http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=5314

In Iraq, the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Army announced that it was going to target the countries where the cartoons were published, and urged its "militants to kidnap Danes and 'cut them into as pieces." The group also called "for targeting companies that deal with these countries and any store that sells Danish and Norwegian products". Its statement demanded all Muslim and Arab governments withdraw their ambassadors from these "infidel and God-accursed countries which are openly fighting Islam and our prophet". It also called for the withdrawal of funds and investments, an oil boycott and a ban against their nationals.

Posted by: archduke at February 6, 2006 9:43 AM

Who shot at the Danes? The insurgents or the new Iraqi army?

Posted by: JanuaryMan at February 6, 2006 10:06 AM

OT, but related to all of this: I am listening to Mr. Gonzales speak on the spying issued right now, on CNN. He quotes well over 200 years of precedents... but I notice he stepped Around the Clinton Admin's own justification for what was even Broader spying on American citizens, than what the Bush Admin is doing. I find that curious...

I also notice that many of the senators involved in this hearing, do not appear to be paying the slightest attention to him. My guess is they just want to get their political soundbites- errr, questions- out on the air for the public.

Posted by: Gary at February 6, 2006 10:18 AM

Hmmmm...reference to Archduke's post... maybe in addition to Muslim and Arab governments withdrawing their ambassadors, they should call for all their immigrants to leave those countries and go home also.

Posted by: freewoman at February 6, 2006 10:30 AM

"Iraqis shot at the patrol on Sunday as the Danish soldiers gave first aid to a group of children injured in a traffic accident south of Al-Qurnah, it said."

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that they hate us anyway, with or without cartoons. We were the Great Satan (or the Little Satan) long before Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses. Whatever we do, the fact is that we are hated for who we are. The cartoons are just an excuse for Islamists to assert their power. These Islamists are just playing politics the way Mohammad played politics. Whoever appears to be most disobedient/defiant of Islamic law at the moment is going to be the preferred target. It just happens to be the Danes at the moment. It doesn't matter what we do. Everything we say and do as non-Muslims is considered "Oppression" or "persecution" of Muslims. Free speech? Oppression of Muslims. Women with no hijab? Oppression. Countries who vote against sharia (Britain, Canada)? Oppression. For more on "oppression" of Islam, see http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AbulKasem51205.htm

Posted by: Archimedes at February 6, 2006 10:32 AM

update on the Yemen escapees.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/13801592.htm

"Interpol, based in France, issued a worldwide alert for the men Sunday and slammed Yemeni officials for dragging their feet on providing key details about the terrorists."

So not only did the Yemenese let them escape, they kept quiet about it to give them a head start.

The escapees were being held in a "military intelligence detention center." The tunnel had been dug from inside the prison, but also from outside the prison - apparently in the mosque.

It's not hard to figure out what happened here.

Being that this - as well as the Iranian problem - have co-incided with the cartoon rage, it's not that hard to see that the cartoon business is a smoke screen that has been put up. And that tells us there is a lot more coordination going on amongst are enemies than we have been willing to believe. This level of coordination and timing speaks of governments being in collusion, and not just individual little bands of terrorists.

Posted by: Jwatcher at February 6, 2006 10:42 AM

On the whole, religion is pursued as a vehicle to transcend the savage tendencies inherent in humankind, and become more fully "human" by cultivating the uniquely human faculties of faith and intellect.

These acts by jihadists, on the other hand, make me marvel at how, the animal kingdom shows more sense and stronger moral fiber in taking care of each other, especially their young. Even among wolves there is no Umm Farhat, or one who would sacrifice their cubs for the satisfaction of biting a man: Further proof that the teachings of Mohammed are a regressive influence.

This reminds me of the fact that Islam has no concept of original sin. They could've used that hedge against unbridled self-righteousness as they attempt to hardwire human progress in reverse gear.

Posted by: Shinoliite at February 6, 2006 11:14 AM

The Danes were helping children when an attempt was made to kill them. Is this different from all the attacks on the American soldiers in Iraq, who are clearly there only to help, not only by removing Saddam Hussein and his regime, but by then staying to build water-treatment plants, power grids, schools, hospitals, and so on. The Danish example is simply a synecdochic example, and illustrates the craziness of the American effort.

Whatever good they could achieve, has been achieved. There is not now, there will not be, any further benefit to be achieved by remaining in Iraq -- good for the Infidels that is. There is not now, nor will there be, any widespread and permanent gratitude. There is now, among much of the Arab (as opposed to Kurdish populuation), only disagreement over whether to kill the Americans right now, or to let them stay to help kill one's local enemies, and to help train one's own forces. If the Shi'a rulers figure out that the American presence is no longer to be exploited for their advantage, and that the American demands for Shi'a compromises, and American restraining of Shi'a methods of dealing with Sunni enemies (methods which appear to have pacified areas that the Americans were incapable, with their kid-glove methods, of doing so) now gets in the way, they will ask the Americans to leave.

But why are we there? What conceivable good is now accuring to the Infidels from this fantastic expenditure, with the total cost for Iraq and Afghanistan now said to be $440 billion? What investments might have been made, with that money, or much of it, in nuclear, solar, and wind energy, in mass transit, in wqorking not only to deprive the Jihad of its most important instrument, money, but to resurrect the European alliance, to instruct Infidels in the real as opposed to the carefully sanitized contents of Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira? And without the tarbaby of Iraq, which began well as a means to blog Iraqi WMD, has now become the very thing that has diverted attention, and used up political capital, that might both have been better applied to the undeniable nuclear project of Iran.

If Iran acquires that weaponry, because of the American focus on Iraq, this will have become the biggest fiasco in American foreign policy -- a colossal waste, in every way.

As for that business of "democracy" somehow -- never quite specified, never discussed in detail -- making Iraq a better place for Infidels, a place where Islam will naturally be less evident, less menacing both in that country, and in the Middle East, and in Western Europe, and everywhere that the will to ensure that Islam "dominates and is not to dominate" menaces Infidels, how much longer will members of Congress accept this nonsense, and vote still more money for a policy for which no sensible or coherent justification can be constructed, and has not been.

All the criticism has come from the wrong side, making the wrong arguments. All those who regard the Iranian nuclear project and the islamization of Western Europe, through demraphic conquest and Da'wa (even now preceded by demonstrations of premautre dhimmitude) as the main problems should work to deny the Administration the so-called "resources it needs" to "finish the job" and "settle for nothing less than victory" in Iraq. What "job" will be "finished" in Iraq? What
"victory"?

If by "victory" the Administration insists that diminishing hostility between Sunni and Shi'a, Kurd and Arab, so that some kind of viable nation-state, with the first Arab Muslim army trained to Western standards by the Americans, constitutes a "victory" for the West (stead of welcoming those hostilities, sectarian and ethnic, as a way to divide and demoralize Islam) someone in Congress, or a group of Senators and Representatives, has to declare the Administration nearly demented. If what is holding everyone back is a fear of saying such things as "we should not worry about a civil war but welcome it" then don't say such things. Say it differently.

Say: "We've done all we can" and we "wish the Iraqis well" but "only they can compromise with one another" and "our presence now hurts, rather than helps that effort."

Say it any way you can. But like those Danish troops fired upon, now suddenly having revealed to them the full malevolence of Muslim hatred, certain home truths ought by now to have dawned on those making policy. Surely at this point some of them see that Iran takes precedence, that Iraq is a drain, and that one way to disturb Iran is to create, by leaving, a scene of chaos and confusion that will not work to Iran's advantage -- for at the very moment that Iran is attempting to appeal over the heads of Sunni Arab governments to Muslim masses, presenting itself as the Leader of the Islamic World, any Sunni-Shi'a fighting next door, in which Iran will have to support the Shi'a, will undercut the pretensions of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This is not complicated. Perhaps it is too obvious to be grasped.

Posted by: Hugh at February 6, 2006 11:28 AM

Remember Arch Duke Ferdinand and World War I?
Sometimes people are just looking for an excuse to start a war.

Instead of the "War of the Roses" or the "Hundred Year War", we could call this the Cartoon Character War.

Posted by: GrimReaperxxx at February 6, 2006 11:31 AM

I think all the allied countries should pull their troops out of Iraq and once they are all home we should slam the door on letting muslims into our countries. THEN we should really crack down on the ones already under foot and those who have ties to terrorism kick them out. All students from muslim countries should be sent home. Muslims have proved to be as trust worthy as rabid dogs. We don't need to give them a home.

Posted by: fireangel at February 6, 2006 11:56 AM

I have strongly supported the war over the years, in hopes that we could bring a bit of the modern world to the people, thinking that with modern thinking and knowledge, the people there would spread the fact that things can be done without violence. However, the longer this goes on, and the more I am exposed to the insanity they call Islam, I wonder if this whole thing was merely wishful thinking.
It is a shame really, because I am certain that not everyone over there is like this, but the few that are seem to be remaining in some level of power and the fear the common man has from past regimes is holding him down and preventing him from rising up and taking back their country.

I think it really just boils down to the fact that they do not think like modern normal people. I read a statement the other day that an elected official in Palestine was happy to show that she was preparred to strap bombs to her three sons. I mean, wtf is that? How does any parent ever get that in their head. I have two kids and I cannot even fathom rationalizing that at any level. And what people vote for someone like that (no comment on those people that continue to vote Ted Kennedy in office.....).

Posted by: snikle at February 6, 2006 12:13 PM

snikle:

i concur completely. you would expect rational people to rejoice in life and liberty, yet those living under islamic rule prove again and again that they are eager to send their kids to the "kill infidels" school.

it's absolutely insane. there are those who believe that the only way to counter their barbaric ideology is with words, but how can one rationalize with people who are clearly irrational? how can you "fight with words"? how can there be an intellectual debate? if someone walked up to you and punched you in the face without provocation, would you engage in a debate on WHY, or would you instinctively defend yourself?

islamists are brainwashed by years of propaganda which has convinced them that western societies are the enemy. i shake my head in disbelief and fear.

is this the end?

do we play the pacifist role, hoping that they will have some sort of divine enlightment, and do nothing? or do we hit them with the swiftest, hardest most destructive blow in retaliation for the cumulative years of terrorism (which dates back two decades BEFORE 9/11) against western societies?

what is the answer? and do we have leaders who have the strength to stand up to this newly packaged fascism with the same strength as in the past?

sadly, i haven't seen a single world leader stand up with the courage to call it as many, many, many see it: a struggle by islamists to dominate the world.

i just want to scream in the middle of times square, NY (preferably in front of the new york times offices) and say: "GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE SAND!!!"

we had our heads in the sand, our hands in our pockets and were hit on 9/11. what will it take? a nuclear holocaust?? WHAT??

Posted by: thankGod4America at February 6, 2006 12:39 PM

In NL one of the imams of the as Sunnah mosque in Den Haag was found saying:

"as long as the Netherlands does not side with Denmark, there's no need to be afraid of those things [the riots in the Middle East and protests in London, etc] to happen here."

Posted by: asmodai at February 6, 2006 12:50 PM

My favorite quote of the day ... so far:

Protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra to a BBC reporter:
"They want to test our feelings. They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers!"

I guess he answered that question.

Posted by: dry_heavz_4_alla at February 6, 2006 12:53 PM

... religion is pursued as a vehicle to transcend the savage tendencies inherent in humankind...

Therefore Islam, which worships evil, is not a religion, despite its self-definition as such.

In fact, being the opposite of a religion, Islam has produced and continues to produce super-savages. So much for those darned Unicorns. We've got 1.2 billion of them, each missing that forehead horn. They each have a couple of little ones further up on the skull bone, though.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 6, 2006 1:09 PM

Let's admit it....most Americans knew nothing about the teachings of Islam before 9/11. Many of us who cared.......immediately went into self educating mode....at least I did. Because of our ignorance....many of us were behind helping these poor Iraqi women, children and......men.........oh well. We heard all the horror stories and we wanted to help them. If more of us had known the facts about this DEATH CULT we would not have been behind our President.

Yes, I wanted revenge against these insane terrorists. They have been on the American News since the late sixties when I was 11 years old. They were the reason I feared flying. They were the reason I never made it over to Greece. They are the reason I will never see Egypt in my lifetime. Everytime I thought about taking a trip on an airplane.....there would be another highjacking by a PLO terrorist. I am sick of these BAST#RDS running free! I am sick of the many western countries wrapping their arms around these mental patients! Screw the MO man.....screw Islam!

Posted by: rumoret at February 6, 2006 1:10 PM

My prophet can beat up your prophet! NYyah nyah.

Posted by: JanuaryMan at February 6, 2006 1:10 PM

i cant believe this the bbc are alowwing the muslim to use a bbc web site as a spring board for a boycott of danish goods.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbrelig...? thread=2155929

Posted by: werter5075 at February 6, 2006 1:11 PM

Hugh,

The only thing that is too obvious to be grasped is that positive things are indeed happening in Iraq despite the dismal picture you repeatedly paint. I suspect your failure in this regard is due in large part to the total blackout of good news from the Major Media outlets. But be that as it may. If the war on terror is neither a left nor right issue as has been asserted herein then isn't some measure of balance from the authors on this website in order? Instead, we must endure not only the Media's constant one-sided negativisms but also the same from you now virtually every time we visit JihadWatch. The next thing we'll be seeing is you dedicating your posts to Cindy Sheehan. The increasingly left tilt you've given Robert's website has got me expecting Code Pink banner-ads to start showing up here on the main page any day now.

The odd thing about your near-daily diatribes against the war in Iraq, Bush, and as Howard Dean would say, everything else the Republican Party stands for, is that you would be spinning the events in Iraq completely differently if another political party was in the Oval Office overseeing our defeat and retreat in the face of the global jihad (preferably led by someone who had been less-than-honorably discharged with known sympathies for a certain North Vietnamese Communist Regime).

Hugh, you need to come clean with everybody here by first admitting that you really are a leftist partisan hack and motivated by paranoia of the evil quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove. From there, we can work our way toward eventually figuring out why you lurk the forums at moveon.org. The upside potential to this type catharsis is that it has been known to put a permanent halt to constant hand-wringing, nightmares of jack-booted Republicans, and chronic adult bedwetting.

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at February 6, 2006 1:13 PM

The only thing that is too obvious to be grasped is that positive things are indeed happening in Iraq despite the dismal picture you repeatedly paint.

What could be more dismal than Sharia? Nothing, cuz Islamic law represents the absolute rock bottom of the barrel. You can't sink any lower than that.

And that's where we are in Mesopotamia and Afghanistan.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 6, 2006 1:26 PM

Hummmm....

Christians were none too happy about "The Last Temptation of Christ", but not too many theatres were burned and no producers or directors were decapitated. Damn it.

But then, Christianity is a violent religion, while Islam is a religion of peace.

So, in the spirit of things, "Keel the Joooooos, Keeeeeel them alllllll".

I'm heading right out, to stone the nearest cinema.

Posted by: jackscrow at February 6, 2006 1:44 PM

Instead of the "War of the Roses" or the "Hundred Year War", we could call this the Cartoon Character War.
Well there's even more at stake now, the whole planet, than there was in the War of Jenkin's ear.

Of course shooting at well armed soldiers is not quite as easy as shooting an unarmed priest in the back, because soldiers shoot back. But there were innocent children present so I expect that gave the attackers false confidence.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at February 6, 2006 2:06 PM

According to Lebanese blogger "Anton Effendi" at AcrosstheBay blogsite, a goodly number of detained protesters carried Syrian and "Palestinian" passports; others carried none at all. He speculates the level of Sunni-led violence in Lebananon was intetionally orchestrated by Syria to justify keeping its goons in Lebanon.

Otherwise, all of these protests have been heavily orchestrated by the usual suspects and may not necessarily represent broader feelings. We have no way of knowing how many Muslims are not deceived by their clerics and political leaders into focussing their anger on something so petty instead of the real problems at home, including the Egyptian, Iranian and Sudanese protesters.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at February 6, 2006 2:25 PM

Bravo little Denmark. Just when I was about to give up on Europe they show the world they are courageous enough to take on the rabid Hordes of Islam. Every screeching Muslim fanatic with their placards proclaiming 'Death to those who insult our beloved Prophet','Exterminate Infidels''If you say Islam is a violent religion we will kill you'- shows exactly what this Death Cult is all about. Even the most moronic leftie must be starting to have doubts that he/she is espousing a worthy cause as Islamic apologists.
I shall be buying more Danish products even a flag if I can find one-strange there were suddenly so many available for Danish flag burning,eh! Also, despite being an agonostic shall purchase a large 'in your face 'cross to wear asserting my solidarity with all persecuted
Christians in Muslim lands...

Posted by: Morgane at February 6, 2006 2:57 PM

"we must endure not only the Media's constant one-sided negativisms but also the same from you now virtually every time we visit JihadWatch. The next thing we'll be seeing is you dedicating your posts to Cindy Sheehan. The increasingly left tilt you've given Robert's website has got me expecting Code Pink banner-ads."

"Hugh, you need to come clean with everybody here by first admitting that you really are a leftist partisan hack and motivated by paranoia of the evil quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove. From there, we can work our way toward eventually figuring out why you lurk the forums at moveon.org...."
-- from a posting above

The comments by a poster above are total nonsense, and the poster himself a hopeless idiot.

While the ballot is secret, and I am reluctant to disclose how I vote, I will make an exception. I almost always, in recent years, have voted for Republicans. I often had no choice. I voted for George Bush -- twice. I would vote for Fiorello LaGuardia or Henry Jackson if either were to come back from the dead. I couldn't make myelf vote for hideous George McGovern, but I also couldn't vote for hideous Nixon. I think Donald Duck, a perennial favorite, was my write-in that year.

It is not possible to regard the Iraq fiasco with anything but dismay, dismay that has grown into fury, at the inability of this clumsy, obstinate, inarticulate administration to do anything but "good for the (non-existent) Iraqi people" instead of cold-bloodedly realizing that what is best for us is that the ethnic and sectarian fissures be allowed to grow -- just as the Iran-Iraq War kept both malevolent countries occupeid for a long time.

I am hardly alone in having found the initial invasion rational and yet deploring almost all that is now being done, or not being done. A great many people who come to this website are in exactly the same boat. They are furious with Bush and Rice and all the others who keep clinging to this idiotic policy -- and they plenty of fury left over for those in the other party who seem unable to criticize the Iraq tarbaby for the right reasons instead of the wrong ones.

And I had no problem with the business of whether or not a connection could be made between Iraq and Al Qaeda. It has always struck me as a ridiculous thing to discuss. Al Qaeda is simply one among many Muslim terrorist groups. Saddam Hussein supported terrorism and that was enough. In fact, even that was not necessary. No Muslm state -- not the Islamic Republic of Iran, not Saudi Arabia, not Egypt, not Morocco, not Yemen, no Muslim state can be permitted to acquire dangerous weaponry, or if it has it permitted to retain it if it is possible to remove it, because the doctrines of Islam are simply too hostile, permanently so, to the entire non-Muslim world. So those who even thought it necessary, as this inarticulate Administration did, that they had to "prove a link" between Al Qaeda and Iraq, because they were too inarticulate, or ignorant, or timid, to make the real case, did themselves no good.

You know nothing about my political views, or my equal-opportunity contempt for fake Conservatives (i.e Bush cheerleaders willing to overlook the Iraq tarbaby) and fake liberals, both camps full of Bright Young Careerists. You have apparently not read, or chose to ignore, hardly flattering remarks made about all sorts of political figures, including Clinton, Kerry, Howard Dean, and others.

As for my having something to do with "Moveon.org," even "lurking" there, I have never visited that website in my life, but am familiar with its atrocious contents by the comments of others who mock it, as it deserves to be mocked up and down -- with at least as much vigor as the poster above deserves to be mocked for his primitive view of the world, up and down.

I would not hesitate, however, to have the Adminstration cleverly play to that demand for "leaving Iraq now" by doing it -- for reasons that are precisely the opposite of the appeasers at moveon.org -- to conduct the war of self-defense against the Jihad more effectively, and gaining much more domestic support for it, by allowing the divisions within Islam to work for the interests of Infidels rather than attempt to patch up those divisions. Is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

Spare me all those wolfowitzian spreaders of democracy, that whole naive, insufficiently comprehending-of-Islam polypragmonic brigade, that thinks the United Staates Must End Poverty or End Worldwide Suffering, and in doing this in the Muslim world, will be just like the Little Engine That Could, Bringing Toys and Good Things to Eat to All the Little Boys and Girls on the other side of the mountain, and all manner of things shall be well. Why? Because ideas don't reallly matter, and the world's "major religions" all mean "basically the same thing" and "all people want freedom" and stuff like that.

I don't want the best and the brightest, or the not best and the not very bright, with their High School Civics Class Model-U.N. notions of what the world is all about, in charge of conducting a war against the most dangerous enemy since the Nazis. I don't want to be loayl to the shallow and the foolishly obstinate, whgo repeat ad nauseam the same cheap phrases about "victory" (what, in the battle against islamization world-wide, can this word possibly mean?), and who are fiddling with Iraq while Iran makes its determined way to the unhindered production of nuclear weapons, while the American government is preoccupied with winning hearts and minds in Fallujah or Mosul, and buildiing up the "Iraqi" army and the "Iraqi" police force so that "we can go home" because apparently we just can't can't can't go home until the "Iraqi" police and the "Iraqi" army have been determined capable of holding "Iraq" together when not only should we not give a damn about that, but in fact hope that "Iraq" becomes a source of permanent friction, and worse, between Sunni and Shi'a, Arab Muslim and non-Arab (i.e. Kurdish, in this case) Muslim.

What happens in Iraq will not contribute at all to stopping Iran's nuclear project. Our presence there, and attention to Iraq, gets in the way of seeing things clearly, and of dealing with Iran without worrying about those American soldiers subject to retaliation in Iraq. And what happens in Iraq will not have the slightest beneficent effect -- if by beneficent we keep in mind that we care about Infidels, not about Muslims -- on undoing the islamization of Western Europe, or bringing Infidels everywhere to their senses.

As to the poster above, he might be happier visiting the cheerleading sites, where Bush and Rice can do no wrong, and the American effort in Iraq is seen as just brilliant, all the way through, from soup to nuts.

Posted by: Hugh at February 6, 2006 6:22 PM

What's "polypragmonic"? Not in my dictionary.

"From soup to nuts" - never heard that before. I'm used to nuts with a white wine or G & T before the soup, and the last bit being mints or chocolates with the port.

Feeling numb and vague and full of sleep.

Good night.

Posted by: Interested at February 6, 2006 7:30 PM

"Polypragmonic" from "polypragmosyne," a busybody, so busybodyish. The word occurs, I recall, in one of the essays in a green-covered paperback (Cambridge University Press?) with a title -- something like "Archaic and Classical Greece" -- and can also be found, marked "Obs." in Webster's 2nd.

Well, it's not obsolete any longer.

Posted by: Hugh at February 6, 2006 8:03 PM

Okay, found it. Book is "Archaic and Classical Greece" ed. by Michael Crawford and David Whitehead.

On pp. 319-321 is a little piece on "Athenian 'polypragmosyne'" which contains the following:

"a polypragmon -- whteher an individual (as in Aristoph. Ach. 833) or a whole polis -- must always be active, interfering in the affairs of others, neither keeping quiet themselves nor allowing others to be quiet...Athenians....were temperamentally, polypragmones whose dynamic imperialsim disrupted everyone else's lives."

When I think of Wolfowitz at the World Bank, and of how little he knows, and of how convinced he is that the Light Unto the Muslim Nations project made, and makes, sense, and how some Americans just can't grasp the notion of letting a situation work for you, rather than meddling in it, with a little less frenetic desire to remake the world as the panacea for all ills, a little more Kutuzov seeming to beat a retreat from Moscow so that winter could do its stuff, the word that I apply to such grand Yankee-can-do-spirits is "polypragmonic."

And now, perhaps, so will you.

Posted by: Hugh at February 6, 2006 8:53 PM

... in recent years, (I) have voted for Republicans. I often had no choice. I voted for George Bush -- twice.

I feel your pain. But I only voted for him once. It was so embarrassing later that evening, when the medics pulled to the hog farm in their ambulance and had to rescue me from my shower, where I had been for hours scrubbing myself raw with the Lava soap, quietly sobbing.

INSULT MOHAMMED? A MURDER THIEF RAPIST TORTURER COWARD & PEDOPHILE?!

Here's a lesson for you Moslems out there: It was a Potbelly who dialed 911 and saved my life. With that one act, the little pig showed more heart than a world full of Moslems. Which ain't saying much.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at February 6, 2006 10:08 PM

Wow Hugh, politically we are far closer than I ever imagined. I look forward to your articles with anticipation. You are a centrist like me, with perhaps a significantly more defined slant to the right than I have, but no matter. Where we seem to diverge sharply is on religious issues and secularism. Nonetheless, I can certainly respect your positions.

Accusing one of political allegiance to one group or another is perilous and reeks of ignorance. It is as if no political group other than the one voiced by the person has any worth. This is the same ignorance (and arrogance) that both liberals and conservatives display continuously in this nation. Increasingly each group communicates and read the works of only those with which it agrees wholeheartedly. The arguments get sloppier and weaker as time passes.

In addition, I don’t think that the major parties, at least here in the US, offer many differences in some areas, and far too great a difference in other areas. I offer the example of immigration policy, a crucial area if we are to have any chance to win a long-term struggle with Islam. Neither party offers any real choice.

For someone to accuse you - me or anyone else- of being affiliated with a certain group for criticizing this administration for obvious deficiencies in its foreign policy demonstrates a point I have tried to make repeatedly about labels and simple out-of-the-box "packaged" thinking. Much of what "liberals" and "conservatives" read tends to simply reinforce already held beliefs (so too with their political preconceptions). Most tend to form their beliefs based on the same one-sidedsources they always rely on. This is also due to the target marketing of blogs, news media, on-line journals and magazines and radio newscasters offering simple sound byte for entertainment value. In the case of the poster, for you to attack the policies of the President is to everything he holds sacred because he must blindly support Bush at all costs, never daring to question. Likewise, most "Kerry" supporter would give you the same responses.

Few are able to see both sides, or even numerous angles. Few are able to see past the sacred academia. It is as if, everything taught in school cannot be questioned. But what was taught in school? What was taught about Islam? I have a Master’s Degree as well as a Juris Doctor, and I (foolishly) considered myself a fairly well educated person. I went through so much schooling and knew little about Islam. What am I to make of this academic experience? Why don't others question their notions with respect to Islam?

It may surprise you to hear that I supported the Bush administration. I voted for Bush once (after tightly plugging my nose at the poll since I am a gay man) since I believed overall, he would be better for the country than Gore. I weighed the policies on taxation as well as other issues and did not believe Gore would be a good president. In retrospect, I don’t think a Gore win would have had much of a different result today other than we would likely not have invaded Iraq. But considering Iran is a much greater threat that would not have been a bad thing had and Gore administration been willing to be hawkish on Iran. Would it have?

This last election I was so upset with the Iraq war, I was torn beyond belief. Its not that I was totally against the war, but it is obvious it is a failed policy. But after Bush's many failures, his arrogance in the face of all criticism from any directions, and his unacceptable religiosity did it for me. Voting for John Kerry was simply impossible for me, so I gave (discarded) my vote to the Libertarian party.

As for your Iraq stance, as much as I agree in my heart about the folly of our continued policy, remaining in Iraq offers something you might not have truly thought about: a lily pad to operations in Iran. Conversly our presence there also provides a target to the Iranians. Is it a net plus or minus? Still, we cannot attack Iran and leave Iraq to be devastated b Iran. Moreover, I always believed that one of the main reasons we entered Iraq was to encircle Iran. What then would you have us do, withdraw right now? Even assuming a perfect operation in Iran, Iraq will be even more unstable.

This president foolishly believed that Iraqis would welcome us like the French initially welcomed Americans troops, as liberators. We now know that not to be the case. If you are certain that the President's "democracy" policy in the ME is absolutely doomed to fail consider the fact that the Iraqi military and civil forces are getting stronger every day. If we were to withdraw now without having stabilized the country as best we can, and admit that Islam is an untamable monster, we will have lost three battles; the one to take Iraq; the battle to maintain the country after spending countless billions; and the battle to "export" democracy" from Iraq. Perhaps there is a fourth battle, the one for Bush's pride. It would be even worse if the only thing keeping us there were for Bush not to lose the last battle. After spending so much, are we there only for that reason or might we withdraw after Iran?

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at February 6, 2006 11:57 PM

Kafir Nonbeliever

If Iran is to be attacked, it should be an air attack only to destroy its military. Period. No democracy building exercise. No new constitution. No exercise similar to the one we've had in Iraq. Given that, the troops in Iraq would be of no use in this project. On the contrary, there is a good possibility that Moqtada al Sadr would rally his forces in support of Iran, and in such a situation, you are unlikely to see the al-Jaafari regime take sides against Iran (both Jaafari & Chalabi have ties to Iran, and won't be our ally this time the way they were against Saddam).

Just destroy their sites at Natanz, Yazd, Bushehr and Isfahan, and also, while we're at it, destroy the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. In the process, we could as well destroy Hizbullah, since a number of the regime enforcers are said to be Hizbullah militiamen. A by-product of this - we not only cripple terrorism in Lebanon by cutting off Hizbullah's funding, but we also thereby potentially strengthen the Maronites and the Lebanese army.

I am in 2 minds about attacking Iran to ensure that it doesn't end up with nukes. If attacking Iran means some sustained heavy duty bombing for 3-4 months, a la Afghanistan, by all means go for it. But if it is going to mean a post war occupation like Iraq, then I can't whole-heartedly support it.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 7, 2006 3:02 AM

Hugh

The real battle this time has to be in the primaries. It's one thing when you have a sitting president - he is going to be re-nominated. But now, look at the bright side - Bush won't be running again. So the primaries are where we need to fight our battles.

Get the line-up of candidates - both Republicans & Democrats - and have them spell out their positions on Islam. Use this to weed out the Dhimmis. In the name of political correctness, they are unlikely to lie about being more anti-Islamic than they actually are, since they don't want to be seen as extremists.

But once they are identified, time for us JW'ers to split and work towards the success of anti-Islamic candidates in both parties. On the GOP side, that should be easier. With CAIR having black listed so many Conservative hosts, it shouldn't be difficult getting a genuine anti-Islamic candidate on the GOP ticket.

Problem is on the Democratic side. No Liberal candidate who is right on at least the Islamic issue? (Joe Lieberman was the only one who came close, but in addition to his unpopularity in his party, he's about as Dhimmified as Bush, and is unlikely do be overly hostile to the Islamic world because of the perception of his looking at it from a Jewish standpoint)

How do we take control?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at February 7, 2006 3:12 AM

Thanks very much, Hugh. I'll use the word "polypragmonic" as much as possible over the next few weeks to give it a boost. It could usefully be applied to our Labour government.

"Archaic and Classical Greece" ed. by Michael Crawford and ...

I thought Rome was his thing rather than Greece. Perhaps he's a polymath.

Posted by: Interested at February 7, 2006 5:36 AM

Hugh,

You noted: "..happens in Iraq will not have the slightest beneficent effect.."

Having huge military bases deep in the heart of islamic lands is worth the price of admission alone. No longer do we have to spends months and months gearing up for any kind of forward military action in the Middle East. We're already there. We've got supplies, landing strips, barracks, depots, etc., all ready to serve our future needs. US bases in other countries after WWII cost us billions per year in lease fees; many of which we've since abandoned but for decades they provided staging areas for America to exert it's power in those regions.

Your inability to think long term military benefits in this instance betrays your political allegiances to those whose anti-military short-sightedness is more driven by angst, hand-wringing, irrational fear of Republicans, and Bush hatred than logic and foresight in terms of preparedness for what we will almost inevitably face down the road.

As for your catharsis, it may take awhile before the sheets are dry in the morning but have the nightmares stopped?

Mahdi

Posted by: Mahdi Al-Dajjal at February 7, 2006 9:01 AM

Good,
I wope this re-awakes some warrior Norsemen instinct in them and they slay those Saracen devils without quarter!

Posted by: Dumbo at February 7, 2006 9:15 AM

Mahdi,
Good geo-political-strategic counterpoint!

Posted by: Dumbo at February 7, 2006 9:16 AM

Which bases are those to which the Americans will have permanent access? Would they be akin to Wheelus Air Base in Libya, lost overnight in 1969 when King Idris went to a hospital overseas and Colonel Khaddafy took over the country, and that base? Would it be like the bases that the Americans covertly had in Morocco, that were presented to the Moroccans as "training" bases, that were lost after 1967 when even Mohammad V, despite being the Sherifian king (and yes, one more descendant of the Prophet), realized he could no longer collaborate with the Americans? Would it be like those bases, and military assistance, we counted on from Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey as part of that famous CENTO military alliance (paid for, equipped by, the United States and Great Britain) that went kerflooey when the 1958 coup removed the old regime in Baghdad (the corpse of "strongman" Nuri es-Said being dragged through the streetes of Baghdad, so all could join in hitting or mutilating it)? Or would those "bases in Iraq" you talk about be like our airbases in Saudi Arabia, where the American airmen are treated as hired hands by the Saudis. who hardly hide their disdain or even contempt (one more group of foreign slaves working for the Saudis), and who regard those airbases and airmen as there only for the protection of the House of Al-Saud, and certainly not to be used for any attack on any Muslim country unless that country is deemed to be a direct threat to the Al-Saud? Would the bases you claim are being built, or have been built, in Iraq -- and no doubt with the enthusiastic encouragement of all sorts of Iraqi generals and Iraqi government officials who cannot believre their luck at getting the Americans to do all this, knowing full well it will all fall into their laps quite readily, in a way that the naive Americans simply cannot comprehend) -- be used to bomb Iran? No? Why not? Could it be because all hell would break lose on the part of the Shi'a who are 60% of the population? Would those bases be good for anything? For what, exactly? Even our good friend, secularist, Kemalist, true-blue member of NATO Turkey, refused when it came to it to allow that fourth American division to enter Iraq from bases in Turkey -- what good are those bases, if they cannot be used to project American power against Muslim enemies, and are not there merely as a way for the local rulers to say "we have American protection" (which is what the statelets of Kuwait and Qatar are doing -- they have allowed the Americans in not because they are pro-American in the slightest, but because they are statelets, and attractive targets for Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, the three neighborhood bullies, and for no other reason).

I don't know where these American bases are being built, or have been built, in Iraq. I do know that, if they have been built, they are most unliekly to remain in American hands for very long, and certainly not to be put to good use, unless they are placed deep within the Kurdish-controlled regions (which is a special case, because it is in the interest of the United Statees and of other Infidels to support an independent Kurdistan, and even to support its enlargement at the expense of Syria and Iran -- but not of Turkey, if Turkey behaves correctly).

Long ago Edward Cecil, who spent decades under Cromer in Egypt, wrote a book that became famous among the British who worked in the Muslim Middle East. Its title: "Memoirs of an Egyptian Official." And the epigraph became even more famous: "Here lies one who tried to hustle the East." It can't be done. The Muslim Middle East, including the Iraqis, will be delighted to have us train their armies, or build bases, in the fond belief that they will be for our use. The use will be severely limited. And the use will not be for very long.

In the same cheerfully innnocent fashion, the Americans have planned for a $595 million dollar embassy in Baghdad. Or at least they did. I wonder if they still have those grand plans for a fantastic structure in Baghdad, based on some dreamy ideas about Iraq, and on ignorance of Islam and its permanent hold on the minds of so many (oh, not on the minds of Allawi and Chalabi and Rend al-Rahim and Kanan Makiya, of course -- and they were the kind of Iraqis the Americans were basing all their hopes and dreams and schemes on). Or has that $595 million white elephant been trimmed, just a bit?

We'll see about the usefulness of those bases in Iraq you refer to. Let's see if Iran gets the bomb, or if Iran is stopped in its nuclear tracks by the Americans. And if it is stopped, will it be because those bases were put to good use, or because the Americans had first withdrawn from Iraq so as to attack Iran without worrying about retaliation against American forces in Iraq? Do you think the American government feels more at ease with American forces in Iraq, or less so?

We will see.

Posted by: Hugh at February 7, 2006 11:09 AM