ghost:
The Bush Administration is equally clueless, as we have documented at this site many, many times. In American politics we need to get over the idea that if one side is wrong, the other must be right. Both sides (generally) are wrong about jihad, and both parties need to wake up.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Democracy is dependent on an appropriate culture, extensive education, respect for difference of opinion and absence of intimidating forces.
All of these are severely lacking in Pakistan. It is a very diverse contry, geographically, ethnically and lingustically. A patchwork similar to India, except the fact that Pakistan is a failed state.
To cut a long story short and thinking a bit "outside the box", I believe a useful option would be to have a weaker central government and more power to the regional ones, as a step towards a possible dissolution of the state of Pakistan as such.
The idea is to have governments and electorates which identify with their ethnicity, not with Islam. While Islam is the main unifying force of Pakistan, I think all here can agree that it's a bad one. A 46 % approval rate for bin Laden is evidence that things are way out of control already and we're headed for more trouble, not less.
"Wouldn't a division create more chaos?"
In the short term, yes. It would. But local leaders with loyalty to their ethnic group would have a better chance to work through the chaos, and smaller entities would be easier to support and make agreements with.
More roughly said: Leave Waziristan and the other really bad places to the Wahhabi extremist druglords and help the fertile lowlands defend themselves. And take care of the nukes, too.
Am I being too weird now..?
When I attended Queens College I had a great history prof. He was an OSS intelligence officer during WW2. I asked him if Nazi Germany was efficient. He said no. He said that "democracies" appear inefficient because of all the arguments etc. in matters of policy, but in fact that they are more efficient. He noted that the Nazis had built a bridge (I forget where in Germany) but it turned out to be a bad place to put a bridge. He noted that in a democratic society the bridge would have ended-up in the right place after years of people arguing over where the bridge belonged. He said totalitarian systems are not even efficient.
My opinion on Nazi Germany efficiency:
Nazi Germany appeared efficient for a while, due to different reasons. Initially Hitler motivated people to get more work done. Then he plundered the Jews. Then Albert Speer, when the Nazis noticed that they were hopelessly inefficient, got authority to coordinate things - and possibly prolonged WWII by two years, with extensive damage as a consequence.
Had Nazi Germany had to rely on its own resources - not going berserk in expansionism - the brain drain from exiles and the killing of the intellectual elite would, in my opinion, have caused it to collapse within a decade.
The Bush Administration is equally clueless - RS
I don't think Bushies are that dumb as you stating Robert. If they were they wouldn't have supported the current Islamabady clowns such as Musharaf. There appears to be no real good short term solution about Pakistan. The country is run by mis-fits who are deceiving every person they encounter, including us. That is entirely in line with the Islamic principles, be deceitful to the infidels.
Mr. Henrik has some suggestions which could have some merits, except the key question which needs to be answered by our next Presidential candidates, how can we 'ensure' the world that the WMD do not fall into the hands of Mad-Paki-Mullahs, an ultimate nightmarish scenario?
Whoever the Republican candidate is should hang Jimmy Carter around the neck of whoever the Democrat candidate is, in clear and simple ways, over and over and over.
Jimmy Carter has gotten off way too easy. Because of him, we have all of the Islamic mess that we now have. Because of him, we have all of the deranged Islamo-Nazis running loose all over the world (even today, Carter is so clueless that he is good buddies with Muslim "leaders" in the Middle East, including the Palestinians. He even spouts their propaganda.)
The Democrat nominee should be forced to answer the following questions: What do you think about President Carter allowing our friend the Shah of Iran to be deposed? What do you think about the regime that took over in Iran? What would you have done differently?
In this way, the Democrats will be forced to publicly say how they feel about all of that. They will then either violate a huge unwritten rule of the Democrats (don't criticize Jimmy Carter), or they will be stuck with the Jimmy Carter albatros hanging around their neck.
It will be very entertaining to watch that unfold, and to see the serious two-step that ensues among the Democrats.
Even Slick Willie would have a rough time with that one.
"Both sides (generally) are wrong about jihad, and both parties need to wake up." Cordially
Robert Spencer
Perhaps it is time for a new party?
1836-1864
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lincolns/politics/tl_tree.html
Sometimes one issue can change everything. Think about it. If Islam becomes the main issue..here is just one exampe from both parties:
The Democrates will split into factions. How can you continue to be pro-women's rights and continue to be a multiculturalist?
The Republicans will split because how can you be for Christian values and still support the oil trade with Islamic nations that crush Christians at every chance?
There are many more examples of various splits in both parties. The issues around Islam are just too great for the current political parties to handle in a unified fashion. If you are a republican and you come out against Islam, the pro-world economy types and big oil will tear you down. If you are a democrat and you come out against Islam, the multiculturalist will tear you down.
Islam (like slavery) is the serpent under the table NOBODY wants to talk about.
Henrik-
This prof pointed out that the Nazis once addressed a growing crisis on some matter (I think it was food during the war) and secretly (over many weeks) stored food in warehouses and then made it appear that the order had been given from Hitler and quickly and efficiently had been executed to meet the crisis. He said the bureaucracy was stifling in Germany. He said the system was extremely inefficient.
The Nazis, as with Islam (especially in India), as with Spain in America (Pizarro, e.g.), was a plunder-domination imperialism using "religion"-ideology as a cover-rationalization for imperialism. Commercial imperialism (Brit style) seems to seek advantage via trade and avoids plunder since plunder interferes with commerce. The commercial-imperialism societies also seem to be more "democratic" and respectful of indigenous cultures and different ideas and opinions than those based in "religion" and ideology.
It is bad. It is so bad that we need Obama or Clinton in office to do their level-headed worst, preach democracy light love and tolerance and lead us into disaster. Some sort of unimaginable new 9/11 or Syrian bio-warfare attack or (fill in the blank)would do the trick.
With our own children lying dead in our streets we are less likely to be distracted by Persian miniatures and Mevlevi dervish dances.
Then maybe, just maybe the Great Revulsion can commence.
Everybody seems to be an expert in Pakistan - matters. Pakistan today is a dangerous International Lab. of all sorts and all experiments and permutations/combinations are going on with the Lab.And it seems, Incharge having not a clue of what is being cooked. Experts from abroad are going to help making a good pudding but the test will be in its taste finally. Its a cruel joke to next door India. Nobody knows when the wrong mixing of the chemicals may happen . We can only pray to God to give wisdom , clarity of vision and peace to all the actors and esply. to people of Pakistan.
The Hate Whose Name We Dare Not Speak.
I like this. As a person who, in the past won a few awards for advertising copy, this has all the merits of good ad copy.
Getting the public to ask why is the first major hurtle. Why do I need this or that.
Why is this burger or handbag better for me?
Waking people up is a goal we all have. To Americans, used to being able to say anything about anything, 'cept maybe the N word or Ho Ho Ho, there might be a curiosity about 'what' dare we not speak.
On the subject of politicians, gone are the days when we get to chose from statesmen who are schooled in history and the classics. The best of them are receiving information in even smaller soundbites than the average citizen filtered by persons with their own agendas and interpretations of the world.
Some of those agendas are not always clear. For instance, does the State Department view solving problems in other countries as a priority? If they solved them, a lot of them would be out of a job.
I personally, am going to make my choice by the standard of which one wants to interfere in my life the least. America had survived a lot of Presidents many of which most couldn't name under duress. We will survive again.
I still think we need a grassroots web based debate process that sidesteps the MSM.
Where real questions gets asked. Not what the MSM wants us to hear.
of course the answer to this problem is obvious: MORE MILITARY AID
Now, back to reality:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/11/poll.pakistanis/index.html
"Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto -- a relatively moderate and progressive figure, as well as a woman -- had a 63 percent approval rating.
Seventy-five percent of poll respondents said suicide bombings are rarely or never justified."
Both of these totals are substantially higher than those in favor of Bin Laden. So, if we keep Musharraf in power, his unpopularity will be a boon to Al-Queda. If we remove Musharraf, moderate forces will prevail. Bhutto has said this consistently, and it's still true.
Spencer also bemoans that 66% of Pakistanis feel the U.S. is fighting Islam. I wonder what type of rhetoric and behavior led them to this conclusion?
Must've been Democrats' talk about democracy and human rights for the Pakistani people.
Shlomo_Michael
Here
Large majorities across all four countries believe the United States seeks to “weaken and divide the Islamic world.” On average 79 percent say they perceive this as a US goal, ranging from 73 percent in Indonesia and Pakistan to 92 percent in Egypt. Equally large numbers perceive that the United States is trying to maintain “control over the oil resources of the Middle East” (average 79%). Strong majorities (average 64%) even believe it is a US goal to “spread Christianity in the region.”
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0424-01.htm
Both of these totals are substantially higher than those in favor of Bin Laden. So, if we keep Musharraf in power, his unpopularity will be a boon to Al-Queda. If we remove Musharraf, moderate forces will prevail. Bhutto has said this consistently, and it's still true.
Shlomo_Michael,
You're certainly free to interpret these poll numbers any way you like, But how are we to interpret the fact that a substantial number of the Pakistani population sends their children to study in the 45,000 Madrasses in the country, where they learn to hate the United States and other Infidel peoples, and to despise the the most basic Western ideals of Democracy, equality, justice, human rights and freedom, as blasphame in God's sight.
If you think that a population incubated on Islamic culture and theology is going to embrace our ideas of what constitutes a free and democratic society, you'd better think again.
Democracy to them is a means by which oppressive Islamic law can be imposed on everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike.
Take a look at the rest of the Islamic world, and then say it isn't true.
While the modern Republican Party is more realistic about the world than the modern Democratic Party (I really don't see how this can be denied), it often seems at times that, respecting the two parties where the Islamic threat to the West is concerned, we are faced with Dumb (Republicans) and Dumber (Democrats). And the root of this ignorance is a conscious and/or subconscious conviction that no major religion can be terrible. Therefore, Muslims behaving badly is evidence of a religion hijacked. The truth, though, is something very different. I wonder when we'll get a President who fully comprehends this truth.
"If I had to choose an Amerike candidate, I would go for Hillary...soft, warm, fuzzy and a muslima within 5 years wearing a burka.
Boy you Amerike certainly know how to pick them....."
The above comment is yet another example of "love & wisdom" coming from the soulless void that Islam imparts on those who are willing to be used for the evil cause of Islam.
Islam produces men & women who are haters and rebel rousers interested in one thing: establishing HELL on earth - not peace on earth.
Islam is evil and generates nothing but turmoil, dysfunction, injustice & hatred. With everything that Islam has going for it, there is no room for love & peace. Zero.
I vote NO to Islam!
Shlomo_Michael
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/articlenav.php?id=71
"The public opinion survey was conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow, with fieldwork by the leading Pakistani pollster, ACNielsen Pakistan. The poll surveyed 1,450 Pakistani adults over November 14-28, 2005 and has a margin of error of 2.6%."
I remember this poll. It is flawed as is anything done by Terror Free Tomorrow.
See this thread for why it is flawed.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/015416.php
Correction: The quote above was from their earlier poll. However the poll is still flawed because Terror Free Tomorrow has a "dollar" in this relationship. They are not an impartial polling operation.
Naseem
Bhutto and the Taliban
I've read that Bhutto didn't have control of the ISI while running Pakistan, so the claim is she didn't help create the Taliban.
Thoughts?
Thanks for this:
"Peoples, the hierarchy rules for Pak governing is:
1) Family (Bhutto)
2) Local Clan (Sind) ties
3) Regional (Karachi-Sind)
4) Clan (shia in this case)
5) Other regions/Other peoples.
6) Other Clan
7) Best person for the job"
Some statements that jumped out at me from Shlomo's CNN link:
"Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf -- a key U.S. ally -- is less popular in his own country than al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden"
"nearly three-fourths of poll respondents said they oppose U.S. military action against al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan"
"And a majority of Pakistanis said their opinion of the United States would improve if, among other things, there were increases in American aid to Pakistan, American business investments and the number of visas issued for Pakistanis to work in the United States."
'nuff said.
"if we keep Musharraf in power, his unpopularity will be a boon to Al-Queda. If we remove Musharraf, moderate forces will prevail. Bhutto has said this consistently, and it's still true."
-- from a posting above
Bhutto said all kinds of things, all of them self-serving. Of course Benazir Bhutto would say that if Musharraf were removed, to be replaced by none other than Benazir Bhutto, "moderate forces" would prevail. But is her self-serving prediction the end of the matter? Didn't all kinds of suave Shi'a in exile predict that once Saddam Hussein was removed, that secular westernized forces, with themselves in the lead, would prevail in Iraq, which was very much in their own interests to claim, and to be believed by credulous American policy-makers, when anyone of sense knew that could not possibly happen.
Benazir Bhutto is dead. The new head of her party is her husband, who has none of Bhutto's good qualities, and has many more of her bad ones -- i.e., that corruption we are supposed to overlook. In order to retain or obtain power, and therefore money (power=money in such countries as Pakistan) Zardari is perfectly capable of making an alliance with Sharif, and Sharif is in bed with those who want even more, not less, Islam.
Musharraf is not to be trusted. Musharraf is afraid of the "Islamists" (i.e., those who want still more Islam). Musharraf is awful. But at this point it may be that the others are even worse.
It is in some respects akin to the problem with Iran in 1978-79. The Shah was vainglorious, corrupt, insufficiently ruthless, a would-be Ataturk but without Ataturk's intelligence. He predicted in the late 1970s that Iran would become "the second industrial power in Asia after Japan." He had no idea that oil revenues are not the same thing as a modern economy. But compared to what followed, the Shah of Iran was like Winston Churchill, and should have been supported to the hilt, not abandoned as Carter, Brzezinski, and the ignorant "Iran expert" Gary Sick allowed to happen, on the theory that Khomeini was a "man of faith" (Carter) and "could be dealt with."
Mubarak has been fearful, insufficiently ruthless, and a double-dealer. And the American government has been fearful, and insufficiently ruthless in dealing with his double-dealing. But it can start now, and force him nolens-volens to do what he keeps pretending he has been doing all along. And if he doesn't go along, cut off all aid, send his son from Clinton, Massachusetts back to Pakistan, and make Musharraf understand that all hell will break lose for Pakistan's always teeter-tottering economy.
But Musharraf may still be better than Sharif or Zardari. In any case, pieties about "democracy" have no place here, unless it can be demonstrated that a "democratic" Pakistan would be more likely to succumb to Western economic pressure to give up those nuclear weapons.
OT
2008 First Honor Killing
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2008/01/first-honor-kil.html
LAHORE: The first honour killing of 2008 took place in Kahna early Tuesday morning. Unidentified assailant(s) shot dead a couple that eloped.
Kahna police said Muhammad Nadeem (25) from Kasur had an affair with Nasreen (22) from Dhoop Sari village in Kahna. The couple’s families did not agree to their marriage and they ran away and married in secret.
They did not inform their families about their whereabouts and started living in a rented house in Nawab Shakoor Town, Kahna. Their neighbours heard gunshots early Tuesday morning and informed the police. The police found the couple’s bodies in their bedroom.
The police said there were no witnesses. Investigators believe the girl’s family had the couple killed.
http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2007/12/londonistan-hiz.html
At its conference in north London on Saturday, the leader of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain, Jalaluddin Patel, said that the call for the establishment of a global Islamic state "holds currency on the streets of Cairo, on the streets of Karachi... and on the streets of Tripoli. And indeed in almost every city in the Muslim world."
"Brothers and sisters, ladies and gentlemen, plans are being made east and west... for this Muslim world," Patel declared.
http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAL0166984820080102
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A female suicide bomber killed 10 people in Iraq on Wednesday, the latest in a string of suicide bombings that has seen a major strike nearly every day of the past week despite an overall decline in violence.
The woman blew herself up with an explosive vest at a checkpoint of neighborhood patrol volunteers in Baquba, capital of the restive Diyala province. Twenty-eight people were wounded including some women, police said.
http://sheikyermami.com/2008/01/02/dutch-dhimmis-plead-for-tolerance/
Dutch opinion leaders published a page-size advertisment in the daily Trouw on Wednesday calling for tolerance and a softer tone in the debate about migration and Islam. In their statement, the 717 signatories, including prominent politicians, artists, authors, relgious leaders and academics, called on the Dutch to “break the downward cycle of intolerance and indifference” in the Netherlands.
Dhimmi Terpstra:
Terpstra has called on people to fight the anti-immigration sentiments promoted by Geert Wilders’ PVV party which he says are ‘polarising society.’
*
The statement was initiated by Christian Democrat Doekle Terpstra, who called upon Dutch society to counter the “wilderization,” a sarcastic reference to Dutch liberal-right politician Geert Wilders, one of the Netherlands’ most outspoken Islam critics. Responding to the publication in Trouw, Geert Wilders called the signatories “silly and naive fools.”
Wilders comes out guns blazing: “Islam does not deserve respect”
The Hague (2 January) - The populist leader of the right-wing Freedom Party, Geert Wilders, has criticised an appeal for tolerance and respect by a number of prominent Dutch citizens in today’s Trouw newspaper as the work of “silly and naive fools”. He also referred to them as “dhimmis”, by which he means non-Muslims who act subserviently towards Muslims.
Mr Wilders says that “Islam does not deserve respect, but must be fought as an intolerant and Fascist ideology”. The advertisement in today’s newspaper was meant to serve as a counterweight to the ideas of Mr Wilders.
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/01/amsterdam-police-station-attacked.html
A group of Moroccans smashed up police cars and attacked a police station in Amsterdam. The youth caused a great deal of damage, but were not apprehended.
A group of several dozen youth attacked the police station in Slotervaart at the turn of the year. They smashed up three police cars, including one surveillance car and two civilian cars. Windows in the station were smashed as well.
The riot police was called in, but was not put into action. For the time being, the police has not apprehended anybody.
Just a few islam stories for the new year.
"And a majority of Pakistanis said their opinion of the United States would improve if, among other things, there were increases in American aid to Pakistan, American business investments and the number of visas issued for Pakistanis to work in the United States."
Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money.
Kevin,
More like mo'jizya, mo'jizya, mo'jizya
After all time is mo'money.
There seems to be an unspoken rule the candidates, from both sides, wish to avoid, naming the enemy. We here know that Israel is not the problem, though it acts as a ‘lightening rod’ for Arab and pan-Islamic hatreds, but that is more a red herring than the real cause for Muslim discomfort. The same is true for our foreign policy vis-à-vis the Muslim states, that their call for jihad because of our foreign policy is another red herring. The jihad continues as it always had, had gone dormant for a couple of centuries, and now with oil wealth has been re-ignited in its full force. Neither Israel’s existence, nor foreign policy, have anything to do with jihad, which exists in its own right as a supremacist world dominating political-theology founded by Islam’s founders, both Mohammad and his successor caliphs, into a total control system of Muslim life, which necessarily dictates war against all who do not agree with, nor believe, in their world dominating political-theology. The enemy, whose name we are not allowed to voice, is nothing other than Islam itself, in its currently revived jihadi format, to impose its doctrinaire political-theology on all our personal liberties, which includes overthrowing our constitutional governments with Sharia law. What’sso hard to understand? They want us conquered for their moon-rock god Allah to perpetuate their political-theocratic system of total world domination. Looking at it from this perspective, our past wars against tyranny, from King George to Stalin and Mao, or Pol Pot, appear as mere child’s play when faced off against a 1400 year old jihad war against human freedoms.
Democracy is a two edged sword, one which can cut to liberate, if our natural human rights of freedom are upheld, as well as enslave, if our individual human rights are violated. In the Islamic world, democracy is used to promote Sharia, which means it is used to enslave. The enemy, who may not be named, is really political-theocracy of world dominating supremacist ideology of Mohammad’s ill conceived governance of human activity by some conjured up holy law of his Koran, to overpower any human achievements of personal freedoms gained over the centuries since Islam’s last great crusade against all others, which failed at the Gates of Vienna. They want to bring back their glory day’s of old, but this time they are faced off against a secular world that has leapfrogged over any perceived greatness the Islamic world may have had, mostly in their dreams, into a world far more robust and durable in endorsing government that protects our human freedoms. This is the real issue, that Islam cannot conquer us because we are the wiser for our pains, freedoms enshrined by wars and heroic efforts of brave men and women, which has made our secular world of personal freedoms stronger than ever before. The erosions of those solid gains by another ill conceived ideology of Marxist inspired multiculturalism cannot be allowed to undermine our strengths in combating this neo-Islamic ambition of world domination. To do this, the methodology is quite simple, so even the dumbest candidate for high office can understand it:
The enemy is world supremacist Islamic Sharia jihad.
No red herrings here, just the simple unvarnished truth, and neither Israel nor foreign policy has anything to do with it. It is the ne0-Islam that must be given a name, and fought with all our will and strength, if we are to preserve the great gains to our freedoms.
How about a new years resolution? Let's name the enemy. Hint: It starts with an "I"...
Respecting Hugh's comments above about Pakistan, I have to wonder if the very best the West can expect from the Islamic world is a Muslim nation run along the lines of Ataturk's Turkey (which itself is in trouble). A strong, bright (there's the rub----not too many in the Islamic world with Ataturk's intelligence), authoritarian type ruler who institututes a semi-democratic state, keeps the worst of the Islamic religion from manifesting itself and is pro-Western might be the best we can ever do. If so, vigilance is key as pure Islam can rise up when given the chance. One thing's for certain and that is that Sharia and true democracy are mutually exclusive. What a mess.
It's entirely possible to have a tyranny that defends individual rights better than a democracy, or a democracy that deprives individuals of their rights worse than a tyranny.
This is a simple, obvious and basic principle of politics.
Voting is a strictly secondary right, and is only meaningful in a context where the rights to life, property and the freedom of speech and conscience are well protected.
The constant grinding vulgarity of the debate among our governors (and even in the public discourse) about foreign democracy is embarrassing.
==========
The jihad is against individual rights.
We are for individual rights.
It's just that simple.
Democracy is a secondary or tertiary issue at best.
Any politician saying otherwise is simply displaying their ignorance of basic political principles, and their incompetence to lead.
===========
To defend the "rights" of people that are dead set against the principle of individual rights is madness.
You cannot defend the rights of someone who denounces, disavows and disowns their own rights.
At that point they have no rights.
The principle of justice is that the results of your actions should come back to you.
If you deny rights, then you must be handled as one who has no rights.
That's why criminals must be jailed and murderers killed.
And that's why the jihaddis must be handled with extreme prejudice.
"The Hate Whose Name We Dare Not Speak."
Hugh, I like this. May I use it as a title for a leaflet?
Sure.
And if you can fit in some of the other phrases, about the Slow Jihadists of Fatah and the Fast Jihadists of Hamas, or the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project, or Muslim-for-identification-purposes only Muslim, or another dozen such turns, I would be delighted. I'm happy to do the minting (call me Denver, call me Philadelphia), but I must rely on others to put them into circulation.
Naseem sez: If I had to choose an Amerike candidate, I would go for Hillary...soft, warm, fuzzy and a muslima within 5 years wearing a burka.
Boy you Amerike certainly know how to pick them.....
That's one of the funniest things Naseem has written. Thanks for the chuckles.
Also thanks for letting us know just how screwed up things are in Pakistan. We already suspected that.
But confirmation as always appreciated...
To whom it may concern:
Play with Naseem if you want, but I continue to hold the view that he is a provocateur, enjoying winding you up, and is probably not even a Muslim at all.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Provocateur, that's a nice way of putting it, ha, on the interwebs we call these guys trolls.
Hillary soft, warm and fuzzy? The media in Pak is more controlled than I thought.
Naseem is doing her dawa diligently.
You have to wonder what kind of a life she has, though. She doesn't talk about dating so she is probably happy to be single, (like many women I know of a certain age,) whose children are grown and who are either widowed or divorced and have no interest in being enslaved by another Muslim man. She probably makes a decent living with the furniture store so she doesn't need a man to support her. But what is it that she hopes for by bringing her country under the yoke of Sharia law? What drives a desire like that? Is there some belief that her world will get better or her life will get better, somehow? Does she believe there will be more justice in the world, more fairness, more happiness if Sharia is implemented?
Or is there something more sinister at work here...do Muslims have so much pride, like Old Mr. Scratch, that they can't handle their world unless everything and everyone in it is under their control? Are they so insecure and miserable in their own skins that they simply repeat the mantra, while breathing deeply and focusing on a speck on the wall that, "Everything will be okay once we're under Sharia. Everything will be okay once we are under Sharia. Everything will be okay..."
It would behoove us to analyze Naseem's motives here and start to get into the mind of the jihadists, because as it stands now, I can't imagine one reason why any woman would want to be a Muslima, much less campaign for all women to be one. Unless of course the insecurity inherent in being a true practicing Muslim is the driving force. Perhaps they know deep down that they can't take a joke, that like the Qurashi Jews, no one would bother to become a Muslim unless forced to and that in order to keep up a unified front they've got to keep adding unwilling people to their ranks, whatever that takes.
'Doesn't sound very mind expanding. If it weren't for all the blood and guts that they like to spread around at regular intervals, it does sound like a recipe for total boredom to me.
Maybe someone knows the answer to this. I am sure Robert knows.
I have finally gotten around to listening to Yosef Bodansky's (a little outdated) "Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War On America." I have the book as I do Mr. Spencer's "Islam Unveiled" and "The Truth About Muhammad" thus far.
I like to follow the audio in the text, underlining important passages as I go. With Yosef Bodansky's book I am not doing this too much.
Here's my question for Robert or anyone who knows. Like Daniel Pipes, Bodansky makes this distinction between "Islamists" that are committed to violent jihad and ordinary Muslims.
When Bodansky quotes these jihadists it is always the term "Islamists" that is employed. For example, Ayman al-Zawahiri might say, "President Bill Clinton is leading a war against the Islamists" as opposed to "Clinton is leading a war against Islam."
I find this difficult to believe. Do jihadists routinely refer to themselves and their Muslim supporters as "Islamists" rather than simply "Muslims?" To Islamism rather than Islam?
Bodansky goes into great depth re: Pakistan's complicity -- her intelligence agency, the ISI, he reports, is knee deep -- in the global jihad as is Iran and her government institutions. Bodansky, like Benjamin Netanyahu, makes the case, without these nations that sponsor terror, there might be no global terrorism of any significance. These national sponsors like Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, etc. are critical to the global war.
This makes the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage's alleged threat to Musharraf, were he cooperative with the U.S. post 9/11, U.S. would "bomb Pakistan back to the stone age."
Correction: This makes the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage's alleged threat to Musharraf, were he NOT cooperative with the U.S., post 9/11, U.S. would "bomb Pakistan back to the stone age."
Geert Wilders is being set up by his country to be the next Pim Fortuyn. Geert is great. I mean, he's living in safe houses, infact he's had to spend nights in prison (not for any trouble he's in but for safety)cells. He's got 24/7 security surrounding him. (Hugh imagine the security costs ! ) The Queen, and the President of the Netherlands are taking pot shots at him while the media demonizes him.
Democrats and Republicans are ignorant, though Democrats are from another planet regarding their national security policies, Republicans aren't showing much alternative. Those with a little knowledge are more dangerous, or certainly can be ,than those with no knowledge.
Let the Islamists come to power, then you know what you're dealing with and who you're dealing with. YOu know who your enemy is. You know what they stand for. I'd prefer Hamas in charge than Fatah. Same anywhere in the middle east. Let them worry about themselves. Why must we fear about who controls their countries? US could eliminate Iran or Pakistan completely. It is us who are making things so difficult. If they're going to vote in terrorists, let them, and let them suffer the consequences for their actions. Let their "innocent civilians" their "majority moderates" suffer the consquences of voting in terrorists, such as arabs occupying Israeli land.
The moment a place such as Pakistan, Wahhabi Kingdom, Egypt etc... threatens western security, eliminate the threat. Don't nation build, establish deterrent. Make sure these countries not only cannot threaten the west, make sure they don't even think about it. I don't know why we have to be so concerned to the point that we have to rely on double faces like Mushy and Mazen, the Arafats of today. It doesn't need to be like this.
Muslims always claim they love death but we never hear a shortage of whining and complaining when they get what they want. They'll grasp reality quickly, and if they dont, then less killers and brainwashers in the world today.
All this worrying and teeter-tottering about how we can't get rid of Mushy because of the alternative...... only assures the problem never goes away, is never properly confronted and we continue this frustrating double game of death by a thousand papercuts and letting these Mushyites to control our policies. We aren't sure what to do because we don't know who the heck the enemy is and even if we did, I have this really hard time seeing the US or any other western nation dropping a nuke these days. I mean, you can't even drop a bomb on a suspected target without an apology. Anyone remember the military having Taliban/AQ and their families all gathered together at a funeral? The US aborted the mission because of the wives and kids there. How do you win a war like that? If you don't have the will to war, then don't get invovled. How do you win a war where you don't know who you're fighting, or where the enemy is? How are policies constructed for defense when you don't know who you're defending against, and the weapons and tactics of your enemy are unknown?
PC and business over security will ensure nothing is done regardless if it's Al Bush or Barrack Hussein Obama at the Whitehouse. Pakistans nukes are a threat...... so eliminate the threat
That nuclear program that Bhutto presided over herself. The same Bhutto that oversaw the arming and ascension of Taliban in Afghanistan, the same Bhutto that was presiding over the ISI and the A Q Khan network that spread nuclear know how to how many countries? Iran, Syria, Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, N.Korea?
Hugh you mentioned Sharif, and you're spot on again. He was also behind the rise of Taliban in Afghanistan, the A Q Khan proliferation network, good friend of Saudi Arabia. Infact, his good friend Osama bin Laden introduced him to Saudi royals. He's an Islamist true and true.
Pakistan is a Muslim country, with nuclear weapons. Those weapons should be secured, eliminated. Won't be, but should be. Western world doesn't have the will to do what is needed, which is why things only get worse. The western governments put more concern on enemy civilians than that of their own sons and daughters.
I think the solution is to throw more money at the problem with more strings unattached and continue to play fantasy land with those that only go for the jugular.
Happy New Year !
Just to back up and illustrate what Frank and Henrik are saying about the efficiency of 'western' systems as opposed to totalitarian systems - I recommend that people watch three films: "The Dish", "Apollo 13", and "October Sky" (or read the book it is based on, "Rocket Boys").
They are beautiful because each, in its own way, reflecting on the space project of the 1960s, at the highest level and (October Sky) at the community level where a group of boys from a Tennessee coalmining town decide to learn how to build and launch model rockets, so as to enter the county science fair - shows 'western' society at its problem-solving, experimenting, arguing, co-operative, imaginative best.
Oh, and the real hero of 'Rocket Boys' is the author's - female - science teacher who faced her fast-approaching death from leukaemia with courage and grace, pouring her heart and soul into teaching her students. In 'October Sky' the last rocket the boys release, the one that flies highest, has her name written on it. She was just 31 when she died, but she'd changed lives.
Watch; read; reflect; and know in your bones what Hugh means when he talks about 'the spirit of free inquiry'.
We have taken these things for granted. We should not.
Robert Spencer writes - "Both sides (generally) are wrong about jihad, and both parties need to wake up".
That is a reasonably adequate description of the state of play in Australia, as well.
Hugh, I think you've been somewhat smeared by leftist propaganda concerning the Shah :) I lived in Iran during the last years of his regime, have seen him twice (open motorcades - imagine that!), as well as read his last book.
What I find is that he was genuinely dedicated to improving his country and taking a sincere interest in the various projects, sometimes thinking far ahead into the future. He had his job for life and initiated a lot of good, long-sighted stuff.
Also, the Shah had a fairly obvious dislike for Islam :)
I believe the crucial moment where we should have supported him was during the oil crisis in 1973. The meeting in Teheran spiked the oil prices dramatically, and the Shah had a clear and outspoken motivation for that: We needed to kick the oil habit before the reserves would run out, but with oil at ridiculously low prices that just wouldn't happen. Further, he needed money to prepare his own country for the oil-free future.
We didn't take his word on face value, but preferred to blame him for having to pay a more realistic price for the gas. As if the oil reserves belonged to us, not to him.
Later came the quarrels over human rights, where Carter and the lefties forced him to release quite a few criminals from prison, starting the cycles of violence that eventually brought him down, abandoned by those who needed him to be an "Island of stability".
Yes, he did let military spending run out of control, a huge waste of resources. My dad once met a British officer in a bar, dead drunk. He had overseen the delivery of some 125 tanks just recently, and the idiotic Iranian tank drivers destroyed them one after another during training sessions. Shaping this country into something modern and self-sustaining was quite a challenge.
Back then we didn't know about the evils of fundamentalist Islam or just how unwise it was to force him to release the 'political prisoners'.
Christ, it's easy to be wise in review...
Wellington, it's actually quite interesting to compare Pakistan and Turkey. Both were founded on similar principles with Islam to be supposed to take back seat (or none at all) in political matters.
Pakistan, however, didn't have a founder with the strength of Mustafa Kemal 'Atatürk', and managed to stay afloat only some 30 years before Islam returned with a vengeance under Zia-ul-Haq.
Turkey has been much more resilient, but is creaking at its seams, as the Kemalist elite struggles between the Scylla and Carybdis of hoarding old priviledges and being marginalized in business matters by the emergence of an Islamic business elite in the 80's onward. Now, this elite obviously supports Islamic purposes as well, building Islamic institutions and helping the AKP remain in power. Given the economic boom in Turkey, that'll probably remain so for quite a while, further sidelining the secularists.
The pattern is similar, the pace very different.
We most certainly must keep Turkey out of the European Union, or Erdogan's idea of a "special role" for the Turkish diaspora may turn out to have real dramatic implications.
Any of the presidential candidates thinking to reverse the Bush position on Turkey in EU, BTW? European minds want to know.
MusHuntCowboy, I know I have little to say about those dreaded nukes. Have to leave creative thinking about those to others.
I'm just really concerned about the current all-or-nothing situation with a really large country that we just can't keep afloat for ever. Sending more money and more weapons doesn't look like a long-term solution.
But then, perhaps purchasing the nukes, and the facilities, just might work? If the government is desperate enough for cash, we might make further aid conditional on a dismantling of the nuclear programme? Seems to have worked for North Korea.
Spending Money for Nothing give neither benefit or respect. Just watch Palestine...
I'm not sure I can be criticized for my criticism of the Shah, when I have repeatedly said that compared to what followed, the Shah was like Winston Churchill. And my criticism of him was that he was not sufficiently ruthless in suppressing the Khomeini-ites. But there is plenty of blame to go around, and certainly the Carter-Brzezinski-Sick triumvirate did nothing to help the Shah, nor give him any sign that he should turn to other measures.
The Shah, the elegant and loyal Shahbanou, Hoveyda, Air Force General Tabatabai, all those cyruses and dariuses, all those lycee-attenders, all those who showed up in ballgowns and other finery at Persepolis (the spectacle put on by Peter Brook and a host of other Westerners), of course they are missed. Of course those on the left, who thought they could use the mullahs and Khomeini but were used by them, the people who even today keep thinking that Islam is not the problem, but only perfidious Albion, and its puppet the United States, for removing weepy Mossadegh from his post, will never learn. But there are some Iranians, in exile and still in Iran, who surely must have come to the conclusion that at the very least, Islam must be permanently constrained, and there may be others susceptible to the idea that a re-zoroastrianization of Iran -- make it a fashion, and make that fashion not a fashion statement but a statement -- with some christianizing as well -- may allow Iranians, keenly aware that Islam comes from the more primitive and despised Arabs, to manage the hell that Islam has brought to them over the past twenty-eight years.
It seems far-fetched. But it is no further fetched than the craziness of the Islamic regime of Iran today.
Play with Naseem if you want, but I continue to hold the view that he is a provocateur...probably not even a Muslim at all..
posted by Robert Spencer
This is exactly my feeling. A troll for trolling sake.
Hugh, note the smiley :)
My PoV is simple, actually - that the Shah was not only a lot less bad than what followed, he was actually basically good. But it would have taken courage to support him where needed rather than taking cheap shots over 'human rights'.
The Carter-Brzezinski-Sick triumvirate, seen in retrospect, were misusing their power massively, and we're suffering the consequences today.
OK, enough retrospect for tonight...
Elric66,
Wow. Those poll numbers don't look too good. It seems like a lot of people do not trust the U.S.'s intentions. I wonder why so many people feel that way? Could it be because of attitudes at the highest echelons of American power, that match the Jihad Watch mindset? This brings me to the point raised by
Rational,
who asks me to consider "the rest of the Islamic world" as proof that "Democracy to them is a means by which oppressive Islamic law can be imposed on everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike." Alright, let's talk about the rest of the Islamic world. All across the region, secular thugs are brutally oppressing their people (Assad, Mubarak, etc.). Apparently, they are encouraged in their oppression by Hugh and others, who accuse them of being "insufficiently ruthless".
This has led many to conclude that an oppressive Sharia' would be an improvement, and to ally themselves with extremist and anti-Western groups. As a result, democracy is correlated with a radical Islamist trend.
If we want to reverse this trend, we should urge these governments to uphold democracy and human rights. Let's start practicing "our values" in the Middle East, for example, "that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Then, I am confident they will embrace our values, which are infinitely superior to Bin Laden's. So was Bhutto.
Which brings me to the comments by
Hugh,
who is skeptical about Bhutto's claims, because rosy claims were also made by a certain Ahmed Chalabi to garner U.S. support. Your skepticism is well-founded. However, I should remind you that no one took opinion polls or considered Iraqi sentiment before invading. They simply trusted Mr. Chalabi.
All of the numbers I came up with were not Chalabian speculation. This is not something Benazir Bhutto was spouting off. These numbers are straight from an opinion poll--the same poll that Mr. Spencer cited in this thread. They show that in an election, the more "moderate" (whatever that means to you) Pakistani parties would win handily. They also show that if there are no elections, the Pakistani people would rather have Bin Laden than Musharraf.
EVERYONE in Pakistani politics is corrupt, including Musharraf. What is this, the World Bank? Our goal is not to fight corruption. Our goal is to undermine Islamic terrorism. As the poll numbers show, the best way to do this involves Musharraf leaving office, and democratic elections for the people of Pakistan.
"It seems like a lot of people do not trust the U.S.'s intentions. I wonder why so many people feel that way? Could it be because of attitudes at the highest echelons of American power, that match the Jihad Watch mindset?"
-- from a posting above
But the poll figures you are referring to are not about the "intentions" of the United States. They are about something quite different -- what primitive and credulous people, with a habit of mental submission encouraged by Islam, easily believing any number of conspiracy theories, choose to ascribe to the American government.
Here is what Elric's poll is about:
"Large majorities across all four countries believe the United States seeks to “weaken and divide the Islamic world.” On average 79 percent say they perceive this as a US goal, ranging from 73 percent in Indonesia and Pakistan to 92 percent in Egypt. Equally large numbers perceive that the United States is trying to maintain “control over the oil resources of the Middle East” (average 79%). Strong majorities (average 64%) even believe it is a US goal to “spread Christianity in the region.”
Notice that the first goal, to "weaken and divide the Islamic world" -- while perfectly sensible, and indeed desirable, as a goal of Americans and of other Infidels -- is in fact not the goal. The idiotic goal is to help the Islamic world by encouraging democracy, without realizing how nearly impossible of attainment is such a goal, and without further realizing that instead of helping Muslim states and peoples to avoid the worst consequences of their own political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual failures, we should not bail them out, not attempt to help them directly, but only by forcing them to recognize, dimly at first, that those very failures (political, economic, social, etc.) are a direct result of Islam itself. The "control over oil resources" is a similarly baseless fear. Oil is sold at market prices, and bought, at market prices, by the United States as by other consumers. Even though the American government has been the assumed guarantor of Saudi security, Saudi Arabia does not now, and never has, sold oil at preferential prices to the Americans, and there is no "control over oil resources" by anyone save the countries in which those resources are to be found. And finally, the belief that the Americans are attempting to "spread Christianity in the region" -- would that it were so -- is merely Muslim projection, particularly amazing when one realizes that all over the Infidel lands the fabulously well-financed campaigns of Da'wa proceed, so far almost entirely unopposed, by any Infidel groups or states.
The reason why in Egypt 92% of the population, in a supposed "ally" that the Americans have been helping, so far to the tune of more than $60 billion dollars, despite the obvious malevolence and meretriciousness of the Egyptian government,believes that the Ameridan government is waging a war on Islam is because the Egyptian Muslims are expressing the hostility that Muslims everywhere feel for Infidels, especially those Infidels who appear to be fighting back, and the money received from those Infidels does not win favor but actually makes it seem as if, in supporting the corrupt regime (Mubarak and his Family-and-Friends Plan), the Americans must surely be working to "weaken and divide the Musim world" because why else would they support such a corrupt and demoralizing regime? That the Ameridans are surpassing ignorant, and those who make policy remarkably stupid, cannot possibly be understood by those Egyptians, who pocket the money and spit at the American donors of the money.
You ask "I wonder why so many people feel that way"? Well, I'll tell you. Because they are Muslims. Because they are, therefore, in Dar al-islam, inculcated with the idea that they must be hostile to Infidels, that the world is essentially divided between Believers and Infidels, and that Believers are in a permanent state of war -- though not necessarily of open warfare -- with Infidels, and will be until all barriers to the spread, and then the dominance of Islam, are removed. And it does not matter if the Infidels give you money; it does not matter if the Infidels squander a trillion dollars and 4,000 American lives, and huge amounts of war materiel, trying to remove a despot, and bring democracy, and build and hold together, despite ethnic and sectarian fissures, a country called Iraq. No, none of that really matters. What in the end matters is that Americans are Infidels, and whatever good they do must be done for a sinister ulterior motive (bringing Christianity to Iraq or the rest of the Middle East fits right into this world-view). What explains the attitudes of Muslims toward the United States has far less to do with American policy, or American this or American that. It has nothing to do with Bush's inane "they hate us for our freedoms." No. They hate us because we are not Muslims. That is the point, the only point.
Finally, would you mind telling me what you mean when you refer to the "Jihad Watch mindset"? What are the shared elements of that "mindset" you have detected? Tell me. I'm all ears.
Every place in the middle east that has ate the fruit of "democracy", has, or soon will, know it's true nature.
That information is well known, and was to our country's founders, they fully understood it. And that is why they formed a Republic.
We are NOT a democracy, so why do we push this ideal onto others? They are well on the way to finding out.
"It seems like a lot of people do not trust the U.S.'s intentions. I wonder why so many people feel that way? Could it be because of attitudes at the highest echelons of American power, that match the Jihad Watch mindset?"
No. If it did, we'd go much more directly for the totalitarian versions of Islam, without diversions such as "War on Terror", "Regime change in Iraq" and the like.
But that'd upset the Islamic authorities, something Bush & Blair aren't quite keen on. Possible consequences in, say, Saudi Arabia & Iran, could cause trouble.
Paraphrasing Robert: We need oil independence, and we need it now.
The Bush Administration is equally clueless, as we have documented at this site many, many times. In American politics we need to get over the idea that if one side is wrong, the other must be right. Both sides (generally) are wrong about jihad, and both parties need to wake up.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Posted by: jihadwatch at January 2, 2008 11:00 AM
Robert, while you give the benefit of doubt ('The Bush Administration is equally clueless'), I beg to differ. Humbly, I submit that Bush Administration is corrupted by Saudi wealth. Let me submit a few examples:
- Right after Islamists attacked on 9/11, this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
- Bush sided with Saudi Arabia and not 9/11 Commission: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/30/world/main565782.shtml
- While "Bandar Bush" was involved in this: http://mattwelch.com/NatPostSave/bandar.htm
- And this is where the phony 'war on terror' stands: http://whitehouser.com/war/white-house-fox-news-leak-helps-al-qaida/
.. and lies, that follow: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030516-15.html
Like I said, these are just a few examples, AFTER 9/11. Before 9/11, Bush family was entangled with Bin Laden family: http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/feature3.shtml
How could Bush Administration be excused as "clueless"? That said, I agree that both parties are wrong about jihad, specially since, the only presidential candidate, right about jihad/Islamic-terror, Tom Tancredo, sadly, dropped out of the race.
Dear Hugh Fitzgerald:
Are you, perchance, offering Fitz mint sets for 2008? (There's money to be made here, literally. Mint mark "F" for fortune.)
“A poster above”,
Let me use your own words to describe the Jihad Watch mindset:
1. “Notice that the first goal, to "weaken and divide the Islamic world" -- while perfectly sensible, and indeed desirable, as a goal of Americans and of other Infidels -- is in fact not the goal. The idiotic goal is to help the Islamic world by encouraging democracy,”
Now, let me tell you where I first saw it: President Bush’s post-9/11 address, on September 21st, 2001.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9405EEDC1E3BF932A1575AC0A9679C8B63
The speech starts off well enough, by talking about the strength of Americans. But it continues with “Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.”
Bush said a lot of cheery things afterward, about how this attack was not Islam. But that is a theological point. What I still remember, about that speech, over six years later, was its undercurrent of vengefulness. We move from grief to anger to resolution. Our primary goal is to hit them back. The end of the speech is the same: “I will not forget the wound to our country and those who inflicted it. I will not yield. I will not rest.”
This is the essence of the Jihad Watch mindset. I describe this more fully in response to a more recent posting, on “the left’s” indifference to honor killings. The Jihad Watch mindset is entirely negative. The dominant focus is on those who hurt us, and on stopping THEM. It is not about what will emerge in their place, and what our positive vision for society will be to replace their revolting barbarity. We do not bother to empower the "Muslim moderates" (define as you wish), because this would be a "diversion" from the larger war. Instead, we just bomb. If ten people are trying to build a bridge and a terrorist walks under it, we bomb the bridge and kill all eleven. Since we destroy and do not build (building, you say, is foolish), the net effects are "weakening the Islamic World".
Perhaps this "brings justice to our enemies", but everyone else lives daily with the chaos. Ironically, this chaos is the most fertile soil possible for terrorism. Some of the bridgebuilders' families will join an anti-American insurgency out of revenge or just plain hatred. Others will join with Americans, because "you're with us or with the terrorists". Hence, "dividing the Islamic World".
You think it's a wonderful and innovative idea. But it's all I've seen since that speech.
The story of the War on Terror has been civil wars. We invade Afghanistan, causing it and its neighbor Pakistan to erupt in flames. We invade Iraq, and the country disintegrates. We invade (indirectly, through Israel) Lebanon and Gaza, annihilating the infrastructure in each area. We invade (indirectly, through Ethiopia) Somalia, and turn the country into an African Iraq.
In none of these areas are we seriously concerned with what comes next. So what comes next is chaos. When a people see American troops or weapons one week, then see their country explode the next, they conclude all the things in the poll.
By the way, I disagree with those conclusions. We are not malicious, just indifferent. But the way I was raised, indifference to human suffering is an insult to God…